Last week a group of nearly 30 United Methodists, including 8 bishops, announced principles for a new traditional Wesleyan denomination after the denomination’s expected schism this year. I was part of this group, which met in Atlanta the previous week. So too was my colleague John Lomperis. We are excited about the future of orthodox Methodism.
United Methodism’s division, after decades of conflict, is an increasing certainty. In a special called session, the Michigan Conference voted early this month by 91% to advance to General Conference the proposed Protocol for schism. In Africa, the Sierra Leone Conference voted nearly unanimously for the Protocol, which was unveiled in January as a division plan backed by conservative and liberal caucus groups, plus bishops. A Philippines conference also backed the Protocol. Very importantly, leaders of African delegations last month backed the Protocol, while urging an amendment to allow continued use of the United Methodist name and logo by African churches joining new traditional denomination. Nearly one half of United Methodism is in Africa.
Meanwhile, the Council of Bishops has asked the church’s top court to review the Protocol’s constitutionality under church law. And now the bishops are urging postponement of the General Conference scheduled for May in Minneapolis because of Coronavirus. The executive committee of the Commission on General Conference meets tomorrow. It seems almost certain that General Conference will be delayed until later this year. Maybe this delay providentially will allow the church better to prepare for impending division.
The spirit at the Atlanta meeting planning for a new Methodist denomination after division is was superb. Especially encouraging was the presence of three overseas bishops from Nigeria, Russia and the Philippines. Their disaffiliation from post-schism liberalized United Methodism will be difficult and entail potential funding losses. Yet they will follow their convictions, as ultimately will nearly all of the 5.8 million United Methodists outside the U.S., almost all of whom, outside Western Europe, are theologically traditionalist.
Most United Methodists of today will ultimately separate from the post-schism liberalized denomination to align with the “new” traditional Methodist denomination. I expect at least 2 million out of the current 6.7 million USA church members to align traditional, forming a growing global church of over 7 million and perhaps 8 million.
Some skeptics of the Protocol complain that the traditionalist global majority should not have to “leave” United Methodism. Let the liberals in the minority leave! But in effect both liberals and conservatives are leaving a failing denomination that was founded in 1968 under unsustainable premises of theological pluralism.
Liberals are inheriting the liberal church bureaucracy that traditionalists don’t want and that itself cannot much longer survive. Last week, the General Council on Administration predicted funding for the bureaucracy will decline 31% over the next four years. In fact, the decline likely will be much more. The old model of large and often arrogant national denominational bureaucracies theologically and fiscally unaccountable to church membership is ending. Good riddance.
“New” Methodism won’t have a large bureaucracy or the heavy apportionments levied on often struggling local congregations. It will start lean and fresh. It won’t have a captive audience. Its membership and clergy will have joined willingly. It won’t be focused, like current United Methodism, on sclerotic institutional self-preservation, but on outreach, creativity, and growth.
Not that it will be easy for “new” Methodism. Building a new denomination is hard. Recovering historic Christian teaching with Wesleyan distinctives will be hard. Catechizing a new generation, and even older generations, in the doctrinal riches of our faith after decades of theological confusion and superficiality will be hard. Organizing new structures based on a faithful Wesleyan ecclesiology will be hard. Thinking and working together as a truly global church rather than as autonomous persons, congregations or identity groups will be hard. Americans used to being in charge but becoming a minority within a church that is two-thirds in Africa will be hard.
But these hardships will be preamble to new chapters of Christian growth and Methodist greatness. It’s tempting to grouse and complain about where we now are. But where we are now is infinitely better than where we were, trapped in insurmountable conflict for decades in a church declining without interruption for over half a century. As St Paul counsels:
Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; and make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.
Let’s be thankful for our unfolding deliverance and anticipate a “new” Methodism that isn’t really new but catholic, apostolic, rooted in ancient, timeless truth. And yet this very old faith looks to Him who promises: “Behold, I am making all things new.”
Comment by JR on March 16, 2020 at 1:15 pm
I’m honestly hopeful that this turns out the way you desire – that the new Orthodox denomination goes forward and grows the glory of God.
I also hope that this frees the legacy UMC to do likewise.
I think we’ve spent much too much time, effort, and emotional capital fighting each other.
Comment by William on March 20, 2020 at 6:58 pm
The post separation UMC will not the legacy UMC. It will actually be the new denomination as it swiftly and officially liberalizes — while the separation new traditional denomination will continue the on-paper legacy UMC, including carrying out the Traditional Plan that it adopted in 2019. This is one of the strangest breakups of all time. The old will become the actual new while trying to pretend that it is continuing as the old while the actual new will continue as the old legacy church while trying to explain why it is the new carrying on the old legacy while pointing to the old name church as actually the new one.
Comment by Gary Bebop on March 16, 2020 at 2:47 pm
Because of the COVID-19 crisis, don’t count on cheerful prognostications to buy toilet paper. A global recession (if that’s the trajectory) would smash complacency and crimp plans set in motion during recent “normal” operations. “All bets are off,” as they say.
Comment by CBByrd on April 15, 2020 at 10:58 am
I was talking to someone who is employed in a ministry vocation with a group that is struggling because financial resources upon which it depended have evaporated with the stock market’s turbulence. I suddenly realized that much of the purported wealth contained within the agencies that are so coveted by the liberal progressive elements within The UMC may have evaporated, as well, and those who have counted their chickens prematurely in their clever defeat of the will of the GC2019 may find themselves with a mere shell of what they thought they had negotiated to retain in the Protocol which sends the traditionalists packing from their midst. Oh, how webs woven come to naught…… I recall Christ’s story of the covetous landowner who sought to gather about himself larger and larger silos to contain his wealth rather than use it wisely. That very day his life was required of him. It’s still true…. no one takes the things of this world with them in the end.
Comment by Charles Wright on March 16, 2020 at 4:10 pm
It will be important to get information to persons such as me who will be left adrift in churches that stay in the liberalized denomination, in conferences that do likewise, as to what paths are open to us.
Comment by Tim on March 16, 2020 at 4:12 pm
I hope my local church will join this ‘New’ Methodist Church, but I am doubtful, since the last time our Great Plains conference straw voted 60-40% to be a liberal church and vote out the conservative ways.
Comment by td on March 17, 2020 at 12:19 pm
Yeah, we great plains conference people are generally trapped by our clergy. Many of our churches will not leave the liberalized UMV, and many will shutter over the next 10 years. It really is a sad time for what was the predominant denomination throughout Kansas.
Comment by JR on March 17, 2020 at 3:33 pm
Honestly, that’s going to happen in a lot of places.
It’s probably good for the denomination(s) overall – where you have 5 small to mid churches, you could end up with 2 mid to large ones.
But getting there is going to be hard on a lot of folks.
Comment by John on March 17, 2020 at 11:05 pm
I wish closing or merging small-membership congregations did result in a larger, combined membership congregation. In my neck of the woods, it doesn’t take long for the combined membership to shrink to the size of one of the original, smaller congregation. It’s mostly a result of already-existing interpersonal relationships, power dynamics and turf protection (church politics, by another name). You’re right, you *could* get a larger congregation, but it requires a ton of effort.
Comment by JR on March 18, 2020 at 10:56 am
I get it – people don’t want to change churches, you have groups already in place that have already established systems, etc. It would probably be best if either a new building was worked on (to eliminate the ‘prior ownership’ factor) or if some similar plan was made to bring everyone to a mutually agreeable point (one example could be to have the most liberal congregation move out to take over a conservative church, and have the conservatives take over that liberal building. Those who had power in each instance have to reset).
But I recognize that the most likely outcome is that some/many people will simply fall away.
Comment by Tim on March 18, 2020 at 9:44 am
Most small towns are 30 minutes from the next town in western Kansas and we don’t want to drive to go to church. There is only one Methodist Church in a town.
Comment by William on March 22, 2020 at 8:03 am
JR,
You have no idea in the whole universe of what you’re talking about with relation to “small” UM churches.
It is my belief that liberals would love to see all of the “small” traditional Methodists churches closed, locked, and sold for commercial development with, of course, those proceeds going to a PSUMC organization.
Comment by JR on March 25, 2020 at 5:05 pm
“It is my belief that liberals would love to see all of the “small” traditional Methodists churches closed, locked, and sold for commercial development…”
You believe that, do you?
And there’s no chance that you are wrong about that?
You need to get out of your echo chamber more. I’m sure there are some who feel that way, but most people I know would rather not see a church fail, no matter what the reason or where a person stands on the spectrum.
Comment by Bob on March 18, 2020 at 2:09 am
Hmmm …. catholic, apostolic, rooted in ancient, timeless truth. Sounds a lot like the Anglican Church we fled to when there was no conservative (or even moderate) UMC option left to us in the area where we live. The only thing we are not particularly pleased with is the amount of hierarchy. If this new form of Methodism actually develops … and can keep hierarchy under control … and would be available to us ……. we could consider coming back. That’s a lot of “if,’s” that would have to happen for it to be a choice in what remains of my lifetime.
Comment by Duane Miller on March 18, 2020 at 4:37 am
There are so many existing Wesleyan and Methodist groups outside the UMC. Anyone looking at just joining with one of them? Seems like the last thing we need is yet another denomination…
Also, any ideas on what this new denomination will be called?
Thanks.
Comment by JR on March 18, 2020 at 10:58 am
Just joining another denomination from the outset leaves a lot of stuff on the table (pensions, buildings, etc). I could certainly see a merger down the line, once the payoff is complete.
Comment by Skipper on March 19, 2020 at 10:43 am
The United Methodist Church has been experiencing a rebellion against the rules of the church and against majority rule. These so called ”Progressives” ignore any rules they don’t like. At the core of their rebellion is approval of sexual perversion. They don’t understand that they are actually rebelling against God, not just the values of the majority. It is tragic that they don’t see how they follow rules made up by people in preference to God’s loving plan for family living. The long needed separation is finally coming about.
Comment by John Smith on March 24, 2020 at 8:39 am
So does New Methodism have a way to control the Bishops since we are told one reason the UMC has to be left behind is Bishops who will not adhere to the BOD and GC yet cannot be disciplined or removed from office?
Comment by John Lomperis on March 25, 2020 at 6:13 pm
In our vision statement, we agreed on the need for GLOBAL accountability for bishops, and for bishops to be limited to a single term of 12 years (rather than being elected as bishops for life).
Comment by John Smith on March 25, 2020 at 6:53 pm
Everybody agrees to the need, even the UMC, but what is the mechanism? To whom are the Bishops accountable and who can discipline and remove them from office? How many years will such a process take? Limit them to 12 years to limit the time they can do damage is not accountability its an admission that accountability is unlikely. Its damage control before the damage has been done. If the Bishops are accountable to the Bishops maybe its time to rethink the office and take away any authority beyond ” … preaching the word of God…devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”?
Comment by Lee D. Cary on March 29, 2020 at 6:11 pm
Anyone remember the emerging popularity of the New Hermeneutic in biblical studies? It was the Big New in the 1970’s, as I recall.
As clear as any definition, Wikipedia describes it as “the theory and methodology of interpretation to understand biblical texts through existentialism.” It “emphasizes not only the existence of language but also the fact that language is eventualized in the history of individual life. This is called the event of language. Ernst Fuchs, Gerhard Ebeling, and James M. Robinson are the scholars who represent the new hermeneutics.”
Continuing, “that language event occurs continuously, not that the interpreter insists on the text, but the text continually asserts the interpreter. Fuchs’ concern is not to ask for the meaning of the text, but to learn how to listen to unobtrusive language about human beings’ existence according to the hermeneutical help given with the texts itself. Fuchs’ achievement lay in bringing the insights of Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, and Martin Heidegger into fruitful conjunction.”
I remember hearing a prominent UM seminary prof quote Bultmann as having said (best I remember after 50 years): “No one can really believe in the resurrection in the age of the wireless.” I.e., the claim is not to be taken literally, but as one of the bolder, theological, biblical language events.
I’m thinking the New Hermeneutic triumphed over the UMC. And we are now witnessing the consequences.