Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Where to Go in a Methodist Church Split?
Many of you have heard of the proposal for a formal separation of the United Methodist Church into a conservative and a liberal church. On one hand, our bishops and bureaucracy are strongly liberal. But despite being a mainline church, American Methodism has a plurality of conservative, traditionalist members, and there’s a strong evangelical current. Moreover, through our missionary work, we have grown strongly overseas, especially in Africa, and these members are overwhelmingly conservative. Last year, the number of conservative delegates grew to an outright majority and were able to pass the Traditional Plan, which re-enforced existing discipline for clergy violating rules against homosexual practice or performing same-sex marriages.
So, with the discipline clear and with a growing conservative majority, is all well for my side? It seems not. Acknowledging the liberal hold on the institutions and the episcopacy, a proposal has been put forward that anticipates the formation of a new traditional Methodist denomination and would allow individual congregations or whole conferences to vote to separate from the UMC and join the new church. There would be a $25 million payment to the new denomination. I haven’t seen anything about the ownership of local church property, but I suspect congregations would keep those. The property fights that have characterized recent splits in other denominations have been blessedly absent in our discussions.
Mark Tooley of the Institute for Religion and Democracy expects that around 3.5 million in America will remain in the UMC, which will become a liberal church. Around 2.5 million Americans will leave for the new conservative Methodist church, along with nearly all 5.5 million foreign Methodists.
So what do I do? Though I’m a Tennessean, we live now in West Virginia, which has a high Methodist population, and we’ve been settled into a church for the whole 12 years we’ve lived in this city. The subject has rarely come up, either in the sermon or Sunday school, but I kind of think our members are probably fairly well divided among the two sides. Our new pastor has been bringing the topic up repeatedly in sermons (as well as the underlying moral issues that have prompted it), and it’s clear he’s on the liberal side.* There’s a fair chance that this church may stay with the UMC.
There are lots of other Methodist churches in the area, and a few of them will probably go with the traditional side. However, when we moved here, we spent several weeks finding the right church. In several cases, the people were great, but the service was too modern for me. Projection screens, praise band, and so on. So what do I do if the churches with the theology I agree with all have cringe-inducing worship services, while the churches whose services draw me in spout politics and theology that pushes me away?
I’ll note that I’m not looking for replies of “You should quit and join denomination X, instead.” For now, I’m thinking I could transfer my membership to my old church back in Tennessee (evangelical and will go with the traditional denomination), so that I’ll be a member of the new denomination, and then I’ll keep going to our church here in town until and unless the politics drives me away.
*Incidentally, these are the only times I have ever heard homosexuality mentioned from a Methodist pulpit in my life, despite being in this denomination since I was born. Conservatives are not railing against it; it’s the other side pushing for it.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
Nope. I believe in Methodism, in the tenets of the church, in the way in which historic, traditional Methodism practices Christianity. I’m staying Methodist. If the church splits, then there will be a more solidly Methodist church to belong to. I don’t have any need to find a different branch of the faith.
An interesting trend is that the liberal mainline Protestant churches are losing members rather dramatically. The evangelical churches are doing well enough, and I wonder if it has something to do with the stronger belief among many evangelicals. (Not that I should crow about this; it’s tempting to praise us mortals for the faith God gives us, but it’s wrong.) If a church sermon is watered-down social principles, and that’s it, then why go to church for it? There are plenty of other places to get that that don’t require dressing up and getting the family out the door on time.
Yeah, and of course, even if it is adopted, it’ll certainly be modified before any vote. I go back and forth on this. Sometimes, I think this is a good opportunity for us to get back to traditional Methodism without the encumbrances of the liberal institutions hanging on us. Other times, I think this is at least the best deal we could reasonably expect. Other times, I get mad and ask, “We’re the majority and are the ones abiding by the Discipline—why do we have to vote to leave?!”
I don’t think there’s anything objectively or morally wrong with contemporary services, but they don’t give me a religious feeling. It’s just a matter of my own attitude and style. I feel a much deeper sense of reverence and religiosity in a traditional sanctuary with old-fashioned hymns. Heck, I’m still cringing at some of the “recent” hymns in the current (1989) edition of the Methodist Hymnal—that is, anything after about 1950! I don’t begrudge anybody who does like the modern style, and my wife in particular likes it. But I’m afraid it will be hard for me to be in a sacred mindset in a modern church, and if that’s a long-term situation, that worries me.
To be honest, I’ve had some pride in the fact that we’d maintained the rules on morality and enforced them among our pastors better than many (most?) mainline denominations. The Southern Baptists are certainly more conservative on morality, but the Methodist church has done pretty well, considering the attitude of too many of our bishops. (Not to get into a debate on church government, of course!)
Let me know if you find this useful for examples. ;)
I appreciate the respectful question. To me, the style of the worship service isn’t a matter of entertainment. (To that point, I’m one of the few left who refuse to clap in church after an anthem or solo—I was brought up that this is not entertainment or a concert; it’s praise to God, and we’re to treat it differently.) It’s what frame of mind it puts me in. I am unable to feel much of anything holy in a contemporary service, but the traditional service does a good job of it, if I’m not distracting myself too much with other things on my mind. I worry that a lifetime of contemporary services would separate my mind from God, even if I were going through the motions. I wrote a little more about this in the reply right above this one. Anyway, I don’t begrudge people who are put into that mindset with the contemporary style (my wife included), but it doesn’t work on me.
A few times a day, that same thought comes to me, and I get riled up for a minute or two. I think it comes down to the (forgive me) “deep state” in the institutions and bureaucracy. Could we ever get rid of that? Still not sure if this is the right way to go, though.
That is pretty close to the attitude in the article I said I couldn’t find for this post. Yeah, we need Methodist missionaries to the United Methodist Church!
I recently re-joined the Methodist Church after a 50 year sojourn with the Presbyterian Church (USA).
We resigned our membership in the Presbyterian Church (USA) in 2014 but continued to worship with, and to support financially, the local congregation, which was one of the most conservative in the regional body. At the congregational records we were moved from the “Active Members” list to the “Other Adherents” list. We did that because when the national denomination would make some (inevitably left-wing) political statement saying the church represented X number of members, we did not want the national church denomination claiming us in that number. In the Presbyterian governance system, only a very small part of the money we gave to our local congregation flowed up to the regional or national bodies, and most of that small part was based the number of “members” the congregation had, so we didn’t worry much about whether we were funding the nonsense propagated by the national and regional denominational bodies. There were a few denomination-wide special offerings solicited each year to which we chose not to contribute.
But, when a newly installed associate pastor increased the amount of left-wing politicizing from the pulpit (and pulled the senior pastor along with her), we stopped attending, and stopped our financial contributions.
In our new Methodist church home, our pastor (new to the congregation in 2018) is extremely conservative theologically and on sexuality and marriage. He’s young, too, 39 years old. And he spent ten years after ordination in college campus ministry, so he’s been tested on his theological footings. He points out, as does @bryangstephens noted above, that the “proposal” is not an official church proposal, and would require a vote, and so excessive worry is premature.
My Sunday school class has been going through some books by Adam Hamilton, a liberal Methodist pastor. His books on Paul and Moses are great. His book on supposed “Half Truths” in church is frustrating, and it makes me worry for what is being taught at our seminaries. The only explicitly bad theology I’ve seen at my church has been from some of the other members, back when our class had an discussion/argument about morals. Somebody mocked any moral references to the covenant in the Old Testament, saying, “Well, they also said it was wrong to mix two types of cloth, and you don’t believe that, do you?” Christianity’s incorporation of the moral parts of God’s covenant with the Israelites, while as gentiles not being bound by the ritual or national rules, should be basic Christian education. But waaaay too many of our own members don’t know this. We’re really missing out on teaching our kids this sort of thing.
I have some sympathy for this approach, and I do see myself foremost as a Christian, rather than as a Methodist, after all. (Though I like and agree with the way the Methodist church has approached the practice of Christianity, and I will stay with it.) The problem is if, after any split, we wind up with a string of pastors who actually tell us that what is wrong is right, and vice versa. Not politically, but morally. It would be hard to put up with that.
That is a very offensive part of the “proposal,” but seems to be typical of how groups that want to transform organizations in some fundamental way operate. Somehow they take over institutions with which they fundamentally disagree, hollow them out, and wear the shell, forcing those who continue to support the original purpose of the organization to leave and start another. I ranted about this in a post about 3 weeks ago.
But remember, the “proposal” is not an official church proposal. The “proposal” is not a product of the United Methodist Church. It is the product of a group of people who met on their own. Before anything happens, the delegates to the global body (which meets later this year) must vote on it. A large percentage of those delegates are from outside the United States, and are generally more “conservative” than those from the United States. I speculate that the feature you point out here (including the very short time frame), in addition to other features of the “proposal” that make it clear that the proposal is heavily biased in favor of those who want fundamental change, will help delegates see that, even if they see a need to split the church, this “proposal” is not the way to do it.
The reportage was very conspicuous in stressing the “diversity” of this group…it included people from both sides of the issue. The way I read it, that does not say that there were appointed or qualified (official) “representatives” for each side. I suspect that is part of the ruse…the proposal is a farce.
I’ve been puzzling over how this group got together, myself. There certainly are orthodox and traditionalist members of the group, as far as I have read. What do they say about the outcome? Are they essentially satisfied with it?
I do wonder what would happen if we didn’t vote on this proposal at all and waited another four years. The traditionalists worldwide would have a clear and growing majority of delegates to the General Convention, and the liberals who don’t want to abide by the rules and discipline wouldn’t be able to change them. If they decided to leave, with their church property, they surely would be allowed to. What’s left would be a more conservative, orthodox church…as far as the membership goes. But would our liberal bishops leave? Pastors? There wouldn’t be as many liberal churches to preach at, especially with their declining membership. And least of all, the church bureaucracy would still be around.
I don’t know how those would all shake out, but I’m moderately of eager to see it happen.
Amen, brother!
I think what I am trying to impart is that I had all of these feelings/worries as well, and walked the road, and whats at the other end is good too.
Because you’re not the ones holding the administrative offices, episcopate, etc. This is very often what happens, someone else has the keys and the checkbook, and short of a congregational revolt and some lawsuits you’d be hard pressed to claw them back. In my home town is Ohio Wesleyan University, which is Methodist and has an attached seminary. They threatened to leave the UMC outright after last year’s vote, and their upper echelons are stuffed to the gills with progressives, with lots of rainbows and such everywhere. Traditionalists on anything sexual (not just gay marriage) are essentially taboo there. You ask why you have to vote to leave? This is why – the traditionalists do not control the seminaries either.
Setting aside theological differences – one strength that the Eastern Orthodox parishes have is that while the clergy are appointed by the bishops, the parishes basically own themselves. Errant pastor? Schism issue? The parish council can literally change the locks overnight and bar the doors (and this does happen from time to time) – this even applies to the bishops, as they can be drummed out too.
I do not know how property ownership is structured in the UMC, or how funding is allocated, but I suspect the reasons for the vote are coming down to power and property, and that’s where your battle will be.
At the moment, I’m planning to use the possible UMC split as an opening example, then move on to a more difficult issue — divorce. Even pretty conservative Evangelical churches have made significant accommodations to divorce, and it’s a more difficult issue, as there are a few divorcees in my class.
I don’t want to ultimately focus on specific issues, such as homosexuality or divorce, but on the danger of false teaching generally and the proper response.
I’m not a Methodist. But I’ve been following a UMC pastor, Donald Sensing, for years. His blog covers mostly secular political topics, but not exclusively. He came to his vocation later in life than usual, first starting out in the U.S. Army and taking early retirement as a major before going to divinity school.
What he wrote about the controversy is disappointing to me. At first, I figured the church would split up into one liberal and one conservative bloc, and that the conservative bloc would prosper, because it’s liberal churches that are losing adherents while conservative denominations with some iron discipline included continue to prosper.
But he predicts that the conservative churches that split away will further divide and that this means the end of the UMC, at least the conservative based side of it.
I’d expect the liberal side to hemorrhage members like any other liberal denomination once the controversy is over.
A Methodist myself, even I find the use of this term in a comment on this topic to be quite giggle-worthy.
Here’s a crazy article that looks like something from The Babylon Bee.
https://www.twincities.com/2020/01/18/cottage-grove-church-united-methodist-young-parishioners/
“impending changes to the membership of The Grove United Methodist Church in Cottage Grove on Sunday, Jan. 12, 2020. …
Gackstetter and other members of the Grove United Methodist Church in Cottage Grove are upset enough that their church is closing in June. What makes it worse is that their church is reopening in November — pretty much without them. The church wants to attract more young families. The present members, most of them over 60 years old, will be invited to worship somewhere else. A memo recommends that they stay away for two years, then consult the pastor about reapplying.”
After moving, the church I plan on attending is something like 50% retirees and 50% young families with children. Retirees are encourage to be “foster grandparents” to the children. Many young families are new to the area, so they enjoy having someone else to play with besides their parents and siblings. A win-win for everyone.
Our Grandchildren will be closer, but still 9 hours away. My wife and I are open to such an arrangement.
Where you headed?
Northwest Arkansas
Do you have to divorce your wife and marry a cousin for that? 😜
Good grief.
A church designed by the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation (and we all know what happened to them).
Although this is not an infallible rule, if you want to know a ministers theological position, pay close attention to the terminology he/she uses in worship services as well as in meetings or even informal conversation. Some of this language is probably an attempt to be, or appear, “inclusive.”
But I stand (or sit, or lie down, or whatever) amazed that the pastor would not accommodate your request for the more traditional language for a baptism. This is an excellent example of how “inclusive” often means “exclusive.”
I’d heard about that from some UMC pastors I follow online. The reaction was pretty solidly that this is not doing the work of Christ! Church planting strategies and marketing experts might even be right that this strategy can lead to a congregation that will grow, but it won’t be doing God’s will if it pushes away faithful members in the process.