A Promise Kept and a Promise Spurned
A Promise Kept and a Promise Spurned
By Thomas Lambrecht
As United Methodists continue to become aware of the actions taken by the 2024 General Conference, responses range from celebration to confusion to disagreement to disenchantment. Many are asking the question: What does this mean for me and my church?
For congregations, there will probably be little short-term change. United Methodist life will go on pretty much as it has in the past. However, clergy will be able to officiate for same-sex weddings and churches will be able to host such weddings. How that could affect your congregation will be unique to your situation.
Longer-term, there will be an evolution of dramatic change. United Methodism has redefined marriage to include same-sex unions. The expectation that sex is reserved for marriage has been removed. The definition of “immorality” has been deleted, weakening its enforcement. It is likely that any sexual relationship between consenting adult clergy (to say nothing about laity) will be permitted or at least ignored.
Apportionment money will be spent to promote the acceptance of homosexuality. This includes the LGBTQ+ history institute announced at the General Conference by the Commission on Archives and History. LGBTQ persons must be nominated and elected to serve on all the general church boards and agencies. “Sexual orientation” has been defined as an immutable class similar to race and (male/female) gender. Local churches are to be trained to accept LGBTQ persons as their pastor, and appointments are to be made regardless of sexual orientation. While a gay pastor may not initially be forced upon a congregation, all congregations will be expected to become open to receiving a gay pastor, just as they are now expected to be open to receiving a woman pastor or a pastor of a different race or ethnicity.
Congregations that find themselves uncomfortable with the direction set for the denomination by the 2024 General Conference have few options. Their ability to disaffiliate and retain their property depends upon the grace of their particular annual conference. This week demonstrated two opposite approaches to the question of disaffiliation.
South Carolina Faithfulness
The South Carolina Annual Conference was one of the last conferences to permit congregational disaffiliation. Bishop Jonathan Holston ruled that Par. 2553 could not be used in South Carolina because the annual conference was enforcing the Book of Discipline’s requirements around marriage, sexuality, and LGBTQ persons. Finally last year, the conference decided that it would use Par. 2549 to allow churches to disaffiliate and retain their property through closure. The church would be closed and the property resold to the congregation in exchange for an established fee similar to what was required under Par. 2553 plus ten percent of the property value. Under these provisions, 113 churches disaffiliated in 2023.
Although disaffiliation under Par. 2553 was to end on December 31, 2023, South Carolina promised to allow further disaffiliations under Par. 2549 following the 2024 General Conference.
This week the South Carolina Conference kept its promise and voted to allow 112 more churches to disaffiliate under the same terms. As reported by an annual conference press release, the conference acknowledged that these churches “find themselves unable to serve the purpose for which they were organized, because issues related to human sexuality have prevented them, in that they cannot accept the actions taken in The United Methodist Church.”
The disaffiliating churches represented over 13 percent of the conference’s congregations and about 12 percent of the conference’s membership. They ranged in size from 11 members to 2,110 members. Altogether, about 24 percent of the conference’s pre-Covid congregations have disaffiliated.
The conference further voted to recommend to its trustees that one more round of disaffiliations be allowed in 2024, to be approved by the 2025 annual conference. The trustees will make the final determination on that recommendation. If carried out, it would represent a good faith effort to provide churches that cannot continue within United Methodism a fair way to disaffiliate (albeit at a somewhat elevated cost).
The Northeastern Jurisdiction
In a dramatically contrary move, the College of Bishops of the Northeastern Jurisdiction released a letter outlining their position on disaffiliation. Their letter announced that “The NEJ College of Bishops will uphold the decision made by the delegates at the postponed 2020 General Conference to discontinue any disaffiliation process and NOT support any more disaffiliations.”
These bishops adopted the interpretation that the 2024 General Conference eliminated all disaffiliation pathways and effectively forbid further disaffiliations from taking place. “To be clear, the General Conference indicated through the legislation it approved that disaffiliation is no longer a path for leaving the denomination. There was no extension of disaffiliation, and the disaffiliation paragraph was removed from The Book of Discipline.”
(The tenor of the debate at the General Conference was that annual conferences were able to set their own terms for releasing congregations without those terms being set by the General Conference. While some delegates thought all disaffiliations should end, other delegates preferred to allow annual conferences to make that determination. The General Conference did not forbid disaffiliation. It just failed to provide a uniform disaffiliation pathway for the whole church.)
The bishops’ statement leaves the door open a crack for using Par. 2549, the closure paragraph. “People have inquired about the use of other disciplinary paragraphs to allow disaffiliations. … Two paragraphs were considered in the past: paragraph 2548 was ruled by the Judicial Council of The United Methodist Church not to be used for disaffiliations, and paragraph 2549 is for a church closure and how to handle the property. Now that disaffiliations have concluded, the College of Bishops will ensure that annual conferences receive the best value for any sold property.”
It appears bishops might be willing to sell a church’s property back to the congregation for “the best value” they can get for it, which might be higher than the costs imposed by Par. 2553. A recent communication from Bishop John Schol of Eastern Pennsylvania and Greater New Jersey indicated a congregation could buy its property for its appraised value. Some congregations may be able to afford such a cost, but many may not.
Back to the Individual
This brings the question back to the impact of the 2024 General Conference’s actions on each individual United Methodist. Some will welcome and celebrate those actions. Others may not have an opinion on the matter and be willing to tolerate whatever comes. Others may disagree with those actions but are willing to remain in the denomination despite those disagreements. Some of this last group may conceive their calling as continuing a traditionalist witness within the UM Church, despite its overwhelming bent toward a more progressive understanding of the faith.
For others, however, remaining United Methodist poses a dilemma of conscience in being part of a church that affirms and promotes types of relationship that the Bible names as sinful. For these individuals, there are several options:
- If a supermajority of their congregation’s members agree that this dilemma of conscience necessitates disaffiliation, the members could pursue the possibility through the established channels of their annual conference.
- Where the annual conference has closed the door on disaffiliation, the congregation cannot afford the cost of disaffiliation to retain the buildings and assets, or a significant group of members falls short of reaching the two-thirds vote required for disaffiliation, a group of departing members could form the core of a new church. This is happening in many places across the U.S., Africa, and the Philippines. The Global Methodist Church and its partner ministry the River Network have training, support, and some resources available to assist new congregations in being formed. There are advantages to taking this route, including the ability to envision and structure the church for 21st century ministry, rather than being saddled with outdated buildings, organizational structures, and ministry patterns. Starting afresh also poses challenges in terms of the time and energy involved in creating a new ministry. Where the people and resources are available, this approach can be an exciting avenue to expand Gospel ministry.
- Where congregational disaffiliation or creating a new church are not possible, individuals may need to seek out a new church for conscience’s sake that more closely identifies with their theological perspective. Wesleyan or Wesleyan-friendly denominations include the Free Methodist, Wesleyan, Nazarene, Christian and Missionary Alliance, and Assemblies of God denominations, among others. Most non-denominational churches are not Wesleyan in theology, although some are. Careful searching could yield a compatible congregation nearby that would further one’s growth in discipleship and provide opportunities to serve in ministering to the community.
These are all weighty decisions, both at the congregational and individual levels. They need to be surrounded in prayer and consultation with family and friends. Resources for congregations and individuals are available from the Wesleyan Covenant Association’s Revive! collection. A number of valuable and practical presentations have been recorded and are being prepared for posting through their website.
One hopes that more annual conferences will follow the South Carolina model of providing a good faith approach graciously allowing churches to disaffiliate who find they can no longer function under the New United Methodism. As I was writing this, word came that the Kentucky Conference voted “to encourage the bishop and Cabinet of the Kentucky Annual Conference to explore the Book of Discipline Paragraph 2549 as a potential means for facilitating a fair and just pathway for churches to exit The United Methodist Church.” One fears that many conferences will take the approach of the Northeastern College of Bishops in denying disaffiliation and holding on to churches for every last dime they can get. One wonders which approach might more closely reflect the spirit of Jesus and set a hospitable and positive tone for the new Methodism.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. The South Carolina Annual Conference is attempting to create a bridge for churches. Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge in South Carolina. Photo by David Martin Jr. (Pexels).