Ecumenism in the Next Methodism

John Lomperis on December 10, 2020

As the United Methodist Church prepares to divide into two main denominations, one big question is what will happen to ecumenism?

For simplicity’s sake, I will focus here upon ecumenical affiliations within the United States.

Locally, we could expect much cooperation to continue as it has previously, depending on the strength of personal relationships.

At the national level, the UMC’s ecumenical relations have been dominated by a focus on mainline Protestant denominations (United Church of Christ, Presbyterian Church [USA], etc.) and groups like the National Council of Churches (NCC). This national-level ecumenism has made much more of a difference than many realize. It has so influenced our denomination’s culture that it has raised the question of whether American United Methodism’s overall identity today is more shaped by historic Methodism or by modern mainline liberal Protestantism. Leaders and fans of the NCC’s liberal mainline model of ecumenism openly admit that Christian unity is less important to them than pursuits that further divide American Christians, along secular partisan lines. The primary focus of such ecumenism becomes using denominations as tools for various left-of-center social-justice causes, and often picking fights with more conservative Christian leaders. For example, the UMC-supported California Council of Churches describes its work as “representing the authentic Christian moral values of compassion, tolerance, peace and justice in the California legislative process” (emphasis original) and countering “the words of faith” others offer in the public square. Frequently, such ecumenism has involved explicitly repudiating historic Christian teaching (and the official stances of some affiliated churches) on matters like marriage and pro-life concerns.

The NCC’s model of ecumenism at times amounted to little more than liberal Methodist officials with little apparent appreciation of John Wesley, liberal Presbyterian officials with little apparent appreciation of John Calvin, and liberal Lutheran officials with little apparent appreciation of Martin Luther bonding over their shared disdain of more traditionalist Catholics and evangelicals. I say this advisedly as someone who carefully observed NCC board meetings and programming for years.

This model of ecumenism excludes a growing majority of American Protestantism while sometimes also looking beyond the boundaries of historic Christianity in building coalitions to allegedly represent “the faith community.” Several independent, NCC-like state councils of churches include Unitarian Universalists and/or have become explicitly interfaith. The NCC’s own member communions now include the Community of Christ (a Mormon sect) and a church devoted to the teachings of mystic Emanuel Swedenborg (including teachings challenging traditional understandings of the Trinity and that adherents of non-Christian religions can achieve salvation by works rather than faith). There are major theological problems with the UMC joining with such groups in the NCC when this means affirming them as part of “a community of Christian communions” with whom we should “covenant … to manifest ever more fully the unity of the Church.” But in the NCC and similarly minded ecumenical ventures, even the most core doctrinal concerns can take a backseat to short-term political agendas.

At times, the political activities of such UMC-funded ecumenism has gotten rather extreme. Last summer, the NCC promoted a statement from the Cuban Council of Churches which claimed that the Trump administration “ha[d] falsely accused Cuba of restraining religious freedom.” This was misleading propaganda, which on the NCC’s part involved disregarding how the Cuban Council of Churches faces accusations of being “tightly controlled” by the Communist government and how in the context of state religious repression, several Protestant denominations (including the Methodist Church of Cuba) have formed an alternative Cuban Evangelical Alliance. Recently, the UMC-funded World Council of Churches (WCC) appeared to unapologetically tout its Cold War history of assisting “liberation movements engaged in armed struggle in Southern Africa,” which IRD President Mark Tooley notes included channeling money to violent Marxist revolutionaries. It was outrage at such uses of church money that led to the founding of IRD by concerned Christians of a wide political spectrum (including AFL-CIO union official and United Methodist layman David Jessup and Lutheran pastor as well as civil-rights and anti-Vietnam-War activist Richard John Neuhaus).

The often-myopic liberal ecumenical focus of top United Methodist officials has had significant trickle-down effects. It is no mere coincidence that the very limited list of non-UMC seminaries approved for training American United Methodist clergy includes every United Church of Christ (UCC) seminary as well as two-thirds of those fully part of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Regional American United Methodist leaders often lavish disproportionate attention on liberal mainline Protestantism in everything from joint public statements to various cooperative ventures to discussions of which other denominations should offer us cues.

At the local level, the narthex of a larger, middle-of-the-road UMC congregation of which I was once a part offered visitors a bookmark purportedly explaining who United Methodists are. It mainly listed ways in which we’re such nice people, while also boasting that because of the ecumenical movement, we don’t talk much about doctrines that differentiate us. While the “doctrine divides but social justice unites” ecumenical movement is not solely to blame, our denomination’s massive amnesia about our own theological heritage is undeniable. Volumes could be written documenting John Wesley being misrepresented at the highest levels of UMC leadership and such ignorance trickling down.

There are also stewardship concerns. Public information received from the ecumenical-relations staff of the UMC Council of Bishops shows that UMC funding of the National and World Council of Churches is a rather small part of our overall denomination budget, but also far more than pocket change.

Here’s UMC funding of the WCC for the last several years:

2014    $389,527

2015    $439,932

2016    $398,861

2017    $517,298

2018    $462,460

2019    $482,689

2020    $514,404  PROJECTED (“may be a little high”)

That’s nearly three million dollars, after millions spent in earlier years. 

And here’s UMC funding of the NCC, along with the percentage United Methodists paid of the National Council’s total contributions from member communions (from 2018 audited financial statements):

2014    $285,300         46.48%

2015    $153,750         18.13%

2016    $190,000         32.59%

2017    $182,500         29.67%

2018    $182,509         29.98%

2019    $159,648                                

2020    $174,970 PROJECTED (“may be a little high”)                  

As the UMC’s 6.7 million U.S. members are less than 20 percent of the NCC’s claimed constituency of 35 million Americans, it is no small thing that we have repeatedly paid nearly one-third (or nearly half in 2014!) of the NCC’s denominational income. Especially given talk and policies in 2013 and earlier, with some apparent wiggle room, about the UMC no longer paying more than 25 percent of the NCC’s “Ecumenical Commitment Fund” denominational income.

Earlier, the NCC went through major downsizing, with UMC and other contributions correspondingly dipping. Its Eco-Justice Program and Poverty Initiative as well as “Faithful America” activist website spun off on their own. Meanwhile, the UMC has remained a top funder. In the 2005-2006 fiscal year, the $596,233 United Methodists paid the NCC amounted to 34 percent of the NCC’s denominational income, only a slightly higher percentage than more recent years. 

While uneven, note that annual UMC funding of both the World and National Council of Churches has been on an overall increasing trajectory since 2015.

So what can we expect for the future, as United Methodists divide into a liberalized “post-separation United Methodist Church” (psUMC) and a more evangelical Methodist denomination?

For the psUMC, we can expect that most of the patterns critiqued above will continue. The psUMC will inherit the denomination-wide ecumenical affiliations and coalition memberships previously championed by liberal United Methodists. The psUMC could also expect to feel less internal encouragement for what little ecumenical engagement UMC leaders have pursued with non-mainline evangelicals. Locally, most federated or union congregations that are currently dually affiliated with the UMC and a liberal mainline denomination will probably to go with the psUMC.

But there will be some significant questions.

If liberal bishops use heavy-handed or dishonest tactics to get a large portion of IRD/UMAction’s constituency of conservative United Methodists into the psUMC, then they can expect some continued conflict over the issues noted above. But if not, the NCC especially may become less restrained in offering more frequent, forceful political pronouncements on behalf of a wider range of progressive causes, and in pointedly critiquing more conservative religious voices – and be enthusiastically applauded by psUMC-ers. The cleaner the split is, the less the NCC will have to worry about provoking opposition and apportionment-withholding in its largest denomination.

Funding will be a challenge. The four-year budget for the UMC’s Interdenominational Cooperation Fund is slated to be slashed from $8 million to $1 million, but this is in large part due to this Fund’s massive stockpile of reserves. The NCC has vehement liberal defenders who have energetically opposed even challenging our denomination paying twice its fair share to prop up the Council. In the psUMC, how much will such NCC loyalists fight against reducing financial support when pressure to do so comes not from conservative critics but from shrunken budgets forcing painful choices? Time will tell.

For the more evangelical Methodist denomination, ecumenical partnerships will largely have to begin from scratch.

We can expect that this denomination will partner with relatively more modest, lower-overhead efforts like the Common Ground Christian Network, in which United Methodist renewal leaders have been involved from the beginning.

Many members will feel relieved to know that no money from their offering plates will go to the NCC.

With negative memories from in the UMC, there may be some reflexive over-reactions of excessive skepticism to any denomination-wide efforts to address social concerns and/or support any other ecumenical council.

But I would overall welcome seeing any ecumenical group wanting our new denomination’s support having to work a lot harder to earn and maintain our trust. Leaders of the new denomination are likely to insist on much greater carefulness with the thorny theological challenges that sometimes arise, on ensuring that any public statements are more rooted in biblical, historic Christian moral teaching than partisan political tribalism, and on not entangling our denomination’s name or money in activities that are arrogantly out of touch with our people the pews.

As part of a wider enthusiasm for going back to our Wesleyan roots, the more evangelical Methodist denomination’s ecumenical engagement is likely to drift away from liberal mainline denominations while very intentionally prioritizing reconnections with separated brethren in the Methodist family tree, including holiness and Pentecostal denominations with Wesleyan roots.

Today, United Methodists are divided between those who prefer the former model of ecumenism and those who prefer the latter. The coming split brings much to lament, but also the chance to each to get, in our own respective denominations, what we sincerely believe is the more faithful approach to ecumenism.

  1. Comment by Josh on December 10, 2020 at 8:59 am

    I would like to see connections with the ACNA (and other orthodox Anglican bodies) as well as Pentecostal/ Holiness/ Charismatic churches. There needs to be some cross pollination with these other groups in order to get back to what the Methodist movement used to be.

  2. Comment by What about none???? on December 10, 2020 at 10:52 am

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression the ‘new’ traditional UMC would bee a much looser organization, without all the hierarchy and structure.

    If that is the case, then it is likely IMO there will be no relationships with other large ecumenical organizations. In time the new UMC will probably end up like many non-denominational groups who are denominations in everything but name only. they will share the same beliefs and practices, will find their clergy from the same or no sources, and will find leadership from the largest churches and certain perceived clergy leaders. Individual churches will support whatever groups they want for missions, outreach, and social/political concerns.

    Is it the best model? No, but since growing churches are supposedly non-denominational though branded, have common worship characteristics (Band, contemporary music, no hymns, informal worship, and newer models of structure than older churches etc.) it is possible the ‘traditional’ UMC will eventually dissolve.

  3. Comment by William on December 10, 2020 at 4:13 pm

    There are actually two United Methodist Churches now. There’s the local church that is mostly clueless as to what the greater institutional church is actually doing and the larger institutional church that’s mostly uninterested and clueless in what the local church is doing. We often hear the word “disconnect” to describe this. That’s being kind.

    The larger institutional church is staffed with too many autonomous bureaucrats that the laity and most local clergy know or how they got there. They arrogantly just go about doing their own thing while accountable to no one. They’re shielded by the institutional church structure and governance as too many take full liberties with that. It’s all funded, of course, through apportionments by deception dressed in “missions” clothing. “Missions” is usually the description used at the local level in order to make the locals fell good about their donations that flow up the line, especially at pledge time. It’s a beautiful system for these liberal bureaucrats to hide in, affiliate with their liberal buddies in these bodies, travel to endless conferences and meetings, and push their individual political agendas.

    Bottom line — one of the greatest benefits of the “new” Traditional Methodist Church will be freedom from this current institutional church bureaucratic disaster, refocus on the local church and its mission, and only affiliate with ecumenical bodies that actually line up with the stated mission of the Methodist Church — to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

  4. Comment by Walt Pryor on December 11, 2020 at 7:57 pm

    Changes are not only happening quickly in our religion but also in politics, culture, and world government.
    God is forcing people who have been Laodecian like to stand up or move on. There are plenty of choices now for those who base their actions on feelings, rather than on obeying God.
    People who love God more than climate change and LGBTQ rights need to separate themselves and Worship God in Truth. Let the rest find God by observing how they should cherish righteousness and the worship of God.
    Separate yourselves and make yourselves clean, righteous, and holy.

  5. Comment by Dan W on December 12, 2020 at 10:42 am

    I would support ecumenical engagement where people of faith come to together to serve those in need. I would also support ecumenical groups standing together in support of religious and personal freedom. The psUMC can keep the social justice warriors. I’ll take “old fashioned” Christian missionaries over “woke” SJW missionaries every time.

  6. Comment by Lee Cary on August 15, 2021 at 11:28 am

    I need enlightenment on the projected post-UMC organizational compositions.

    What are the “two main denominations” that are projected to emerge from the final fracture of the UMC?

    How will each be structured? And, what will fundamentally distinguish one from the other?

    What will each carry as a “brand” name? And, will the WCA be one of the new two, or a third that is something separate from both?

    Enlightenment would be very appreciated.

  7. Comment by Dr. Lee D. Cary on April 5, 2022 at 5:24 pm

    Today, the largest Protestant denomination in America is not a denomination.

    No Bishops, no DS’s, no architecture of bureaucratic fiefdoms (AKA Boards & Agencies), no books of discipline (except the Bible), no clerical robes, minimal pomp- and-circumstance in worship, music from long-deceased composers generally unsung, a declining percentage of ‘sanctuaries’ where the pews are permanently attached to the floor, and the congregations hire their own pastoral leadership.

    No graduates in the pulpit (no pulpits) from Duke Divinity school to proclaim that “God is Queer”. No debates over whether Abortion Dissecting is a Right or not. No postponement of a “General Conference” because no such gathering is either necessary nor relevant. No wondering if “Liberalism can Function Without Illiberalism.” There is none of that silliness.

    If you count all the various renditions of non-denominational, independent congregations (referred to by some as “Bible Churches”) popping up all across America, and then tally the collective headcount as one denomination (which, thankfully, will never happen), you would have – brace for it – the single largest Protestant Church ‘denomination’ in America.

    Thank God it does not exist as a denomination.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.