Doing Their Own Thing

As the United Methodist Church in America dies, it ceases to be the connectional church it once aspired to become.

First United Methodist Church will do their own thing

First United Methodist Church will do their own thing. When I heard a pastor of a local church proclaim this in the parking lot of another local church in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Helene’s devastation of the Southeast, as teams of faith leaders and public safety leaders gathered to coordinate regional aid distribution, it resonated with me immediately. The pastor stated it as if it were something everyone there already knew, yet I had never heard such a statement. At once, I realized why – throughout most of my time as a United Methodist clergy, I had surrounded myself solely with other United Methodist churches and United Methodist clergy.

Ecumenical is a fancy church word that typically refers generally to cooperation between and among Christian denominations. The United Methodist Church (UMC) uses another word - connectional. Although the UMC uses this word primarily to describe the formal institutional structures that connect congregations within the United Methodist denomination, it purports to value the lived witness of connection through relationships with all baptized believers of Jesus Christ, regardless of denomination.

We all long for connection. That was probably one of the more difficult aspects in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene in the Southeast. The communications grid collapsed, and with that collapse, our ability to connect with each other was severely challenged. Immediately, we realized that the system (or institutions), on which we all relied was not available to us. Could we still connect? Who among us would embody the true nature of that connection that we see in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Is the UMC as connectional as it proclaims?

I had always believed that the UMC prided itself on being a connectional church. However, is the UMC truly as connectional as it proclaims? Over the course of the last year, I have come to believe that, at least in my area, those who lead our UMC are focused more on things like agendas, money, image, and institution than they are on connection.

The UMC leadership in my area has persisted in its efforts to thwart my attempts to maintain a relationship with a church that left their formal institutional connection last year (i.e., disaffiliated). Although not legislated through its annual conference (legislative body), the appointed bishop (or executive) in my area has maintained that no United Methodist clergy (active or retired) is allowed to serve a disaffiliated church. To do so requires one to surrender their clergy credentials (or in my case have them revoked involuntarily). Is such a position truly connectional, though? Or does it perpetuate the image of the UMC that other clergy in my area have apparently held for some time – they do their own thing.

Through several meetings with my District Superintendent (my direct supervisor), I have repeatedly challenged our leadership to move beyond the bishop’s blanket policy which serves to sever connection rather than form or sustain it. At times, it has been like talking to a wall. The mandate is apparently incapable of challenge, and the bishop has ignored my request to meet to discuss it further. They have refused to appoint me to serve a disaffiliated church, yet they are unwilling to appoint me elsewhere so long as I maintain a relationship with a disaffiliated church. The leadership has continued to place arbitrary deadlines on me to take actions contrary to our rules, yet they are enforcing a policy that appears nowhere in our rules.

The current state of affairs

There are a number of cases going before the Judicial Council (the UMC’s highest judicial body) this Fall which have revealed the true value (or lack thereof) that the UMC places on connection (check them out here). One case in particular (Docket 1024-09) reveals the source of the policy (no United Methodist clergy may serve a disaffiliated church) being enforced by my bishop. Although I have been unable to find a complete copy of it anywhere online, apparently the UMC Council of Bishops (the combined group of all appointed bishops, or executive leaders in the UMC) produced a Disaffiliation Recommended Best Practices Manual in 2022. On page 5 of this manual, the Council of Bishops apparently addressed this very question in a section entitled: “Best Practices in Considering a United Methodist Clergy Member’s Request to be Appointed to Pastor a Disaffiliated Church.” That section basically concludes that it is a best practice to deny such a request because of “the current state of affairs.” That sentiment has been echoed by my District Superintendent, who has repeatedly stated that perhaps one day what I am asking to do may be allowed, but now is too soon.

What, then, is that current state of affairs? Basically, the UMC has lost no less than 25% of its churches over the last two years through disaffiliations because of its position on sexuality and scriptural authority. Further, since May, many more churches have sought to exit following the UMC’s reversal of its longstanding prohibition of same-sex marriages and LGBTQIA+ clergy. These losses merely compound the denomination’s already declining state. Since its inception in 1968 when the Evangelical United Brethren Church merged with the Methodist Church, the United Methodist Church has experienced a consistent and steady decline in U.S. membership which now numbers less than half its initial membership at its founding. It seems to me that the institutional connection has eroded to such a degree that the UMC has turned inward, but is that a new position? At least in my context, it appears to me from my own experience that it is not. And a brief review of that Fall 2024 Judicial Council docket certainly provides some support to such a conclusion.

I suppose that is what happens when bishops, who are called to provide “the general oversight and promotion of the temporal and spiritual interests of the entire Church” (from the UMC Council of Bishops website), wade into legislating denominational policy. Although UMC bishops are supposed to “serve as shepherds of the entire church, providing a prophetic witness for justice and unity” (again from their website), the witness instead, as gleaned from documents like the Disaffiliation Recommended Best Practices Manual is one of disconnection and increased inward-focused institutionalization.

In our vulnerability, do we really need institutions?

The bishop who leads my UMC Annual Conference recently noted in response to the devastation wrought to our area by Hurricane Helene, the following:

“I need to say, this is a moment when institutions are really important—hurricane centers, public safety, trained emergency responders, denominations, congregations.  The default of finding fault with them is replaced by an awareness that in our vulnerability we do need institutions.”

However, is that what we have witnessed in these areas? In my work with several churches from a variety of denominations and with our local public safety officials from different political parties over the last couple weeks, I have witnessed that the most valuable asset to those impacted by Hurricane Helene has been a willingness to abandon an allegiance to those institutions, and to simply help people. Contrary to the bishop’s conclusion, in our vulnerability, we do not need institutions – we need people helping people in spite of their institutional affiliation. That is what connection is really all about. I think that is what the Kingdom of God is about! However, the UMC’s leadership seems to struggle with this realization.

Serving the least or our allegiance?

I work with our local jail ministry in my area, and I have often wondered why out of over 100 volunteers, I am only one of three United Methodists? Given John Wesley’s advocacy for prison ministry, should the UMC not have greater representation in our local jail ministry than any other denomination? However, this jail ministry is truly ecumenical in nature. It is made up of volunteers from a multitude of denominations. We have a Catholic Priest, several Baptists, and even a Ukrainian Orthodox who are all committed to the mission of serving the imprisoned. Why is the UMC not represented any better? The UMC will do their own thing. In fact, part of my request to serve that disaffiliated church included a request to receive, as part of that appointment, the denomination’s blessing to continue service as the coordinator of that local jail ministry, which I have done on a volunteer basis for over a year now. That request has also been denied. The UMC will do their own thing.

In all its bluster about connection, I believe the UMC has instead turned inward, and focused all of its efforts, attention, and money on itself. But that’s natural for an institution, right? Self-preservation is a key aspect of any institution, particularly one that has lost over half its membership over the course of the last 56 years, 25% of its churches in the last two years, and continues to face countless churches wanting to exit. The Church loses something of itself, though, when it focuses on things like numbers and institutions. The Church has always been and will always be about relationships in Jesus Christ. That is why the best of things like hurricane relief are borne out of people helping people, regardless of denominational, political, or institutional allegiances.

Shining light in the darkness

I fear the denomination I was called to help lead has lost sight of that truth, though, and I find myself in the position to have to sacrifice my own credentials and years of hard work to oppose and shine a light on that. Perhaps there are others who will do so, as well. Like those clergy who are part of Docket 1024-09 that will be heard by the Judicial Council on October 23-26, 2024, in Los Angeles. The UMC in Delaware is seeking to revoke the credentials of five clergy members there who insisted that the UMC should embrace opportunities to maintain connection with several churches that formally left the institution through disaffiliation. Will the UMC through its Judicial Council embrace the opportunity to shine a light in the darkness and serve as a witness to true connection, or will it perpetuate the actions of the denomination’s bishops to instead turn inward due to the current state of affairs? Time will tell whether the UMC will ever become that church that I once thought it was, or whether, in an effort for self-preservation of its institution, it will continue to simply be resigned to do its own thing.