Rev. Dr. Matt O’Reilly is Lead Pastor of Hope Hull United Methodist Church near Montgomery, Alabama, Director of Research at Wesley Biblical Seminary, and a fellow of the Center for Pastor Theologians. He is the author of Paul and the Resurrected Body: Social Identity and Ethical Practice, The Letters to the Thessalonians, and Bless the Nations: A Devotional for Short-Term Missions.
This piece originally appeared on his personal website. Republished with permission.
UM Voices is a forum for different voices within the United Methodist Church on pressing issues of denominational and/or social concern. UM Voices contributors represent only themselves and not IRD/UMAction.
I keep hearing some in United Methodist circles express surprise that traditionally-minded members are leaving the denomination. After all, the argument goes, the UMC is more traditional than ever. We currently have the most conservative stance we’ve ever had on abortion, and the 2019 General Conference strengthened the Church’s traditional position regarding same-sex practices. Shouldn’t traditionalists be happy? Why not stick around? The rhetoric has been amplified since the May 1 launch of the Global Methodist Church. If the UMC is more traditional than ever, why launch the GMC?
It doesn’t matter
I’ll grant that the UMC is more traditional than before, at least it is on paper. But it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter how traditional our Book of Discipline is because we have no mechanism or process for ordering our ecclesial life in a way that reflects what is found in our documents. You can write anything you want in the Discipline, but if those responsible for administering it only enforce the parts with which they agree, then it doesn’t matter.
What’s at issue? The bishops of the United Methodist Church are set apart to defend our doctrines and administer our Book of Discipline. It should be noted that our bishops do not write our doctrines and our discipline. Only General Conference does. And the bishops are supposed to be bound by the will of General Conference, the one body that speaks on behalf of the UMC. But, as it’s widely known, the Council of Bishops is just as deeply divided as the rest of the denomination. And only a handful of our bishops are interested in conducting themselves with integrity in the administration of their office. For these few we are deeply grateful, and we pray their number is multiplied. The rest, however, pick and choose which aspects of our polity they will enforce.
Hypocrisy on display
Here’s an example. After Karen Oliveto was elected to the episcopacy, the Judicial Council declared her election to be in violation of the Discipline. She would remain in good standing, however, until a formal complaint was processed against her. The problem with that is that the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops circled the wagons around Oliveto. And though a complaint was filed, Oliveto continues as a bishop of the United Methodist Church in explicit violation of the discipline of the United Methodist Church. Regardless of any Judicial Council decision and regardless of the will of General Conference, that group of bishops simply did what they wanted. And they have no accountability outside themselves.
Fast forward to the launch of the GMC a few weeks ago. Bishop Cynthia Fierro Harvey, then president of the Council of Bishops, wrote a letter dated April 21, 2022 to Bishop Mike Lowry regarding his role on the Transitional Leadership Council of the Global Methodist Church. Note that when the letter was dated, the GMC had not yet formed. In that preemptive letter, she wrote, “I trust that you understand that you will be required to surrender your United Methodist Clergy credentials as there is no disciplinary provision authorizing an ordained United Methodist minister to hold membership simultaneously in another denomination.” She even cited a Judicial Council decision to substantiate her position. So, one bishop expressly violates the Discipline and her colleagues shield her from the consequences. Another bishop serves a not-yet formed denomination and is expected to surrender his ordination. I’m not the first to name the hypocrisy, and I’m sure I won’t be the last.
Human sexuality is not the primary issue
The conflict in United Methodism has long manifest itself around the question of human sexuality. But that’s only been the presenting issue. Deeper, more substantial conflicts have driven the schism that is now taking place. Among those issues are an orthodox understanding of God, the person and work of Christ, the nature of the authority and interpretation of Scripture, and what it means to be Wesleyan. You can now add to that list institutional dysfunction. Our bishops are divided, and the majority of our bishops have set themselves against our General Conference. This dysfunction comes with no effective means of accountability. The denomination is conflicted, and all attempts to resolve it have failed. The institution is unhealthy, and no cure has been found. That is why traditionally-minded United Methodists are leaving. It’s not primarily about sex. It’s not even primarily about doctrines. It’s about the accountability of our ecclesial leadership.
Consider an analogy. In the business world, a company’s stock price rises or fall in part with the confidence that investors have in the leadership of the company. If a company has strong fundamentals and is well-run, investors are more likely to have confidence in the organization, and the share price is more likely to rise. If a company’s board and executives make poor decisions, investors flee and the share prices falls. Share-holder confidence is crucial. If the UMC were a publicly traded company, the share price would tank. Because our constituents have lost faith in our leadership. The conflicts of the last 50 years are no longer driving the United Methodist schism. Institutional dysfunction is.
So, yeah, the UMC is more traditional than ever. But it doesn’t matter.
Comment by Rev. Dr. Lee D Cary (ret. UM clergy) on June 2, 2022 at 9:54 am
As a child, I watched The Lone Ranger on B&W TV. At the end of every episode, as I recall, someone who had benefited from the courage of the Ranger and Tonto, often said, “I don’t know who that masked man was, but he left behind this silver bullet.”
Until reading this piece, I didn’t know Matt O’Reilly. He left behind these silver bullets:
“It doesn’t matter how traditional our Book of Discipline is because we have no mechanism or process for ordering our ecclesial life in a way that reflects what is found in our documents. You can write anything you want in the Discipline, but if those responsible for administering it only enforce the parts with which they agree, then it doesn’t matter…And only a handful of our bishops are interested in conducting themselves with integrity in the administration of their office…The institution is unhealthy, and no cure has been found. That is why traditionally-minded United Methodists are leaving. It’s not primarily about sex. It’s not even primarily about doctrines. It’s about the accountability of our ecclesial leadership.”
And there is it, in truth with clarity.
A largely inept and corrupted episcopacy killed the United Methodist Church. There is no way around that conclusion. And if one or more of the surviving remnants of the UMC restructure themselves similarly, it will happen again.
Thank you, Dr. O’Reilly.
Comment by It's only dusfunctional outside the hierarchy on June 2, 2022 at 10:06 am
This is a well written article, however I disagree with the point he is making. The problems of the UMC do matter, because it is not dysfunction, it is exactly what the hierarchy and most of the bishops want. To use a recent political phrase it is a ‘great transition’.
The leftists in the church want the church to go the way they want it to go, and just like other leftists in our country, push it the way they it to go whether it fits the rules and traditions or not. Their version of the great transition is to force, strongarm, or mandate that their version of Christianity is correct. Therefore, anything they do to make their vision come true is perfectly fine with them.
That includes going back on their promises to honor and support the negotiated protocol of separation because they know many churches cannot afford to pay the current prices to get out of the denomination. So many churches will be stuck in the leftist nirvana of the post-separation UMC and have to swallow what the left will demand and enforce.
I could continue, but the point of the matter is that what is going on in the UMC now is not dysfunction, it is the process of creative destruction. It might look messy and unplanned, with many normal people leaving the church, but it is what the left wants, and the process to get what they want doesn’t matter. Only the results do.
Comment by Pat on June 2, 2022 at 10:39 am
Thankyou Dr. O’Reilly for telling the truth about the UMC’s complete destruction at the hands of the liberal UMC leadership/bishops, etc. I pray for those traditional pastors, bishops and other traditional leaders in the current UMC as many are being attacked, removed and sometimes shamed by these liberals. You are correct, the UMC has a traditional doctrine with many simply not willing to follow or enforce what is in writing.
If the new Global Methodist Church is using the same management bureaucracy/ leadership model, this church will also fail. Time for each local church to have control over church property, selection of their pastor and let those members in that church, who, with their tithes and offerings pay the tab have control of their church as the state and national offices then work as partners with the local church as the local church will provide needed finances to move forward in state, national and international missions for Christ.
Comment by Brian Evers on June 2, 2022 at 1:12 pm
The UMC has a swamp problem. I am glad you pointed out that it’s not a “sexual orientation” problem either, but a problem with not following biblical authority and the inept application of good rules in the function of the organization.
Comment by Tom on June 2, 2022 at 5:29 pm
I am a Presbyterian, and we don’t have bishops. But I do wonder how people like this become bishops?
Not that Presbyterian polity can’t be corrupted, just as Methodist polity apparently has been. But just how do we get to this place where the Annual Conference can be ignored?
Comment by David S on June 2, 2022 at 7:48 pm
Tom, fellow Presbyterian, formerly of the PC(USA), look no further that the current Stated Clerk and his lackeys in leadership on the issue of abortion alone. Prior to ratification of 14F, his election in ’16, and the election of the previous POTUS later than year, national officers and staff recognized GA approved polity regarding dissent by actually acknowledging it and trying to craft statements of common agreement. Once the mass exodus began, that servant of the Enemy masquerading as an agent of righteousness threw all that aside to the extent that they will rarely acknowledge dissent and when they do, they still, but you’re still a bigot.
Still, the circling the wagons comments about that false bishop are honestly of no surprise. Remember that ECUSA let Spong remain a bishop after he denied Christ and the PCUSA’s predecessor did something similar in the late 70s when the highest judicial committee acquitted a pastor, who denied Christ, leading RC Sproul’s mentor, John Gerstner, to very famously walkout. Then, much to my recent surprise the Atlanta Presbytery, of which I was a former member, in the 90s, let a man who decided that he was a woman and had the cosmetic surgery to “make” him appear to be a woman remain an ordained pastor, even though it was probably not in accordance with polity. (I was wholly unaware of this when we joined the denomination in 2008.) Time and again these wolves and false leaders will protect their own. God have mercy on them.
Comment by Loren J Golden on June 3, 2022 at 12:29 am
“But I do wonder how people like this become bishops?”
The same way they become pastors, ministers, or teaching elders. From streams that run foul, one must not expect pure waters to flow. And the streams from which flow these bishops, pastors, ministers, and teaching elders who have compromised the Word of God to the ways of the world are none other than the seminaries from which the mainline Protestant denominations recruits them. This is not to say that there are no faithful, godly preachers who graduate from the mainline seminaries, but such are the distinct minority.
Were I to have a son who discerned a call from the Lord to full-time pastoral or missionary service, I would counsel him to seek theological education from a seminary whose professors all unreservedly believe the Bible and unashamedly preach the Gospel (and who confess the Westminster standards with conviction), and not from institutions that teach their students to put more faith and trust in scholarship that undermines the veracity and authority of the Scriptures and that denigrates the finished work of Christ on the Cross.
Comment by Mike on June 3, 2022 at 1:16 am
Wow eye opening. Is there any way to remove the power of these bishops? Possibly via short term limits or a rotating discipline committee. I know this is a similar issue with charismatic churches where the pastor often sees himself as ordained by God. Seems any system is prone to corruption
Comment by Rev. Dr. Lee D Cary (ret. UM clergy) on June 3, 2022 at 2:37 pm
Today, I happened on a YouTube video entitled: “(19) Courageous Priest Proclaims Joe Biden is an Embarrassment to Catholicism”. It’s from Oct 2020.
In it, a Roman Catholic Priest speaks with candor, clarity and courage. Just as has the author of this piece.
Here’s my question to the leadership of the IRD: Why has this level of courage so often been avoided on this website when exploring the division within the UMC that is bringing about its death?
Comment by Rev. Dr. Lee D Cary (ret. UM clergy) on June 12, 2022 at 8:43 am
“Here’s my question to the leadership of the IRD: Why has this level of courage so often been avoided on this website when exploring the division within the UMC that is bringing about its death?”
The IRD is deaf, it seems.
Comment by Paula Davis on July 24, 2022 at 12:29 am
Saying this is not about human sexuality is like saying the civil war wasn’t about slavery.
Comment by brother Jim on November 2, 2023 at 7:00 pm
Thankfully, hopefully, there will always be fresh waves of the Spirit, and so it is necessary for those found on its crests to have suitable places of refuge and fellowship.
I stumbled onto this piece after watching a 12-minute YouTube clip regarding entire sanctification, curious to know if the pastor in that video became part of the UMC exodus. Whew! 🙂
Comment by Winston Smith on July 22, 2024 at 8:08 pm
Stumbled across this post and comments whilst looking for something else.
Dear Paula, hope you check back occasionally. Your comment: “Saying this is not about human sexuality is like saying the civil war wasn’t about slavery” indicates a common misunderstanding of both American history AND this issue. The issues – slavery and homosexuality – are but one instantiation of the far larger issue in each case.
In the case of the “civil war” (it wasn’t a civil war but that is a different post), the issue was the Tenth Amendment – the so-called States Rights issue – and the fact that slavery, however repugnant, as then legal. Constitutionally, getting rid of slavery was a Congressional responsibility, not the President’s. Congress failed. When Lincoln decided to act extra-Constitutionally, he was able to maneuver hot-headed Southrons into over-reacting (Ft Sumter), giving him an excuse to militarily invade the South. Even at the first, Lincoln knew he had no Constitutional authority to affect slavery and his issue was the loss of the federal revenue that the Southern exports provided (but most if the internal improvements were made in the North). Lincoln didn’t make the war about slavery until the British were ready to enter the war supporting the South (like France had supported our own revolutionaries). By altering the war ais to be eradicating slavery, Lincoln prevented the British intervention.
Similarly, in the UMC, the real issue is obedience to Biblical authority (and the Discipline). The reprobate bishops have no authority to change the doctrinal standards or to frustrate the general conference, no authority to ignore the Judicial Council or the Discipline…yet they did and still do – just like Lincoln and the radical Republicans. The argument over homosexuality is the symptom, not the disease. The Bishops – and most of the remaining clergy – ignore the Discipline, ignore the results of the 2016 GC, and the clear and unambiguous teaching of the Scripture and 2000 years of Church doctrine. They are heretics and apostates. They have willingly, knowingly, and joyfully subverted the doctrine and practice of the church in order to bend it to support their perverted views on human sexuality (and other leftist political agenda items like abortion, but I digress). But the root issue is submission and obedience – or not – to Biblical authority and the sovereignty of God. The UMC is in full rebellion against both. Homosexuality is just the hot-button issue that is the illustration of the greater issue.
For me, the matter is now moot. I withdrew from the UMC after the most recent GC went so far hard-left. Whether I now join the GMC will depend on how they develop. For now, I’ll hold my nose and attend a local generic baptist church that is doctrinally unobjectionable, even if I miss the liturgy and mildly disagree about polity. The UMC now practices heresy.