United Methodism’s removal of Asbury Theological Seminary, located outside Lexington, Kentucky, from its list of approved schools for persons seeking ordination was inevitable but arrived quicker than expected.
Asbury is America’s eighth-largest seminary, with nearly 900 full time students. (View data for America’s seminaries from the Association of Theological Schools here.) The top seven seminaries are Baptist. The top United Methodist Seminary is Duke Divinity School, with 592 full-time students, ranking 16th in size.
Nearly 8,000 conservative churches (or 25 percent of the U.S. church) quit United Methodism during the 2019-2023 schism. Across decades Asbury was the main engine for educating conservative/evangelical clergy. Nearly all of United Methodism’s official seminaries have long been theologically more progressive.
A more liberalized United Methodism perceives it does not need Asbury, especially since its 2024 decision to set aside traditional teachings on marriage. But also, institutionally, it cannot sustain the competition. The denomination has 13 official seminaries. Asbury was not official but had in recent years graduated more United Methodist ordinands than any other single school.
Today, just nine percent of Asbury’s students are United Methodist. The new denominational policy will allow them to finish their work at Asbury.
Even before the schism, sustaining 13 official seminaries was dubious. United Methodism was founded in 1968 with those 13 schools when the denomination had 11 million members. As of 2024 it had 3.9 million. New numbers for 2025 will likely take it down to 3.7 million or lower. Hundreds and ultimately thousands of its 20,000 congregations will be closed or merged in the coming years.
The denomination is contracting and consolidating, which inevitably will include closures or mergers for some of its 13 seminaries.
The denomination also recognizes about two dozen non-United Methodist schools, of which Asbury had been one. With Asbury now gone, there are now no other Wesleyan seminaries on the list except Seattle Pacific Seminary, which is affiliated with the Free Methodist Church. Along with Asbury, the denomination also delisted Northeastern Seminary in Rochester, New York, another Free Methodist school. The only other remaining apparent evangelical seminary on the list is Fuller Seminary in California.
Two members of the United Methodist University Senate, which sets policies on seminaries, cited Asbury’s traditional teachings on marriage and sex, which United Methodism no longer upholds. But Fuller Seminary’s official policies are also traditional, as are those of Seattle Pacific.
Nearly all the other recognized seminaries are theologically progressive. They include Harvard Divinity School, Yale Divinity School, and Vanderbilt Divinity School, among others.
Some will think it odd that United Methodism affirms seminaries with no Methodist theological heritage while delisting the world’s largest theologically Wesleyan school. But this trend of deemphasizing Wesleyan distinctives dates back at least 100 years. Wesleyan distinctives within United Methodism enjoyed a revival over the last 50 years that maybe is now concluding.
Or maybe not. Every day United Methodism, like nearly all other denominations, is declining as an institution, not just numerically, but also as an influence among its own members. Today’s Christians are mostly not interested in denominations. They resource themselves online and through their local congregation. Whatever the official denominational policies, thousands of members and many clergy will still look to Wesleyan teaching.
Even as United Methodism fades, Asbury Theological Seminary will continue to thrive as an international school uniquely devoted to Wesleyan theology, serving scores of Wesleyan denominations and others not attached to denominations. It is arguably the most influential, specifically Wesleyan institution in the world.
The decline of denominations does not necessarily equal the decline of particular Protestant traditions. All Protestants and Evangelicals are part of a particular tradition whether they realize it or not, and most do not.
American Protestant Christianity has largely become Baptist, even as the Southern Baptist Convention declines in membership and influence. As noted, the top seven seminaries in America are Baptist, five of them Southern Baptist.
The second biggest Protestant tradition in America is Pentecostal/charismatic, many of whose pastors do not get formal seminary degrees but instead study through Bible colleges or other alternatives. The fastest growing Protestant tradition in the world is Pentecostal/charismatic.
Needless to say, Mainline Protestantism in America is fading fast. Sixty years ago, nine of the 10 largest American seminaries were Mainline, and one Southern Baptist. Mainline no longer appears in the top 10, while two United Methodist seminaries appear in the top 15.
Amid the surging growth of online Christianity, some of which is substantive and much of which is performative or superficial if not supercilious, seminaries could be deemed less important. But the serious meat of American theological education will continue to originate with seminaries.
Under current trends, United Methodism as a denomination likely will not long endure as a meaningful institution. But Asbury Seminary under current trends has a bright future and will almost certainly outlive the denomination whose approval it no longer needs.
More from IRD:
In Conversation with Dr. David Watson: New Leadership at Asbury Theological Seminary
America’s Largest Seminaries in 2023-24
Comment by Gary Bebop on June 25, 2026 at 7:02 pm
Thanks, Mark, for enlightening us on trending reality. Dropping Asbury from UMC approval was predictable. A lot of institutional envy involved. But also institutional frostiness to any Wesleyan-holiness resurgence. There’s sorrow in this repudiation of one’s own historical nature. Methodists were in the thick of the action during the Second Great Awakening. Now the legacy is scrubbed off with unholy delight.
Comment by Td on June 25, 2026 at 9:45 pm
Of course the UMC dropped Asbury. Asbury is Christian, and the UMC is no longer Christian.
Comment by Dan Paddack on June 26, 2026 at 5:25 am
A very helpful, well-informed and insightful article. Thank you! Blessings in your own work and ministry.
Comment by Wilson R. on June 26, 2026 at 11:26 am
I welcome your hate, TD. I’d prefer to have people show their true colors than hide behind some professed love for the gospel.
Comment by Skipper on June 26, 2026 at 11:30 am
I received a call today – have you heard the big news? The UMC no longer approves of Asbury. They never have approved of Wesly Biblical Seminary in Mississippi. I guess that is what happens when you worship Baal instead of God. They have some income from closed churches they sell, but those will run out. They won’t let you take your property and leave, since they want your building to sell.
I hear the GMC (Global Methodist Church) now has 7000 congregations and growing quickly. They have real accountability too. Lack of accountability brought the UMC down. Those who broke the rules were ignored.
Comment by Qohelet on June 26, 2026 at 4:08 pm
All of you from Tooley on down are like an abusive ex-husband who stormed out on their wife two years ago and can’t deal with the fact that she’s moved on.
You founded your own church (the GMC.) How come you never talk about that? You’re so obsessed with pointing out perceived failings on the UMC’s part you’ve failed to make any argument for why the GMC exists.
If I were Asbury I’d be less concerned about the UMC and more concerned about what jobs my graduates expect to get when they’re out. You don’t need a seminary trained pastor to preach about those other people that God hates that conveniently aren’t you. Asbury grads are going to need to justify their existence compared to Bible college grads and uneducated local pastors and they’ll have student loans to pay.
Comment by Skipper on June 26, 2026 at 5:26 pm
Oohelet,
Let me tell you some more about the GMC (Global Methodist Church). It has both sound doctrine and accountability, which were lacking in the UMC. The name Global comes from a worldwide approach. The UMC deprived Africans and SE Asians of the number of votes and bishops they were due to keep the liberal U.S. folks in power. Also, the African bishops made a fraction of the U.S. bishops. The GMC has far fewer bishops and they are elected to terms, not for life like the UMC. GMC bishops “Guard the Faith” and teach. They are not largely administrators. The Conference asking’s are much lower also. The very first General Conference of the GMC was in Central America, not the U.S. to reflect a worldwide denomination.
How can the UMC approve Same-sex marriage when the Bible is so clear that such relationships are very evil? See Romans 1 or Corinthians 5 and 6 for example. They make their own doctrine and ignore God. They have taken a dark road and continue to follow it. Why are you so down on Asbury when it was the UMC breaking with Asbury and not vice-versa? Sounds like Asbury won’t buy into the Un-Biblical relationships and the UMC wants to make them pay. I don’t think many Asbury grads will be going UMC anyway.
Comment by James Culberson on June 26, 2026 at 5:36 pm
Thank you for your very kind remarks, Oohelet!!
Comment by Skipper on June 26, 2026 at 7:29 pm
Oh, and in the GMC you own your own property and leaving is no problem. I suppose all the major problems with the UMC were considered and fixed.
Comment by Wilson R. on June 26, 2026 at 8:17 pm
Tooley’s argument is borderline incoherent. He upholds Asbury Seminary for teaching Wesleyanism while suggesting that the UMC-supported seminaries no longer do so. But he never articulates what makes an institution Wesleyan, except to talk about their stances on LGBTQ issues. So Asbury is Wesleyan because its leaders issued a statement against the UMC’s revised Social Principles on LGBTQ issues? Duke and Vanderbilt and Perkins are not Wesleyan entirely because they’re more progressive on that issue?
Comment by Qohelet on June 26, 2026 at 8:32 pm
You want to talk about Romans 1,eh? Yeah, let’s talk about it. Here’s Romans 1:28-32 and 2:1-4 (the next verses.) And to my friend Glenn I know you don’t like the NIV but I do so I apologize.
“Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?”
This is the second time this week Mark Tooley has slandered his own church, whose average member is a middle of the road person in their late 60s just trying to do all the good they can for asomg as they can. You all pretend thst we do temple prostition at the UMC when the reality is we interpret scripture a bit differently than you. There’s nothing in our religion that supports mocking people doing their best and that’s literally what Romans 1 is about. Your moral superiority is worthless because you don’t act any better.
Just to be clear, the story being reported on is that the UMC delisted a seminary that has none of its clergy left on staff and refuses to treat its doctrines with respect. We’ve moved on. Asbury and the IRD and the WCA and the GMC need to as well.
Comment by Skipper on June 26, 2026 at 11:54 pm
So you are sticking with your story that to talk about evil is to judge any person doing that evil as evil, when they are only talking about evil not the person.
The UMC ignores “so God gave them over to a depraved mind”‘ and approves of “doing what ought not to be done.”
“Mark Tooley has slandered his own church.” It’s not slander when they are really doing evil. That reminds me of Dizzy Dean the ball player. He said “it ain’t bragging if you can do it.” So, it’s not slander if it’s true.
“We interpret scripture a bit differently.” When you ignore meaning of what the original author wrote, you are making your own rules, not interpreting.
“We’ve moved on.” Sadly, moved in the wrong direction. It has moved away from God, into darkness. The Bible says people will come along that call good evil and evil good.
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on June 27, 2026 at 12:18 am
I have read with amusement the comments on this article. The very idea that who you have sex with is the litmus test of being a Christian is laughable, and while it may be supported by various “preachers,” is certainly not supported by Scripture. You so called traditionalists are straining out gnats while choking on camels. You support and cheer the slaughter of human beings worldwide while having a stroke over who someone has sex with.
Granted, Juicy Ecum may have made its living the past few years by preaching against the UMC while still firmly being a part of it (thereby calling into question how much they really do disagree), and at least some of their article contributors gleefully cash their monthly checks from the UMC while telling us they don’t like the UMC (with the exception of one who has dropped out. I guess he’s enjoying his beach house, paid for by monthly checks from a denomination he claims to not like but he sure does like those monthly checks), but really, you so called traditionalists, get over your obsession with sex and consider other, more important things!
Your obsession with sex is really disturbed!
Comment by Different Steve on June 27, 2026 at 7:48 am
Here’s the rudeness rating for each comment:
—
Gary Bebop – Rudeness: 0/10. Entirely respectful. Uses words like “sorrow” and “repudiation” in a mournful, civil tone. No personal attacks.
Td – Rudeness: 4/10. “UMC is no longer Christian” is a blunt dismissal of an entire denomination’s identity. It’s rude in its sweeping condemnation, but it’s a statement about the group, not a name-calling attack on any individual.
Dan Paddack – Rudeness: 0/10. Complimentary and gracious. No edge whatsoever.
Wilson R. (first comment) – Rudeness: 3/10. “I welcome your hate” is provocative and assumes bad faith on Td’s part. It’s snarky but brief, and doesn’t escalate beyond that single jab.
Skipper (first comment) – Rudeness: 5/10. Accuses the UMC of “worshiping Baal instead of God,” which is a harsh religious insult. Also implies they’re corrupt (“won’t let you take your property,” “broke rules were ignored”). It’s accusatory and contemptuous, though aimed at institutions more than individuals.
Qohelet (first comment) – Rudeness: 6/10. Calls Tooley and the commenters “an abusive ex-husband” – a personal, demeaning analogy. Also mocks Asbury grads about student loans and job prospects, which is condescending. Sharp, sarcastic, and deliberately insulting.
Skipper (second comment) – Rudeness: 5/10. Quotes scripture to label same-sex relationships “very evil” and says the UMC “ignores God” and “took a dark road.” The rudeness is in the moral absolutism and the implication that the other side is willfully sinful. Still institutional rather than personal.
Wilson R. (second comment) – Rudeness: 2/10. Critiques Tooley’s logic as “borderline incoherent.” That’s a sharp intellectual criticism but not personally rude. No name-calling.
Qohelet (second comment) – Rudeness: 5/10. Accuses opponents of “moral superiority,” “slander,” and “mocking.” Also says “you don’t act any better.” It’s heated and confrontational but stays within argumentative debate territory.
Skipper (third comment) – Rudeness: 5/10. Repeats “evil” and “darkness” and says the UMC has “moved away from God.” Also dismisses the other side’s interpretation as “making your own rules.” Firmly rude in its refusal to grant any legitimacy to the opposing view.
Glenn Wheeler – Rudeness: 7/10. This is the rudest comment. Calls traditionalists “so called,” says their “obsession with sex is disturbed,” and accuses them of cheering “slaughter of human beings” while nitpicking about sex. The “disturbed” language and the hypocrisy accusation are personally insulting and inflammatory. It also mocks them for cashing “monthly checks” while criticizing the denomination – a cheap shot about integrity.
Comment by Different Steve on June 27, 2026 at 8:16 am
Was Jesus rude? To answer accurately, we have to separate rudeness as social awkwardness (violating etiquette) from rudeness as confrontational truth-telling (purposefully upsetting people to wake them up).
By the standards of polite religious conversation in these comments, Jesus would have been very rude. Here’s how:
—
He called religious leaders names. He didn’t just say “you’re misguided” or “I disagree with your interpretation.” He called them “whitewashed tombs” (pretty on the outside, dead inside), “vipers,” “brood of snakes,” “hypocrites,” and “blind guides.” That’s harsher than anything in your comment section. On your rudeness scale, that’s a solid 7 or 8 out of 10.
He publicly humiliated people in debates. When the Pharisees tried to trap him on divorce, taxes, or the woman caught in adultery, he didn’t gently clarify – he turned their questions back on them in ways that made them look foolish in front of crowds. That’s deliberate, sharp-edged rhetorical rudeness.
He flipped tables and drove people out of the temple with a whip. That’s not a rude comment – that’s a rude action. Aggressive, disruptive, and intended to shame. No one in your comments threw furniture.
He refused to play nice with family. When his mother and brothers showed up, he pointed to his disciples and said, “These are my mother and brothers.” In that culture, that was a shocking public snub. Very rude.
He spoke in parables that deliberately confused people. When asked why, he said it was so some wouldn’t understand. That’s exclusionary rudeness – not unlike Td saying “the UMC is no longer Christian.”
—
But here’s the difference: Jesus’s rudeness was almost always aimed at people with power and religious privilege – the insiders who used their status to burden others. He was famously gentle with outcasts, sinners, prostitutes, and foreigners. He didn’t call them names. He ate with them.
In your comment section, by contrast, the rudeness is mostly tribal – conservative vs. progressive, each side attacking the other’s legitimacy. Jesus didn’t do that. He attacked hypocrisy, not identity.
So the verdict: Yes, by modern etiquette standards, Jesus was often rude. But it was intentional, prophetic rudeness against the powerful, not petty rudeness in a denominational squabble. If Jesus walked into your comment section, he probably wouldn’t call anyone a snake – but he might ask both sides why they’re so obsessed with who’s in and who’s out, and whether they’ve actually fed anyone hungry today. And that question, in that context, would probably feel pretty rude too.
Comment by Skipper on June 27, 2026 at 8:40 am
I just don’t see how on earth the United Methodists can break Commandment 7, “You shall not commit adultery,” with deviancy and think God is o.k. with this. Perhaps a parallel would be the Pharisee’s not believing Jesus is the Son of God after he performed miracle after miracle after miracle.
Different Steve, remember “it ain’t bragging if you can do it.” So, it’s not rudeness if it’s the truth.
Comment by Different Steve on June 27, 2026 at 9:08 am
Here’s what a fair, impartial moderator would do with each comment, assuming a standard civility policy (no personal attacks, no hate speech, no trolling, but robust disagreement allowed):
—
Gary Bebop – Nothing. Entirely civil, substantive, and respectful. A model comment.
Td – Nothing, but with a watchful eye. “UMC is no longer Christian” is a harsh theological dismissal, but it’s aimed at an institution, not a specific person. It doesn’t violate civility rules. A moderator might privately note it as borderline, but no action.
Dan Paddack – Nothing. Gracious and complimentary.
Wilson R. (first) – A gentle warning, if anything. “I welcome your hate” is provocative and assumes bad faith. A moderator might say: “Please avoid framing disagreement as hate. Stick to the issues.” But it’s not delete-worthy.
Skipper (first) – A warning, possibly with a request to tone down religious rhetoric. “Worship Baal instead of God” is inflammatory and could be read as a personal attack on the UMC’s faithfulness. A moderator might say: “Accusing others of idolatry crosses into personal condemnation. Please critique policies, not the sincerity of others’ faith.” No deletion unless repeated.
Qohelet (first) – A warning, possibly a temporary mute if it’s a pattern. “Abusive ex-husband” is a personal analogy that insults Tooley and the commenters directly. A moderator might say: “Personal analogies that demean other commenters aren’t acceptable. Address arguments, not character.” It’s borderline but probably stays up.
Skipper (second) – A warning, similar to the first. The Romans 1 citation is scripture, so a moderator wouldn’t touch the quote itself, but the framing (“very evil,” “dark road,” “ignores God”) is accusatory. A fair moderator would say: “You can quote scripture and state your view, but avoid labeling the other side as willfully evil. That crosses into personal condemnation.”
Wilson R. (second) – Nothing. “Borderline incoherent” is a sharp critique of an article’s logic, not a personal attack. It’s substantive and civil.
Qohelet (second) – A warning. Accusing others of “slander,” “moral superiority,” and “mocking” is heated but still argumentative. The line “you don’t act any better” is a personal jab. A moderator might say: “Keep the focus on ideas, not on judging each other’s character or behavior.” No deletion.
Skipper (third) – A warning, same as above. Repeating “evil” and “darkness” without engaging with Qohelet’s actual scriptural argument is bordering on dismissive trolling. A moderator might say: “You’ve made your theological position clear. Engage with the counter-argument rather than repeating condemnations.”
Glenn Wheeler – The strongest action: a warning with a clear line, possibly a temporary mute. “Obsession with sex is disturbed” is a personal insult to traditionalists. “Cheering the slaughter of human beings” is an inflammatory, unsubstantiated accusation that attributes malice to the other side. A fair moderator would say: “Accusing others of cheering slaughter and calling their views ‘disturbed’ is not acceptable. Critique policies and interpretations without psychoanalyzing or insulting the character of those who hold them. Further comments like this will be removed.” If Glenn repeats, deletion or mute.
—
Summary of moderator actions:
Commenter Action
Gary Bebop None
Td None (watch)
Dan Paddack None
Wilson R. (first) Gentle warning
Skipper (first) Warning
Qohelet (first) Warning
Skipper (second) Warning
Wilson R. (second) None
Qohelet (second) Warning
Skipper (third) Warning
Glenn Wheeler Strong warning / temporary mute
—
Overall approach: A fair moderator would not delete any of these comments outright on first offense. None contain slurs, threats, or explicit hate speech. But Glenn and Skipper would be on thin ice, and Qohelet would be asked to dial back the personal analogies. The goal would be to cool the temperature without silencing theological conviction – which is the hardest balance in religious comment sections.
Comment by Thomas on June 27, 2026 at 9:59 am
Lets face it, UMC doesn`t want theological conservatives in the church anymore. P.S.- Different Steve is really different.
Comment by Skipper on June 27, 2026 at 10:18 am
We have two different camps here. One believes in the authority of the Bible and the other does not.
Comment by Qohelet on June 27, 2026 at 10:53 am
No. One side cherry picks verses out of the Bible to turn Christianity into a religion primarily focused on sexual purity (a topic Jesus appears to not consider particularly important in any Gospel. ) It happily ignores all the verses in the Bible about treating the powerless with dignity and forgets that our religion is primarily based on making sure that our society acts as God does and treats every individual with dignity. It further focuses specifically on being anti Gay whilst ignoring sexual abuse in its own ranks.
The other side does its best to follow scripture but notes that LGBTQ people exist in the world. All of your favorite anti gay verses in the Bible are talking about the homosexual act as an act of fornication, abuse, or pagan worship (some of them, like Romans 1, aren’t even really talking about that, as the passage I quoted above shows.) What are we to do with people that God has created queer who are in healthy, consensual relationships and who are actively doing good in the world? The Bible doesn’t say. Relationships like these weren’t commonly open in society until 50 years ago or so. Faced with the change, most Methodists acted as we usually have done, figuring a way forward with the Methodist quadrilateral of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Jesus tells us no good tree bears bad fruit. Jesus tells us judging other people isn’t our job. Jesus tells us that what makes a good person is the love they show others. That’s the scriptural basis for the UMC’s position and I think we can hope that because we chose to be kind, God will show us kindness.
If we’re wrong? Not your problem. Go try and do all the good you can with your GMC. We genuinely hope you can do some good in this world. But you have to move on.
Comment by Wilson R. on June 27, 2026 at 3:12 pm
If Skipper defines a monogamous, same-sex relationship as “adultery,” as he/she apparently does, then I can only conclude that he/she doesn’t understand the meaning of that word. If one is interpreting the Bible, that would be a helpful understanding to have.
Comment by Skipper on June 27, 2026 at 5:16 pm
We need to honor God’s way of living as shown in the Bible. I feel so sorry for sexually confused people. Instead of helping them, the United Methodists are encouraging their confusion.
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on June 27, 2026 at 11:50 pm
Qohelet,
You wrote, “Jesus tells us no good tree bears bad fruit.”
He also told us, “By their fruits you shall know them.”
I think we’ve seen enough of the fruits of American Evangelicalism to know it. It is a religion of hate, with a god of hate, with adherents who hate.
That’s all we need to dismiss it as not of God.
Comment by Different Steve on June 28, 2026 at 7:08 am
You’re right that Tooley is perceived as a threat—and that perception isn’t entirely irrational.
From the UMC’s perspective, here’s what Tooley does: he publishes membership and attendance data that undercuts the “we’re thriving” narrative. He tracks seminary enrollment trends showing conservative schools growing while UMC schools are stagnant. He reports on progressive policy changes, framing them as “liberalization” rather than “faithful adaptation.” He amplifies conservative voices, giving platform to critics the UMC would rather ignore. And he maintains an archive of criticism that creates a permanent record which doesn’t fade from memory.
He’s not making things up. He’s curating and framing—and the frame is consistently skeptical of Mainline institutions.
IRD’s direct readership may be modest, but journalists looking for the “other side” of a Mainline story go there. Conservative donors and foundations cite their work. Their reporting gets picked up by larger outlets. They set the terms of debate for the conservative evangelical ecosystem. So a small operation becomes a force multiplier. The UMC can’t ignore them, but they can’t “win” against them either—because Tooley’s not playing by the same institutional rules.
The asymmetry is what makes it feel like a threat. The UMC is institutional, bureaucratic, and cautious, speaking in official statements. Tooley and IRD are agile, polemical, and consistent, speaking in narratives and data. The UMC is accountable to bishops and boards. Tooley is accountable to donors who want critique. The UMC can’t easily “fight back” without looking petty, while Tooley can criticize freely without consequence.
So the UMC is stuck in a bind. If they respond, that gives him credibility and attention. If they ignore him, that lets his framing stand. And when they delist Asbury, whatever the internal rationale, it plays directly into Tooley’s narrative. That’s why it looks like an own-goal to outside observers.
The deeper question is whether Tooley is objectively providing a public service by reporting on things the UMC would rather not discuss. The honest answer is: sometimes yes, sometimes no. Publishing hard data on decline is true and valuable. Reporting on policy changes is factual but framed as “liberal capture.” Giving voice to conservative critics is legitimate but one-sided. Ignoring progressive theological arguments is an omission that distorts. He’s not a neutral journalist. He’s an advocate with a clear perspective. But advocates can still tell truths that institutions wish were hidden.
The uncomfortable truth for the UMC is that if your story doesn’t hold up to scrutiny from a partisan critic, the problem isn’t the critic—it’s the story. The UMC is declining. The UMC did change its teachings on marriage. The UMC did delist Asbury while keeping Harvard and Yale. Those facts stand regardless of Tooley’s framing.
So where does that leave us? Tooley is perceived as a threat. His small footprint has outsized influence. But the threat isn’t that he’s making things up—it’s that he’s making things visible that the UMC would prefer to manage quietly. And that’s a legitimate journalistic function, even if it comes from a partisan source.
The tragedy is that both sides are so locked into their narratives that neither can see the other’s legitimate role. Tooley’s critics dismiss him as a hack. Tooley’s fans see him as a prophet. The truth is somewhere in between—and that’s exactly where the involved parties don’t want to look.
Comment by Wilson R. on June 28, 2026 at 10:43 am
I’m not the most plugged-in to what the UMC hierarchy is presenting as “the state of the church,” but I don’t think anyone is claiming that the denomination is thriving, at least in terms of membership numbers and money (the metrics that should matter least but which seem to be the main things they care about).
I think it’s hard for anyone to parse out how much of the decline is due to “liberalization” and how much is due to sociological factors. In Methodism’s heyday (in terms of numbers), it thrived in small towns and rural communities, and in cities every major neighborhood had its own Methodist congregation. But these are precisely the areas where all of the mainstream denominations are rapidly shrinking, including the more conservative ones like the Southern Baptists, Churches of Christ, the conservative branch of the Presbyterians, Nazarenes, you name it. Rural churches and small urban congregations are failing everywhere. Mark Tooley wants you to believe it’s all about “the gays.” But it’s way, way more complicated than that, and he is only presenting one dimension of the issue. Assuming he knows better–and I assume he does– that’s intellectually dishonest.
Comment by Skipper on June 28, 2026 at 12:33 pm
So what the United Methodists are doing in dropping Asbury as an approved seminary is make sure no minister goes to a conservative seminary. And that all United Methodists ministers must come from liberal ones. That fits right in with their Bishop Connie Shelton that said if you don’t agree with all the same-sex business (I am paraphrasing) then you need to “Get Out.” Yes, she said “Get Out”. Well, I was already getting out along with a lot of others!
Comment by Skipper on June 28, 2026 at 1:02 pm
Have you ever checked the Bible to see what happens to those living immoral lifestyles? It’s not the happy landing the United Methodists seem to promise people. Sexual sins are always serious sins in the Bible. We are called on to warn them. God loves them so much and does not want to have to punish them. But he is holy and will bring justice in His own time.
Comment by Thomas on June 28, 2026 at 3:43 pm
I`ve noticed that people with same-sex attraction who genuinely are interested by Christianity have more chances to attend a church who doesn`t have a gay flag pride and claims to be LGBT-affirming. What about the other people? If thats the first step for them to start living according with the Christian faith, so be it.
Comment by Eric on June 29, 2026 at 3:36 pm
I wonder how many people commenting on this article actually know what the University Senate review looks at and how many other seminaries and universities were also removed?
Hint: It’s not doctrinal.
Comment by Skipper on June 29, 2026 at 10:28 pm
The UMC Senate looks at how liberal they are. There were 3 others beside Asbury removed. These three did not want to be approved by the UMC any longer and therefore they declined to be reviewed for approval by the UMC.
Comment by Different Steve on June 30, 2026 at 8:20 am
The way the “abusive ex husband” metaphor is often used can absolutely be sexist—not necessarily because of the Bible itself, but because of how people weaponize the imagery. Let’s break that down:
1. The “Bride” language is already gendered
The Bible consistently uses a female metaphor (the Church as a bride/wife) and a male metaphor (Christ as the bridegroom/husband). So whenever someone creates an “abusive ex” analogy from this, they are forced by the metaphor to cast the breakaway group as the “male” party. That automatically frames the “bad guy” as male and the “victim” as female, which reinforces a sexist stereotype that men are the abusers and women are the passive victims.
2. The Bible uses both genders for God’s people
Interestingly, the Bible does not always use female imagery for God’s people. Elsewhere, believers are called:
· Soldiers (2 Timothy 2:3)
· Branches on a vine (John 15:5)
· Living stones in a building (1 Peter 2:5)
· Children of God (male and female, Galatians 3:28)
The “bride” is one metaphor among many. By fixating on the bride imagery to frame an argument about abuse, a person is selectively choosing the most gendered and potentially loaded metaphor available—which is a rhetorical choice, not a theological necessity.
3. The real problem: weaponizing marital language
The deeply sexist part is when people use any marital metaphor (bride/husband) to shame or control others. For example:
· Telling a breakaway group they are “divorcing Christ” by leaving your church.
· Framing disagreement as “spiritual adultery” or “abuse.”
This twists a beautiful, mutual covenant of love into a tool for power and control—and it almost always uses the husband/father figure as the authority and the wife/bride as the submissive party. That is a cultural baggage, not a biblical mandate.
4. The Bible’s actual view of “abuse” is gender-neutral
When the Bible talks about actual harmful behavior—false teaching, oppression, greed, or division—it never frames it as “male abuser vs. female victim.” It frames it as:
· Wolves vs. sheep (both male/female imagery)
· Bad shepherds vs. faithful shepherds
· False prophets vs. true prophets
The “abusive ex” analogy is not in the Bible. It is a modern, pop-culture twist that people import into the text. And when they do, they often carry sexist assumptions with them.
The bottom line: Your instinct is correct. Using the “bride of Christ” metaphor to frame a breakaway as an “abusive ex-husband” is not only theologically weak—it is culturally sexist because it reduces a complex spiritual reality to a gendered power-struggle stereotype.