Blood is Purple

As the United Methodist Church loses members, it grasps for messaging to staunch the bleeding.

Colorblind

I am colorblind. Medium red-green is my official diagnosis. Purple is one of the colors that I have difficulty discerning. I may have even worn purple before, thinking I was wearing my favorite color, blue. However, I still dispute that claim! Maybe I see the world as it really is, and everyone else is mistaken. I am not actually conceited enough to believe that claim, but I may have uttered it before when being derided over my color-challenge. I have read that blood is purple before it interacts with oxygen in the air. Apparently one can discern this by the color of our veins. Others have said our veins are blue. I am the last person who could settle that debate. I can, however, discern the irony in the United Methodist Church’s (UMC) claim to be a purple church.

A Purple Church?

If you have any connection with the Western North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church (WNCCUMC), you would have had to totally ignore your email inbox and social media feeds over the last couple weeks to miss the persistent refrain: The United Methodist Church is a Purple Church. In the face of an incredibly divisive national election, the WNCCUMC tacked hard toward the center in a seemingly desperate effort to quell its dwindling traditional membership in the wake of the denomination’s recent hard shift to embrace a more progressive agenda. The WNCCUMC must have piped significant money and time into establishing something it has coined the Purple Church Initiative.  However, is this Initiative a legitimate reflection of what the United Methodist Church has become, or is it a panicked attempt to stop the bleeding of congregations and membership to preserve its institutional resources?

One study

Within months following the close of what the UMC coined the Season of Disaffiliation, and simultaneous with the release of the news from the historic 2024 General Conference decision to reverse its decades old position on LGBTQ+ marriages and clergy, the WNCCUMC, seizing on a study published by the Religion and Social Change Lab (RaSCL) of Duke Divinity School, began strategically describing the UMC as a “purple church”. Presumably choosing to depict a supposed blending of liberal/progressive and conservative/traditional political and theological views by using the familiar colors associated with the two major American political parties, the WNCCUMC was apparently attempting to articulate that what remained of the denomination following the 2023 schism was not politically skewed as many had predicted, but instead an opportunity to reflect the varied makeup of our American reality. Is this position accurate, though, or is it instead a transparently calculated move to mask the reality that the UMC has effectively abandoned its original identity as a big tent in favor of political and theological hegemony (predominance of one group over others)?

To be clear, there undoubtedly remain (at least for the time being) many politically and theologically conservative or traditional congregations within the UMC (in the United States) who, either following advice from their District Superintendents, or perhaps on their own, chose to wait and see what would happen at the 2024 General Conference. Some of those congregations were working toward a slightly different type of disaffiliation under the Discipline’s provisions allowing for church closure in the few UMC Conferences that were sympathetic to their position [that avenue was recently closed by the denomination’s Judicial Council in a decision published here]. However, the majority of UMC Conferences in the United States (WNCCUMC included, and now the Judicial Council, as well) did not respond so lovingly, embracing instead the 2024 General Conference’s repeal of the disaffiliation provisions and foreclosure of any formal avenue for exit for those churches who no longer felt politically or theologically aligned with the denomination following the General Conference’s reversal of many of its longstanding political and theological positions. Is this new term, “purple church”, simply the latest effort of the UMC bureaucracy to pander to these few remaining politically and theologically conservative churches and members that are begging to leave?

Grounded in research?

It is hard to judge the subjective intent of bureaucrats like Bishop Kenneth Carter when he writes to all clergy and laity in the WNCCUMC, “we are a ‘purple’ church, the recent Duke Endowment research disclosed.” However, it is not difficult to look more closely at that “research” that this bishop is using to coin his term, “purple church”. He was apparently referring to an April 16, 2024 study published by members of Duke Divinity’s RaSCL entitled, “Disaffiliation from the United Methodist Church in North Carolina: Challenges and Opportunities”. First, Duke Divinity School is a United Methodist Seminary, so there is that tie which at least calls for questioning the motives behind any research its faculty produces.

Second, the study, published by the RaSCL’s Director and a Research Associate does not even use the term, “purple church”. That term does appear, however, on a summary sheet published subsequently by the RaSCL, along with statistics describing congregations as “purple”, “red”, and “blue”. Interestingly, that summary sheet does not even accurately reflect the statistics it cites from the report.

Finally, a closer look at the RaSCL itself, and the authors of the report, may suggest a potential bias. The RaSCL’s website notes first, that it serves UMC clergy and denominational leaders in North Carolina. Among its published articles appear such titles as:  “‘There's theology and then there's the people I love...’: Authority and Ambivalence in Seminarians’ Attitudes Towards Same-Sex Relationships, Marriage, and Ordination"; “Are Women Elders Paid Less than Men? A Brief Report from the North Carolina Statewide Longitudinal Survey of United Methodist Clergy”; “Racial Identity and Health Outcomes in an Emerging Latinx Immigrant Community”; “Reproducing inequality in a formally anti-racist organization: The case of racialized career pathways in the United Methodist Church”; and “Social networks, support, and depressive symptoms: Gender differences among clergy.” Three of these articles are authored by the Director who authors the study that this Bishop is using to characterize the UMC in North Carolina as “purple”.

Then there is the RaSCL’s report itself. Accepting these politically-charged terms (red, blue, purple) then, does the RaSCL’s report indeed establish that the remaining UMC in North Carolina is “purple”? Perhaps not. First, take a look at the RaSCL’s summary sheet which first appears to have coined this term, “purple”. It notes:

“Based on clergy’s assessments of their own congregations, 59% of remaining congregations were purple, 25% were red, and 18% were blue.”

The actual figures from the report itself are slightly different than the summary document:

“Among congregations remaining with the UMC, 57% [not 59%] had mixed support for the two major party candidates, 25% mostly supported Trump, and 18% mostly supported Biden.”

Digging even further into those figures, it seems that the summary report has characterized as “red”, the category from the actual report describing “pro-Trump congregations in which more than two-thirds supported Trump in 2020.” Conversely, the summary report describes as “blue,” the category described in the actual report as “pro-Biden congregations where more than two- thirds supported Biden.” “Purple,” then, would be the term the summary report used to describe those “mixed congregations that fall between the two.” Therefore, a “purple church” as the WNCCUMC bishop describes, would be supported by this research as one in which a majority (57%) of congregations are composed of 2/3 or less of congregants who supported either Trump or Biden in 2020. Does that make sense?

So where did these figures come from? When the source of these figures is identified, these statistics seem to break down even further. Of course, the summary report that has coined the political terms, “red,” “blue,” and “purple” does not reveal that (outside of a passing reference), but the actual report published on the RaSCL’s website does. In a footnote to “Table 2” on page 38, in relation to the statistics about congregations that supported Trump, Biden, or were mixed, it states:

“These numbers were derived from clergy’s reports in the 2021 CHI [Clergy Health Initiative] Survey.”

Apparently, these “statistics” were not based on surveys of actual congregation members, but rather from clergy responding to a health initiative survey.

In fact, the entire report was really more about UMC clergy than it was about UMC congregations. It is unclear how clergy would know who their congregants supported in the 2020 election. It is also unclear how they could report accurately on all of their congregants sufficient to establish to any degree of statistical certainty that more than 2/3 voted in a certain manner. Finally, and perhaps most concerning, although this report was published in April 2024, the data on which these political characterizations were based is three years old and predates the majority of disaffiliations in North Carolina which occurred in 2022-2023. How reliable, then, is three-year-old data based on pastors’ apparent guesses about their congregations’ political views in response to a health survey? Apparently, it was reliable enough for the WNCCUMC bishop to claim with seeming certainty in the Spring of 2024 and in his repeated attempts recently in the lead-up to the 2024 national election, that we are a “purple church.” But are we really?

The Purple Church Initiative

The bishop’s claim was only the beginning. I have watched over the last several months as this one bishop’s apparently coined phrase transformed from two words into an Initiative. The Purple Church Initiative is the subject of a WNCCUMC website and countless emails. A quick trip to the website reveals the following statement:

“A recent study published by the Religion and Social Change Lab of Duke Divinity School reported that our congregations within The United Methodist Church in North Carolina are theologically and politically diverse, thus creating a ‘purple church’ which reflects our deep diversity. However, the study also painted a picture of the hopeful future that our diversity presents.”

How much money has now been piped into this Purple Church Initiative based on the claim supported by this research? The webpage for the Purple Church Initiative contains various links, including links to a sermon series, discussion cards, a peace pledge, a podcast, several articles and courses published on Faith+Lead, voter guides apparently connected to the advocacy arm of the UMC, the new Social Principles from the 2024 General Conference, links to voter registration/restoration, absentee ballot, and poll worker registration sites, links to election ambassador training, an Eric Holder study, and links to training for things like, “Project 2025 and Its Impact on the Church.” Interestingly, there’s even a link on the Purple Church Initiative webpage to an article titled, “How would John Wesley vote?” Although this article is quick to note:

“[i]t is illegal under IRS rules for the church to endorse specific candidates,”

it goes on to remind United Methodists:

“to become better acquainted with the Social Principles and juxtapose those with the campaign platforms.”

Many of those Social Principles were recently amended to track more liberal/progressive (i.e., Democrat) platforms during the 2024 General Conference. Indeed, this article provides fertile ground for even further examination into the true nature of the new UMC, but I digress.

Bridging the divides?

The question is whether something like Bishop Carter’s statement about the UMC being a “purple church” is accurate or whether it is disingenuous, at best? Does the UMC truly seek “to bridge the political and theological divides in our churches and communities,” as Rev. Beth Crissman, the Uwharrie District Superintendent and the Director of Peace Building Ministries, claims? Is the UMC truly interested in building peace, or is it simply trying to staunch the bleeding of members by convincing them that the denomination remains a big tent despite recently seeming indications to the contrary that they may observe?

If you have followed my series of articles, you are familiar with my highlight of the apparent Council of Bishops’ best practice that no United Methodist clergy may serve a disaffiliated church. In my opinion, blanket practices like this, which are being strictly enforced in the WNCCUMC, directly contradict any notion that the UMC’s leadership honestly seeks to build peace or to embrace a big tent identity as a “purple church”. I believe the only purple in the UMC lately is the blood of those victims of its persistent refusal to be the connectional church it claims to be. I believe that initiatives like the Purple Church are simply expensive public disinformation campaigns designed to paint the UMC as something that it will likely never be again. I wish the UMC was truly still a “purple church”. I long for it to become such a church again (if it ever was). I long for the Church to be the Kingdom of God that Jesus came to proclaim. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the Church is sinking further into a reflection of the broken and divided world that Christ came to save.

A simple petition

I debated whether I should end this article on such a somber note. The fact that I am even writing this piece reveals my hope that we can become more than we are, that we can grow closer to that image of Christ that we all confess. In the spirit of that hope, then, I will close with a petition to the UMC to embrace the grace of God that it has been known reflect. Let churches who want to leave go in peace with your blessing. Embrace opportunities to build connection with churches that have left, yet still seek some looser affiliation. I petition Conferences like the WNCCUMC to lead such efforts. I petition bishops, like Kenneth Carter, to let go of divisive practices like those which create perpetual separation from our brothers and sisters who no longer desire formal affiliation with our denomination yet want to maintain some connection. The national political election is over. It is time that we finally stop reflecting the broken separation of the world and seek to embrace the light of Jesus Christ whom we all confess as our Lord and Savior.