February 6, 2024
By Rev. Dr. Scott Field
“We’ve learned this is not as much about human sexuality as we thought. This is about power, control and money.” So said Bishop Thomas Bickerton, President of the United Methodist Council of Bishops, quoted recently in a New York Times article (December 18, 2023) as he provided his perspective on the disaffiliation of more than a quarter of UM congregations in the USA. 
Call me a wild-eyed optimist, but it seems possible to me that we would achieve a rare super-majority vote from all United Methodists in affirmation of Bishop Bickerton’s statement.
How come?
Because Bishop Bickerton, taken in context, is surely describing his perspective on the United Methodists congregations that have disaffiliated from the denomination. Taken on its own without the context, however, his quote seems more akin to his looking in a funhouse mirror and recognizing that he, along with the annual conference administrators, denominational leaders, and many other bishops are the ones most committed to power, control, and money.
Whichever way we view the bishop’s sage observation, we can all agree, I trust, that United Methodism’s denominational fracturing is about matters of theology and sexuality to be sure, but also has much to do, indeed, with power, control, and money. The question concerns who has the power, who exercises authority, and who controls the money. An even larger question in the background is this: to what purpose are power, authority, and money exercised?
Though this is a very broad-brush stroke, I think we can say with a fair level of certainty that those who have disaffiliated, are disaffiliating, and/or hope to find a way for separation, deeply distrust the established administrative order of United Methodism. The actual experiences of disaffiliation, in many annual conferences and for many congregations, have only confirmed their distrust.
I cannot speak from within the cohort of the UMC administrative leaders and #StayUMC advocates of various stripes, but based on the levels of virulence, name-calling, motive-questioning, and general opprobrium aimed at the “disaffiliators”, we, too, have been placed in the bucket of “not to be trusted” by those who exercise denominational control. One bishop said to me in a personal conversation, “I think of you as a terrorist!” (As you might imagine, we weren’t and aren’t on the same page when it comes to a shared understanding of “the situation we are all in.”)
Both the “disaffiliators” among us and the #StayUMC institutionalists are prone to point fingers and accuse the others: “They are ruining our church!” And, conversely, “We are seeking to save our church!” This is tragic on all accounts. Whenever we attach a possessive pronoun to “church”, we are dipping our toes in the waters of idolatry. The Church isn’t ours in the first place; we are not the proprietors of “The Church”. We are, in various direct and indirect ways, responsible for the health of the Christian community of which we are part. We decide the ends to which “power, control, and money” will be directed.
The delegates to the General Conference will determine, at least formally, how power, control, and money will be utilized in and through the UMC. Let me suggest four descriptors of “the situation we are all in” for consideration as delegates prepare for the gathering in Charlotte.
Here you go:
The United Methodist Church was never united in the first place.
In First Things (January 2020) Dr. Dale Coulter, Professor of Historical Theology at Pentecostal Theological Seminary wrote:
“Was there ever a United Methodist Church? The opening of the Protocol states that the UMC “and its members . . . have fundamental differences regarding their understanding and interpretation of Scripture, theology and practice.” But this line could have been written in 1968. Methodist theologian Albert Outler basically said as much at the time. These differences drove the 1972 decision to ground the way forward in theological pluralism. The basis of the UMC became organizational unity (connectionalism) with a commitment to theological diversity. But connectionalism lacks the depth needed to sustain any form of Methodism.
“I wrote last year that the two coalitions represented at the 2019 General Conference were two denominations trying to be born. The committee that proposed the Protocol has attempted to serve as midwife for this birth.” (A Failed Experiment in Methodist Unity, First Things, Jan 8 2020)
Though Dr. Coulter’s article was written in the context of the Protocol of Grace and Reconciliation through Separation and the anticipated original meeting of the 2020 UMC General Conference, his observation of “two denominations trying to be born” is particularly pertinent. Despite the delays of the 2020 General Conference meeting and the collapse of support for the Protocol as a framework for separation, the situation remains. A half-century of organizational conflict between two different understandings of and commitments to the nature and mission of the church casts a long shadow on the meeting this spring in Charlotte. It has become abundantly clear that these different understandings are, for many, incompatible.
The separation of the United Methodist Church is well underway; it cannot be delayed, reversed, or stopped by General Conference action.
The use of United Methodist Book of Discipline, paragraph 2553, which allowed a limited period for congregational disaffiliation, was not, I think, expected to result in the loss of 25% of UM congregations in the USA. In the same NYT article quoting Bishop Bickerton, Ryan Burge, a political scientist at Eastern Illinois University, stated, “It’s the biggest denominational schism ever.”
The Wesleyan Covenant Association is appealing to General Conference delegates to unambiguously authorize a fair, transparent, feasible, and uniform pathway for UM congregations and conferences in Africa, the Philippines, and Europe to separate from the UMC should they choose to do so. If congregations and annual conferences are heading for the exit door, what sense does it make to attempt bolting the door shut?
Without question, the coming General Conference should make decisions clearly aligned with the hoped-for future of the UMC. If you listen to some of the institutional leaders and advocacy influencers of the denomination, you can clearly feel the freshening breeze anticipating reset and renewal on the horizon. So, sail on, UMC! Set your course and trim your sails!
But why attempt to drag anchor by retaining those who don’t want to go where you are headed and, consequently, will continue to challenge, disrupt, and frustrate your attempts to reset and renew? Along with setting the course for a new chapter in the mission of the post-separation UMC, General Conference delegates should also provide a gracious means through which congregations that desire a different future can be released. Every congregation will end up as part of the denomination it chooses, and both denominations will find themselves with congregations who desire to support and promote their larger mission.
Besides, what is the outcome of attempting to hold congregations hostage? Congregations are voluntary associations. When the cost of membership becomes the violation of a person’s Christian conscience, then the cost is too high, and that person finds the exit.
The General Conference cannot avoid, stop, or reverse this season of sorting out and separation, but the delegates can take positive action to facilitate it. As a result, the level of conflict will subside and the possibility of moving forward will arrive.
The challenges ahead for both the United Methodist Church and the Global Methodist Church are enormous; conflict with each other distracts from the mission of both.
The current separation situation within the UMC forces major organizational change. The General Council on Finance and Administration reports 9,252 disaffiliations and other church closures in the period of 2019-2023 with a total of 194 new church starts. Already the UMC jurisdictions are planning for combining episcopal areas in the USA, adjusting the number of bishops, and, for the General Conference, the GCFA is recommending budget reductions in the range of 40% for UMC general boards and agencies. Further, the anticipation that the post-separation UMC will adopt a thoroughly progressive theological and social agenda presents a challenge of avoiding the rapid loss of membership, financial strength, and influence that has, without exception, accompanied that path previously taken all of the other mainline protestant denominations.
The Global Methodist Church faces the challenges of starting a global organization. GMC congregations, most of whom have been part of the UMC in the past, will be faced with a very different church culture that values entrepreneurship, accountable discipleship, and reliance on healthy local churches as the primary means of fulfilling the mission. Layers of administrative organization are out; networking will be the norm.
The point here is that attempting to hold two denominations together in the UMC or, more accurately, two incompatible understandings of and commitments to the nature and mission of the church, will keep the UMC from releasing itself for its hoped-for future. The Global Methodist Church has already stepped into its new future. The UMC can do the same by releasing those who want to leave so that the balance of congregations and individual United Methodist want to be UMC.
Which will the UMC General Conference in April/May be:
The Showdown in Charlotte or the Carolina Conciliation?
The last of these four descriptors is yet to be determined. The reality of the upcoming UMC General Conference is in the hands, hearts, prayers, conferencing, and votes of the delegates. Often when two parties separate (think marriage partners or employee/employer terminations, or various divisions of a company being spun off as a separate corporation), things can devolve into adversarial confrontation. The goal of each party is to “win” or, at least “wound”. A better way forward in most of these situations, of course, is mediation or negotiation. Mediation recognizes that the separation is or will be a reality and comes to terms for the process of separation that is agreeable for both parties.
Paragraph 2553 was one way of “agreeing to terms”. Now that paragraph 2553 is no longer available, which shall the meeting in Charlotte be: confrontation to “win” and to “wound”; or negotiation of “terms” so both the UMC and those congregations and conferences seeking the option of disaffiliation can flourish in the future?
Without doubt, the separation of the United Methodist Church is about “power, control, and money.” We know that already. What is yet to be seen is how the General Conference delegates will use their votes: continuing the chronic denominational conflict or making a way for both the post-separation UMC and the formerly UMC congregations to engage a flourishing future of mission and ministry?