Jurisdictional Conferences Redefine United Methodist Church

Last month’s United Methodist jurisdictional conferences held across America have effectively, dramatically redefined the United Methodist Church. It is a hard reality to face. But these gatherings made forcefully clear that the United Methodism we have known is dead, and being replaced by something very new. The new United Methodist Church unveiled at the November jurisdictional conferences is a denomination of increasingly bold liberalism—on far more than just gay weddings—and pointed intolerance of insufficiently “woke” moderates and conservatives. 

One blogger cheering the UMC’s ideological shifts explained that “proponents/practitioners of progressive Christianity are finally wresting control of the UMC,” just as “[p]rogressive Christians slowly took over” other mainline denominations.

More than Just Gay Weddings

The new United Methodism’s liberal agendas extended far beyond homosexuality, on other social issues as well as core doctrine. In observing our denomination, liberal columnist Jacob Lupfer of the Religion News Service has mocked “the patently unbelievable notion that the only thing progressives wish to change is prohibitive language about same-sex relationships.” 

In my own North Central Jurisdiction (NCJ), the far-left Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA) caucus did not even bother using its forum to press candidates to confirm their liberalism on that issue. That already seemed a safe assumption. With ten candidates, they could only count on having time to ask two or three question of each, and MFSA devoted one of these to pressing them all on how they would lead the church in addressing abortion. This came in the context of MFSA’s well-known, uncompromising advocacy for defending elective abortions in all cases (no matter how late-term) and seeking to link all United Methodists to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. MFSA’ pressures will continue, with diminishing resistance.

I have already documented how church approval of homosexual practice also encourages church acceptance of cohabitation and sex outside of marriage. The Northeastern Jurisdictional Conference offered further evidence, with bishop candidate Jay Williams, who self-identifies as “queer,” and publicly shares that he lives with a male “partner”—see here, here, and here—rather than husband. (I emailed Williams to confirm his non-marital status and invited him to respond to concerns, but never heard back.) We have reported on how Williams spoke at an earlier liberal caucus gathering and “shared his deep offense at being told by a bishop that it was unethical for him to live with his partner out of wedlock,” with Williams asserting that “Only I get to choose how to live my life.”

Many Northeastern United Methodist leaders evidently agree. On one later ballot, 49 percent of Northeastern Jurisdictional Conference delegates voted to elect this proud disregarder of celibacy-in-singleness morality to the highest levels of United Methodist spiritual leadership. Williams should be a shoo-in for election if he runs for bishop again in 2024.

A pattern observed in multiple jurisdictional conferences was a new United Methodist language convention of speakers consistently talking about “siblings” instead of “brothers and sisters.” The latter, more familiar church language is now less acceptable because it fails to accommodate transgenderist ideology’s claims that there are far more than just two sexes.

More troublingly, the jurisdictional conferences’ redefinition of United Methodism extended to core doctrinal matters. 

The final new bishop elected last month was the Rev. Dottie Escobedo-Frank. On both her church bio and her personal website, she actually declares that we are in a time of major change which “requires the church [to] find sacred ways to die in order to be reborn” and so she “calls for heretics and edge-dwellers to lead the church forward” (emphases added).

This was hardly a hidden perspective before her election. Escobedo-Frank’s personal website has proudly declared these words for at least four years. Back in 2019, the official UMC.org website published a profile of her, celebrating how as a district superintendent then, she was “always calling on ‘heretics and edge-dwellers’ to lead the church forward.” This profile was explicitly posted to celebrate how Escobedo-Frank was shaped by the UMC’s Claremont School of Theology and to encourage “congregations to support the Ministerial Education Fund apportionment at 100 percent.” Evidently, the voters knew about and embrace her vision of heretics leading the church forward.

As noted, the very first new bishop elected last month, Kennetha Bigham-Tsai, dodged a direct question about her belief in the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. I shared this intelligence at a meeting of the Indiana delegation (the largest delegation in the entire Midwest) earlier this year. Then later this Fall, she told the Indiana delegation that from her perspective, in the UMC “it is not important that we agree on who Christ is,” and went on to suggest she denies basic biblical doctrine about Jesus Christ’s incarnation (it’s all on video). I never recall hearing any indication that Bigham-Tsai’s theology was a concern for any Indiana delegate, beyond the minority of conservative delegates (all laity) who were elected with WCA support. In fact, after learning all of this about her, a straw poll revealed that Bigham-Tsai was a top choice of many Indiana delegates. 

Before jurisdictional conferences, Bigham-Tsai’s low view of Jesus Christ was made very public and also directly personally shared with numerous delegates across the jurisdiction. Yet she was elected on the very first ballot, supported by nearly 64 percent of delegates.

During one of the NCJ worship services, Bishop Sally Dyck, Ecumenical Officer for the global UMC Council of Bishops (COB), extolled the denomination as one where “we don’t just have creeds” but “we have deeds.” Similarly, Bishop Tracy Smith-Malone, the COB President-Designate, declared that “what defines the church is not even our doctrines and our creeds” but rather the inclusiveness and “the integrity of our love.” I see no one denying the importance of love or good works. But a bishop’s job of guarding the faith requires ensuring that the church gets at least some core basics of doctrine right, rather than dismissively skipping over this or taking it for granted. 

This comes in the context of United Methodism being increasingly unable to be clear about its most basic beliefs, with leaders teaching and a great many members believing that Jesus Christ “committed sins like other people.”

While our official Discipline includes Doctrinal Standards, the obvious reality is that clergy at the highest levels of the denomination are free to ignore and oppose them, just as they disregard other parts of the Discipline.

This theological anarchy was met at jurisdictional conferences by at least two of the denomination’s top six leading bishops talking dismissively of the importance of core doctrinal beliefs, the election of one new bishop (Escobedo-Frank) who talks flippantly about wanting “heretics” to be the ones leading the church forward, and the election another new bishop (Bigham-Tsai) who sounds weak notes on such basic doctrines as the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, who actually said “it is not important that we agree on who Christ is,” and right after her election, irreverently declared “Oh my God!” Evidently, those now running the UMC have no problem with any of this. 

As IRD President Mark Tooley has observed, the shift in the leaders of the new UMC is attitudinal as well as theological, showing a marked contrast to how both liberal and conservative pastors in the 1970s and 1980s “were generally dignified, taking their office seriously.”

At these jurisdictional conferences, the leadership of the new United Methodist Church made clear that basic biblical doctrines are not as important as other beliefs and agendas. Throughout my jurisdictional conference, I observed far more excitement and passion for converting church folk to secular LGBTQ+ liberationist ideology than for evangelizing people who do not know Jesus. 

After all, when largely these same United Methodist jurisdictional conference delegates gathered last year, Christian evangelism was not even one of their top-five priorities, reflecting how many believe that Jesus is not necessary for salvation.

Some years ago, Bishop Scott Jones shared about two United Methodist congregations who could not articulate the difference between the UMC and the Kiwanis Club. Now such a combination of focusing on deeds with indifference to doctrine has spread much further.

One striking example of the NCJ’s habits of prioritizing lefty politics over traditional Christianity was when a presentation on the alleged dangers of “Christian nationalism” touted a report prepared in partnership with the combatively atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation. That group’s official perspective is that “most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion” and its current homepage prominently displays the slogan “LOVE CONQUERS RELIGION.”

Farewell, UMC Doctrine and Discipline

It is of course technically true that the official doctrine and rules remain orthodox and unchanged in the United Methodist Discipline, even after these jurisdictional conferences.

But as my friend Jay Therrell says, a seatbelt is only valuable if you use it. 

For decades, the UMC Discipline has firmly stated that our clergy may not be “self-avowed practicing homosexuals.” At the 2019 General Conference, conservatives closed alleged loopholes by defining this phrase to indisputably include, among other things, anyone who “is living in a same-sex marriage.” At this same General Conference, we also strengthened enforcement provisions by further amending the Discipline to make clear: “Bishops are prohibited from consecrating bishops who are self-avowed homosexuals, even if they have been duly elected by the jurisdictional or central conference.”

Yet at last month’s jurisdictional conferences, all of that proved utterly powerless to prevent gay activist Cedric Bridgeforth, openly livening in a same-sex marriage, from being elected bishop. It all proved utterly powerless to prevent other bishops from participating in the consecration ceremony that formally made Bridgeforth a United Methodist bishop. It has not prevented Bridgeforth from being assigned as the top spiritual and administrative leader for three geographically large annual conferences. It has not prevented the fact that the UMC now has multiple bishops who are openly living in same-sex marriages, with no real accountability. It has not prevented more conservative United Methodists in other parts of America being forced to help pay the lavish, six-figure salaries of such bishops.

And Bridgeforth’s Western Jurisdiction cannot be dismissed as an outlier. As reported, all of the other United Methodist jurisdictional conferences adopted resolutions, usually by overwhelming margins, making clear that there is no longer any major difference in between the Western and other jurisdictions on several major controversies facing the UMC. This includes how all five jurisdictions formally adopted policies encouraging a de facto reality in which the denomination’s operative church law throughout the country, with ever shrinking areas of exception, has indeed liberalized its moral standards to allow clergy to have same-sex partners and to officiate same-sex unions.

Furthermore, as the saying goes, “personnel is policy.”

Bishops were elected after passing the new litmus test of making clear their commitment to abuse their authority as bishops to effectively change denominational policy by allowing clergy to officiate same-sex unions or have same-sex partners, refusing to uphold the UMC Discipline’s standards against such practices.

These jurisdictional conferences all pushed to purge theologically orthodox Americans from United Methodist leadership, and also all campaigned to eventually limit the voices of orthodox non-Americans in the UMC. Such purging is also being seen elsewhere in the denomination. The dramatically leftward shift of these United Methodist jurisdictional conferences will doubtless make the dwindling ranks of orthodox bishops feel greater pressure, perhaps ultimately leading to even more early retirements (beyond those already seen). 

The jurisdictional conferences featured other instances of extreme hostility against and silencing of non-liberal United Methodists. This went even to the point of the suggestion that denominational officials must change congregations who may not want a non-celibate gay pastor, just as they “stand in the gap” for female and non-white clergy. In my own, historically more moderate North Central Jurisdiction, all present were subjected to a lengthy, heavy-handed LGBTQ-affirming ideological re-education session, which called on the assembled leaders to “rid faith communities” in the UMC of any policies or cultures that fail to fully affirm LGBTQ liberationist ideology, and featured the assembled United Methodist leaders applauding the declaration that accepting this ideology was an urgent matter of justice and “It is not possible for the church to not be of one mind on a matter of justice.”

The bishop elections in multiple jurisdictions showed a pattern of apparently rewarding candidates for “sticking it to the traditionalists.” 

This exclusive attitude against non-liberals was coupled with the promotion of new leaders who will push the denomination dramatically further leftward.

The UMC now has active bishops who openly encourage heretics to “lead the church forward,” teach that Jesus Christ was not sinless but had “his bigotries,” and who apparently don’t believe in basic biblical doctrine about His incarnation and resurrection. Jurisdictional conference delegates evidently saw no big problem in elevating to top United Methodist leadership someone who openly declares that in the UMC, “it is not important that we agree on who Christ is.”

When this is what multiple officials at the highest levels of denominational leadership now openly believe and use their offices to teach, and when the “on paper” orthodox UMC Doctrinal Standards are widely ignored throughout the denomination, how can the UMC still be characterized as theologically orthodox?

In each jurisdiction, the committees on appeals and investigation are given responsibility for upholding the UMC Discipline’s orthodox standards in accountability processes. However, in the historically more moderate NCJ, liberal leader Dave Nuckols of Minnesota (beginning at the 9:03 mark of the official video) publicly suggested that those nominated by the bishops and elected to these committees, including “three out gay people,” would block accountability for bishops and other clergy who choose to violate the Discipline¸ with his open encouragement. Nuckols characterized the election of these persons as a way to assure bishops that “we have their back” when they face complaints for not upholding the Discipline’s standards. Although the Discipline has not technically changed, Nuckols dismissively characterized following official United Methodist rules as “doing church the old way,” in contrast to the new de facto policies, with these new personnel, as how the UMC will now “do church in a new way.”

Personnel is indeed policy. 

The Death of the UMC as We Have Known It

For decades, church affirmation of LGBTQ liberationist ideology has been misleadingly sold as the only possible way to genuinely have compassion for self-identified members of the LGBTQ community, and also as something that would supposedly make our church kinder and more loving.

But I observed quite the opposite effect as these LGBTQ-affirming jurisdictional conferences ushered in a new United Methodist Church. In my own as well as the other jurisdictions, replacing orthodox Christian views about human nature and sexual morality with secular LGBTQ liberationist ideology was coupled with church leaders displaying much less of such fruits of the Spirit as love (for those outside their narrow ideological faction), patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). Instead, the zeal to advance and prioritize LGBTQ liberationist ideology by any means necessary, as the urgent cause that must not even be de-prioritized for any greater good, directly encouraged such “acts of the flesh” as sexual immorality, hatred, discord, selfish ambition, dissensions, and factions in the church (Galatians 5:19-21).

To be fair, I am grateful for several private “moments of grace” I had with various leaders with whom I have been on opposing sides of various UMC controversies. But such subjective sentimentalism has obvious limits. 

When I said my goodbyes, they had a bittersweet feeling of finality, both for us as individuals and for the different constituencies we represented. It oddly reminded me of how, when my Puerto Rican abuelita (grandmother) was dying, I flew out to spend one final weekend with her.

Bishop Escobedo-Frank may be fundamentally right about one thing. We could debate if the UMC really needed to die, or if its current transformation is really happening in “sacred ways.” But the fact remains that the United Methodist Church as we have known it for these last several decades—its mix of people, its internal culture, its ways of operating, its true theology, etc.—is now dead. That “doing church the old way” is no more, and is being replaced by “a new way” being born (some would say “reborn”).

While this new United Methodism is inheriting the name, assets, and institutions of the former United Methodism, however unfairly, the old and the new are two are very different denominations.

No matter how many mean-spirited barriers annual conference officials have placed in the way, the fact remains that congregations and individuals fundamentally have a choice of whether or not to remain with this new United Methodism, as redefined by jurisdictional conferences and other recent developments. 

And if you do not want to become permanently trapped within this new United Methodism, time is rapidly running out to choose a different future.