By Joe DiPaolo
July 1, 2022
In last week’s Outlook article, I mentioned some of the problems facing our UM Church bishops in the wake of the unfolding division of the denomination: mounting membership losses, both by attrition and a growing exodus; looming financial liabilities, along with the long-term prospect of declining income; the problem of maintaining church properties as congregations leave or wither; and a top heavy, expensive bureaucracy they will have a hard time changing.
They face an even bigger challenge, however: the breakdown of institutional unity and cohesiveness.
Over the past few years, progressive activists have set a precedent they called “civil disobedience.” Since it was not civil authority they were resisting, however, a better term would be “ecclesial defiance.” The idea is simply this: if a group, or even an entire conference, doesn’t agree with what General Conference has decided, they can defy it, change the “facts on the ground,” and prevent any real accountability to The Book of Discipline. Some bishops have aided and abetted those efforts and are now assuming governance roles never intended for them, since they are supposed to implement the will of General Conference. And because of the jurisdictional system — which is a legacy of institutional racism – it is virtually impossible to reign in rogue bishops. (For an insightful analysis by scholar Scott Kisker of how the jurisdictional system and other “reforms” effectively balkanized the church and led to a breakdown in connectionalism, (click ).
The result of all of this is that General Conference no longer effectively governs the denomination, and the integrity of the connection has been undermined.
So here is the problem: after many troublesome traditionalists have left, how exactly does the “Continuing UMC” rebuild institutional unity and accountability on anything controversial?
There will be plenty of things about which remaining institutionalists, centrists, and progressives will disagree. With the precedent of “ecclesial defiance” established, the General Conference will have a hard time making any kind of firm, denomination-wide policy stick. So long as any determined, dissenting minority digs in its heels, such efforts can be frustrated. Long after traditionalists leave, the UM Church may well begin dividing again over other issues.
Perhaps strong, inspired, and trusted leaders could rebuild a coherent UM Church. The question is: does The United Methodist Church have such leaders? Recall that at the 2016 General Conference, nearly 60% of the delegates voted to term-limit bishops. A super-majority of two-thirds was needed, so term limits were not adopted, but that was essentially a vote of “no confidence.” A friend of mine made a comment a few months back that stuck with me. He said, “Our laypeople do not respect our bishops, and our clergy fear them.” What a sad statement, yet I suspect there is much truth in it.
The reality is that bishops have lost the confidence of the people, and some are increasingly relying on the exercise of raw power. Do they really have the power they want us to believe? Remember the “consent of the governed?” Many secular democracies are founded on the ideal that governments can exercise power only insofar as “we the people” consent to allow them to do so. If we resist or refuse, or start demonstrating in the streets, they often must backtrack.
The same is true, even more so, with ecclesial authorities. Bishops and boards of trustees only have the power that we consent to give them. Progressive activists have made that clear with their resistance efforts. Ecclesial leaders are not the state; they have no police force or army to enforce anything. Yes, they can cost churches money, fight with them over property, and as clergy they can take away our jobs – none of which would be easy to endure. They cannot, however, put any of us in a gulag or throw us to the lions. Nor do they have limitless resources—they can’t print money or endlessly borrow.
In Acts 5, after the apostles are brought before the Sanhedrin and told to stop teaching and preaching about Jesus, Peter and the others responded, “We must obey God rather than any human authority.” The human authority to which he was referring was a body comprised of the religious leaders of the people of God: priests of the temple, and scholars of God’s Word. Jesus had counseled his followers to show such people respect because they sat “in Moses’ seat,” but he also told them not to emulate their behavior (Matthew 23:1-4). When such leaders lose their way and begin to rely on force of law (like arrests in Acts 5, or the UM Church trust clause), rather than spiritual and moral authority, people with convictions will follow Peter’s example.
Progressive activists have already done so, and in the process destroyed the integrity of the connection. Undoubtedly many traditionalists will start doing the same. The prospects are not great for the continuing UMC to reestablish institutional unity or coherence, and a process of further splintering may well be in its future.
The Rev. Joseph F. DiPaolo is lead pastor of Lancaster First United Methodist Church in Pennsylvania and a member of the WCA Global Council.