After the United Methodist Church agrees to divide, a new Global Methodist Church will form for traditionalist conferences, congregations and persons to join, it was announced today.
The Transitional Leadership Team of the anticipated new denomination includes 17 persons, three retired bishops among them, plus the Rev. Martin Nicholas of the Houston area, an IRD board member who chairs UMAction. A vision for this emerging church was posted last year, with Nicholas, myself as IRD President and UMAction director John Lomperis participating.
United Methodism’s governing General Conference will meet August 29, 2022. Its chief action item will be to divide the church, likely under the Protocol for Separation, which stipulates four years for conferences and congregations to choose their preferred denomination.
There likely will be at least three denominations emerging from United Methodism: progressive, traditionalist and radical. Each will craft its own theological parameters.
Dividing United Methodism after many decades of theological battles will be difficult but is much needed. I look forward to Global Methodism replanting traditional Methodism in America after 56 year of domestic decline and continued overseas growth.
Comment by What does it mean? on March 1, 2021 at 11:02 am
It’s ok as a symbol IMO, as one person I just showed it to someone who said it is a more modern/contemporary symbol. It’s not great, not bad.
I assume the three rings stand for the Trinity and the cross is a basic low church Protestant symbolic rendering of the Cross. I might be wrong about the rings, there could be other meanings involved (i.e. different social or geographical groups joining together under the Cross).
If anyone has insight let me know.
Comment by Loren J Golden on March 1, 2021 at 4:03 pm
In the 1930s, there was a split in the (northern) Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA; a predecessor to the current PC(USA)), which resulted in the formation of a new denomination called the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). However, the founders of the nascent denomination had not sufficiently accounted for the Old School/Doctrinalist and New School/Pietist emphases among the leaders and churches that joined the OPC, and within two years there was a split in the young denomination, with the New School/Pietist Presbyterians departing to form the Bible Presbyterian Church.
In the 1970s, there was another split in the (southern) Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS; another predecessor to the PC(USA)), resulting in the formation of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Unlike the leaders of the OPC, the founders of the PCA were determined to keep the same Old School/New School split from repeating itself, and no significant split has occurred in the history of the PCA.
When looking at the results of the United Methodist Church’s Theological Perspectives Among Members: Beliefs & Practices study, it is evident that there are some profound differences among self-identified Conservative/Traditional United Methodists that will come to the fore, when these folks begin streaming into the Global Methodist Church, and the common foil of Progressivism and Radicalism within the walls of the denomination is no longer there to unite them.
Specifically, the study shows marked differences among Conservative/Traditional United Methodists as to the “Most Authoritative Source in Personal Theology” (p. 8) and their “own (personal) view of salvation” (p. 17). 41% of self-identified Conservative/Traditional United Methodists responding to the survey replied that Holy Scripture was the most influential source in forming their own theology, whereas 30% said that Christian Tradition was most authoritative for them. (The remaining 29% said that either Reason/Rationality or Personal Experience was the source on which they most relied, raising the question of why they consider themselves Traditionalists.) Similarly, a whopping 67% of self-identified Conservative/Traditional United Methodists said that they believe, “Salvation is a combination of faith and what we do in this world,” whereas a shockingly low 33% affirmed, “Salvation is through faith alone.”
As I pointed out in a comment to John Lomperis’ article, “Data about the Two New Methodist Denominations”, Scripture unequivocally teaches that Justification or Salvation is to be had by the grace of God alone through faith alone in the person and work of Christ alone, quite apart from works of the law (Rom. 3.28, Gal. 2.16, Eph. 2.8-9), and that while we are called to do good works, in faithful obedience to God’s Law and for His glory alone, such works are indelibly tainted by our sin and cannot be leveraged, even in part, to atone for our sin—only the sinless work of Christ on our behalf can do that.
Likewise, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the infallible and authoritative Word of God, “All which are,” as we Presbyterians confess, “given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.” (Westminster Confession of Faith §I.2) As the Apostle Paul teaches, “The sacred writings…are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God (Gk. πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος; literally, “All Scripture (is) God-breathed”) and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (II Tim. 3.15-17) Likewise the Apostle Peter, “And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (II Pet. 1.19-21)
The Bible, as composed of the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 of the New, in their entirety, is the Word of God. Christian Tradition, being the decisions of Church councils, Church fathers, theologians, and preachers of the Word throughout Church history, regardless of having been influenced by Holy Scripture and the inward working of the Holy Spirit, is nevertheless the word of men. Christian Tradition often contradicts itself, and at times even contradicts the God-breathed Scriptures, and therefore cannot be reckoned as on par with Scripture as the Word of God. Christian Tradition must be instructed by, and subject to, the authority of the Word of God, and cannot be held as an independent authority alongside the Word of God, let alone an authority over the Word of God, any more than can Reason/Rationality or Personal Experience.
These doctrines are fundamental to the Christian faith, and yet they are not universally held in the Christian Church. The Church of Rome, in particular, negates them, holding that Roman Catholic Tradition, consisting of the decrees of Roman Catholic councils and popes speaking ex cathedra, constitute an infallible interpretation of the infallible Scriptures, to be maintained as an equal authority alongside the canonical Scriptures (which for the Church of Rome includes certain books and portions of books included in the Greek Septuagint but omitted from the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament; Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) §§80, 83, 95, 113, 120). And the Church of Rome further holds that works are necessary unto salvation, stating, “If anyone saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof: let him be anathema.” (The Canons and Dogmatic Decrees of the Council of Trent, Sixth Session: Decree on Justification, Canon XXIV)
To be sure, the United Methodist Beliefs & Practices study is but a single study, with only 541 US residents responding, of whom 44% (~238) self-identified as Conservative/Traditionalist. Be that as it may, the results suggest that there are a substantial number of American Traditional Methodists who are ready to be reconciled to Rome.
These are differences that ought not to be glossed over in the current preparations for the planned separation of Traditionalist, Progressive, and perhaps Radical United Methodists into distinct denominations. Otherwise, once the dust settles from this denominational schism, the Global Methodist Church might be facing yet another.
Comment by Michael McInnis on March 1, 2021 at 4:36 pm
It is indeed well past time for this new denomination to begin. With Covid, we’ve all waited so long already, I suspect many churches that want to be part of a new orthodox biblical denomination will leave asap, although I realize it will take some churches longer (particularly if they have a progressive or centrist pastor who is trying to keep them from making the decision to exit).
At first I wasn’t exited about the new denomination’s name or logo, but I’m warming up to it, and it does convey who we will be; believers from around the world who have Wesley’s heart, Methodism’s heritage and a hunger to reach the world! (How’s that for alliteration?)
My prayer is that the Protocol can move us forward to the needed separation without progressives and Bishops pulling a last minute bait-and-switch – which is their usual modus operandi. Hopefully they are as tired of the fighting and lack of inertia as we are, and will move forward with good will and a desire to allow us to leave amicably.
Comment by td on March 1, 2021 at 5:55 pm
Michael McInnis- unfortunately, you allude to the primary problem that will exist for churches to leave and join up. Most traditional congregations, at least here in the plains and midwest, are served by liberal pastors, lay leaders, district superintendants, and bishops. And most of these congregations are not used to discussing making decisions about beliefs and theology.
It will be very difficult for them to leave even if they would have a traditional supermajority. They simply will never get to vote- either due to their biased leadership or for not wanting to create waves with their neighbors.
Many small churches will not survive, and the larger ones will suffer large losses.
But, yes, i do applaud them finally rolling out an institutional identity that may at least give a viable option!
Comment by Gary Bebop on March 1, 2021 at 10:05 pm
Local churches don’t have to decide immediately. They’ll have time to walk around, kick the tires, take a test drive (maybe attend an informational conference). In the end, many ambivalent churches will swing over to the Global Methodist Church because it will be the (only) viable future for them. The UMC brand and logo have suffered imponderable damage because of ruinous cross-purposes.
Comment by Reynolds on March 2, 2021 at 7:30 am
The question is if the majority in a church want to leave can the minister not allow a vote. Again it doesn’t matter if you can’t hold a fair vote. Do you think the other side cares about fair and free elections. They know they would lose many churches so they will delay and what recourse does the laity have. Who do they appeal their rights to. Again there is no recourse in the protocol
Comment by William on March 2, 2021 at 9:46 am
The Protocol is the key. It gets rid of what remains of the Trust Clause. Once the Protocol passes, progressives will aggressively and officially take complete control of the post separation UMC while freezing traditionalists out of any leadership positions, including their clergy. This will happen immediately after their first General Conference completely liberalizes the Book of Discipline — starting with marriage, sexual ethics, and ordination standards. After that, the race will be on in succeeding General Conferences to liberalize every facet of that church. Even if progressives deceive a number of traditionalists into staying, which they will use all sorts of tactics to achieve, it would take a completely brainwashed traditionalist to stay very long unless said traditionalist converts to theological progressivism. Even if progressive do pull a bait and switch by stopping the Protocol, the GLOBAL METHODIST CHURCH will be launched and the conflicting parties will meet in court where necessary to achieve separation.
Comment by Gary Bebop on March 2, 2021 at 11:58 am
About the matter of a fair process: Each local church is a community culture, so to speak. That trait speaks loudly. I’ve pastored churches that would pivot on a dime if an opportunity arose. Others were like molasses. Local churches with deep grained institutional loyalties will likely stay fixed in place. But churches that decide everything by community consensus could surprise us; they have a tradition of hashing things out among themselves. Don’t bet against your local community.
Comment by td on March 2, 2021 at 12:44 pm
One of the big hurdles, though, is that the local default is to what an annual conference decides. And we all know that few annual conferences will have 57% to leave.
So…the generic issue for local churches will be framed by conference leaders with the question, “are you going to upset things by causing a vote to leave that won’t even be successful because you won’t be able to reach 57%. Get with the future, unite, and stop the hate. Love is love”.
I know there are churches that have a traditional majority….but still their pastor and boards decided to withhold apportionments last year to protest the adoption of the traditional plan.
This whole process will split so many churches apart.
And sadly, it has nothing to do with the laity- it is all about protecting clergy who refuse to follow the rules. If the clergy had been following the rules- both in their personal lives and their duties in selecting potential clergy, this would not be an issue for the UMC. The people in the pews are not clamoring to change the rules.
Comment by Joe M on March 2, 2021 at 1:47 pm
I am in their court, but GLOBAL instead of Worldwide? No. ‘Global’ is ok as a descriptor in technical terms, but hardly mellifluous. Worldwide Methodist Church sounds big and inclusive. Global Methodist Church sounds like NASA.
And the logo… with the world GLOBAL overpowering everything else and the busyness of the thin rings? No, again.
But although this would get a ‘C’ in my branding design class and I think they should recalibrate branding already, I still pray for this church’s flourishing.
Comment by td on March 3, 2021 at 7:49 pm
Loren golden- i think you are correct about the split that exists among traditionalists in the UMC. The question is not whether this split exists, but whether the scripture only side will tolerate a completely orthodox belief of scripture + apostolic tradition within their ranks.
I think you are correct that most traditional methodists that adhere to scripture + tradition would be comfortable as catholic christians. I suspect that most of this group probably equates tradition with traditional iturgy and traditional morals (though that is not techinically what tradition is). And i think that this group will have a hard time being completely comfortable in a denomination that will probably not adhere to historical liturgy and music in its worship.
However, i suspect that a large majority of churches that actually join the global MC will be on the scripture only side, so this may be not be a huge issue even though it will result in even fewer churches joining them.
Comment by Martha Berry on March 5, 2021 at 4:28 pm
The cross is somewhere in that nonsensical picture, I suppose,. If you can find it al all it looks like it is jammed down in a pumpkin. Hire a new PR man. My 10 year old grandson can do better .. It is absolutely horrible and has nothing to say about who we are. Is there are legal reason why the Cross and Flame cannot still be used.? It is eyecatching, self explanatory and tells that we are a Christian Church. To say noting about our our being recognise worldwhice;
Comment by David on March 8, 2021 at 2:09 pm
The Galactic Methodist Church cannot be far off. I would dare say that people pick their churches, other than the one they were raised in, by the music used in the service and whether the pastor is a gifted speaker or not. Classical music with organ was the norm in Mainstream Churches, but that has changed with the rise of Contemporary Christian music. Liturgy is likewise considered too repetitive and responsive readings dreary. This is now relegated to the “traditional service” otherwise known as the “old people’s service.” We all know where this will lead in time if not here already. I suspect theology is not a major issue to most. The differences between Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Congregational, etc. would be difficult for many to distinguish.
Comment by td on March 10, 2021 at 3:58 pm
David- theology does matter to people when theology hits real life. Specifically,
1. What are we teaching our children is right and wrong?
2. What are we upholding as a virtuous life?
3. What is the meaning of life?
4. What parts of life do we celebrate and why?
5. What happens at death?
This is where theology meets life. I agree people care about liturgy, music, preaching, and the community, but they also do not want to stand with a group endorsing what they consider is unholy or is meaningless.
Seriously, what is the UMC split about if not about theology? I don’t buy that they don’t care about theology.
Comment by Kepha on March 14, 2021 at 9:17 pm
You can’t split rotten wood.