The ripple effects are waves upon not-too-distant shores
The Mississippi Two?
Recently, two high profile United Methodist churches in Mississippi voted to begin to leave United Methodism. Here’s the write up on UMReporter by the Good News Movement and the Mississippi bishop responded here. As rationale for their actions, both churches expressed discontent with LGBTQ inclusion, and neither offered critiques of their district or Annual Conference or even their own bishop.
As I see conservatives nodding their head and saying “yeah, stick it to The Man” and progressives saying “don’t let the door hit you on the way out”…I’m not sure the real effects of a church leaving are properly understood.
When a church leaves The United Methodist Church, there is a wave of pain…but it doesn’t travel very far, and it is felt most directly by the people closest to the local church itself. Their action of discontent doesn’t reverberate to the global church (the source of their discontent) to the same magnitude that it affects the annual conference, whom they are most likely to be in alignment with.
Let’s run the scenarios:
Taking the money…but from whom?
When a church leaves The UMC, they take their yearly tithe with them. Churches pay a yearly tithe to the regional and global entities called an Apportionment: a portion from each church meant for work beyond their borders. A typical dollar in the offering plate given to a local UMC is apportioned like this, with only 2% given to General Church needs, but 7% given to regional needs.
If a church gives $10,000 a year in a church tithe, and they withhold that tithe, then that is $10k less given to the Annual Conference budget. Mt. Bethel in Georgia did that to North Georgia AC in 2014 (link). It hurts. But if they leave the denomination, then that $10k apportionment is simply redistributed among the rest of the churches: say 40 churches will pay $250 more in Apportionments.
So if a church leaves the denomination, they do not actually harm the finances of the global church very much: the regional authorities simply redistribute and reallocate the assigned funds, with most of the burden shifting to the large churches in their conference, which are likely ideologically similar to them. So the action doesn’t affect the target of their discontent.
When a church leaves The UMC, they do not hurt the general church at the level they hope for…they just make life harder for every other church in their region when it comes to the church tithe. They do harm to fellow churches, not directly to the regional powers-that-be.
Taking the property…but who loses out?
When a church leaves The UMC, they try to take their property with them. Church properties are held “in trust” by the local church and revert to the Annual Conference when the church is sold or no longer is United Methodist. That’s been a key deterrent to hot-headed decisions: the financial loss gives even the most wayward church pause.
So what normally happens when a church closes, due to decline or financial woes?
When a church closes, their property reverts to Conference control and is occasionally used for a new church plant, but more often it is just sold. In my annual conference, the majority portion of a sold property’s profit is given to a fund for new church starts. The life cycle begins again: with a church’s death, it gives new life. With liquidation comes baptism of something new. It makes sense.
So when a church leaves and does not compensate the Annual Conference, the life cycle stops. There’s no money given for new church starts. There’s no easy entry back into a neighborhood. The people harmed are those non-Christians who might otherwise have found Christ.
When a church leaves, they are saying they do not want The United Methodist Church to have the resources to reach new people in new places, or people in their neighborhood. They do harm to evangelism to which all are called, not to institutional leadership.
Taking the voice of the people
When a church leaves The UMC, they take their people with them. This means that, eventually, their church congregation will switch their memberships from The UMC to their local church or their new affiliated denomination.
While that is their choice, again it is the Annual Conference that suffers most. Allocations of General Conference representation are done by membership of a region. If two churches with a membership of 5000 leave, then that is 5000 fewer members for the allocations, and the Annual Conference becomes at risk of losing two votes at General Conference.
We know population matters very much because churches often do not do their required work of auditing membership rolls. Here’s the data on that trend. In short, population = representation, so lowering the population decreases representation.
When churches leave out of protest, the effect is that the Annual Conference loses representation in the global church, and is less able to advocate for their region across the whole of Methodism. It’s an odd target if the leaving church is ideologically similar to their conference.
Summary: Misfires and Short-Sightedness
In short, if you are discontent with The UMC as a global entity, disaffiliation will not harm the global UMC to the same degree as your district or Annual Conference:
- They will bear the financial burdens of your absence.
- They will lose the church planting ability.
- They will have a diminished voice for change or continuity in the denomination.
But if you are discontent with your regional entities, then that’s where disaffiliation makes some sense: you may not care if your circles of harm include your neighboring churches. It’s mean, but at least the recipient of your discontent is also the recipient of the harm of your actions.
But what about Mississippi?
Knowing this, the Mississippi case makes little sense given that the two churches are in theological alignment with their Annual Conference. Their AC will bear the most harm, not the Western Jurisdiction or the Bishops.
It only makes sense if this is part of a larger effort.
We will turn to that in the next post on this blog. (Cue foreshadowing)
In the meantime…
Your turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and your shares on social media.
While I agree with the “logistics” listed here, they are, to me, less the point. To me, the real concern is literally ripping the people out of our Church. When Park City UMC left the Conference a couple of years ago, the loss I felt at losing these members of my family (and, no, I was not a member of that church) was tremendous. We are a connected church, living together in covenant and communion. It is exactly as if a member of our family suddenly divorces us and leaves forever.
And I am similarly concerned about these people who were likewise part of our connection. Suddenly they are divorces from us, leaving them, and us dramatically poorer.
I, like many, am worried and very concerned about how decisions made regarding this issue will affect our Connection. And I am very much afraid that regardless of which way the decisions are made, there will be a horrific ripping asunder of our Church. How I wish this wouldn’t happen.
As the UMC accepts anything the secular world offers, it has forfeited it moral compass. From open homosexual bishops, transgender pastor and other
non-biblical standards, many of us in,the UMC believe it’s time to leave a corrupted
church. A new beginning with biblical foundations. A return to the word of God
and not the liberal bishops and central government of a Fallen church.
I believe the UMC heiracy and liberal bishops have fallen short of honoring and upholding their vows and following the book of Discipline. I believe when the southeast and southwest churches like Dallas and Charlotte are paying for bishops salaries in Western and north western conferences due to lack of members and funding that the local churches adhering to the rules and guidelines in the book of Discipline have the right to keep their congregation and buildings.
As the UMC accepts anything the secular world offers, it has forfeited it moral compass. From open homosexual bishops, transgender pastor and other
non-biblical standards, many of us in,the UMC believe it’s time to leave a corrupted
church. A new beginning with biblical foundations. A return to the word of God
and not the liberal bishops and central government of a Fallen church, focused on maintaining its income stream. It’s now all about the CASH.
The link ad on this site is “Free Obituary Search”
The adsense algorithms nail it again!
I’d post the screens shot but your settings won’t allow it..
peace
M
Mark, you make a wonderful and fun point. However, as I understand the algorithms, the ads that show up are related to the user on the page at the time. I don’t see any Obituary stuff, but I am suddenly troubled by all the Viagra billboards.
Peace brother
I’m curious– What happens to the pastors at the MS churches? Do they surrender their denominational credentials and forfeit their benefits?
If they leave the UMC, they would be asked to surrender their ordination in the United Methodist Church.
I believe that one surrenders their connectional membership. My understanding is that Ordination is of God and not up for surrender.
not in the United Methodist Tradition, Ordination is an office of the denomination.
I think that it’s their choice….we have numerous “Methodist” pastors serving in non-Methodist churches/entities. If they are appointed by the Bishop they can request to be appointed outside the Annual Conference so, as I understand it, they could (if they want) ask to be assigned to The Orchard or Getwell Road.
no, it’s not their choice. The Conference Board of Ordained Ministry in partnership with the Bishop and the Bishop’s Cabinet make the choice.
It would be hard pressed for someone to remain a part of a denomination (through ordination) and also consent to remaining with a congregation that wants to leave it. That is a pretty major dissonance. To all at once agree with your congregation and also to try to remain in covenant with other clergy and churches is not really honest with everyone. While technically it is possible that someone could pastor a church that leaves the UMC and keep their ordination, I think it is effectually impossible considering relationships and reality.
I’m not sure that they are aligned theologically with the Annual Conference. There are many theological perspectives alive and well in the Mississippi Conference. I think you make a broad assumption that the entire Mississippi Conference is aligned with the same theological perspectives of these two congregations. It is a fact that there are other congregations who are aligned with these theological perspectives, that doesn’t hold true for the entirety of the Annual Conference.
That is true, Joseph. The two conservative churches that are leaving are not theologically aligned with many in leadership in the Annual Conference who follow the national church trends. Several other Mississippi churches theologically similar to Getwell Road and The Orchard in Tupelo are contemplating leaving the UMC. The bad thing about that from the money perspective and the Annual Conference is these others are as dynamic and wealthy as Getwell Road and The Orchard. It is the churches most aligned with The United Methodist Church nationally that are for the most part dying in Mississippi. That’s where Jeremy’s argument about church planting and evangelism breaks down; churches supporting a libertine sexuality do not grow here, but evangelism to relationship with Jesus who welcomed sinners but enjoined them to “go and sin no more” will continue to thrive at Getwell Road, The Orchard and churches similar to them as it has for years.
“libertine sexuality”
I think that’s a really fascinating way of characterizing the position.
I’d probably invite you to rethink that.
The meaning of libertine used in context above: free thinking in religious matters.
Impossible to change Biblical Christianity with feelings oriented rethink. Proscription against same sex relationships is plain in the Torah and New Testaments. The practice is sin. Jesus declaration regarding sin is, “Go and sin no more”. His Words are eternal.
[Guess I’ll do like Kenneth Baker above and double-post what I put on FB; agree with him too btw.]
I agree with this more than I agree with most things you post 😉 Actually I agree with all your broad points but not with some of the details. I am certainly not one of those conservatives saying “stick it to the man.” I’ve seen just as many conservative saying, “What on earth are you thinking? Why *now* of all times? Why there of all places?” I believe these departures reduce all involved. I believe those local churches are missing part of the picture even though they believe they can serve the Kingdom of God better locally if they are free of denominational encumbrance. (In the long run I believe non-denominational churches are foolish, and every local church should make some attempt at connecting in an accountable way with the larger Body of Christ). On some level though, I don’t think we (the UMC, liberal or conservative) should take it personally, but more as a general sign of the times. People just have less denominational loyalty, and this is one symptom. People tend to move toward less immediate pain and anguish, and the UMC has a lot of pain and anguish right now, so for a lot of folks it’s a cost-benefit analysis, and there just isn’t much benefit
James, you are absolutely right. It does seem foolish, though my personal opinion is that if a church feels so strongly that they are (pardon the term) put their money where their mouth is and actually pay a settlement to keep their property and their pastors want to hand in their ordinations, then I would say to any church (conservative or liberal) God bless you as you go. I do think because of the WCA we are going to see far fewer of these individual churches deciding to leave. Because conservatives have a place to ‘land’ and share their feelings I believe the WCA is encouraging churches to remain in the denomination. They have continually advocated for churches to remain in covenant with the Annual Conference and they are waiting, like everyone, for the Commission on a Way Forward, to do their work.
I believe the question should be reframed along these lines: “What option does a local church have if they feel disconnected from the UMC?” There are any number of rocks upon which we can break ourselves; the sexual orientation debates just happens to be the biggest. If the local church is losing service and stewardship because of the (in)action of the General Conference, regardless of the issue, how can it possibly hope to make its voice heard? I agree with some of the logistical arguments you make above, but at some point the membership will be heard one way or another. The hierarchy should be doing a better job than they are of at least making a show of calming the waters and trying to address the issues raised by “rogue” churches instead of worrying about how to spread the tithe.
It would be great, Tim, if the hierarchy would demonstrate how they are working on reconciliation and connection at a time when we feel very disconnected due to great divisions. I believe that a few events have made that even more difficult, especially the election of an openly lesbian bishop. These sort of events are causing churches like these to leave in greater numbers.
I could not agree with you more. I serve a small church that’s very wary of what may be coming down the road. All they want to do is love and serve God and be in communion with others who feel the same. People of goodwill can disagree with their reading of Scripture and the Discipline, but that’s what their reason and experience stems from.
Could one of you at least mention Scriptual teaching and the Bible? Emotions are infamously mercurial and unreliable basis for decisions. Seminaries are turning out NWO heresy filled graduates who are easily identifiable by verbiage and message subject matter.
A church building ia a place to worship our Triune God, to hear the message of salvation and fellowship with others in the Spirit’s stream. The church is the Body of Christ. These are eternal basics that cannot be modified or over-ridden by “new norms”, new music or get-more-bodies-in-pews membership drives.
Any congregation that raises funds and builds a worship facility owns it. The trust document is a form of bondage blackmail.
I have to wonder why they are leaving now. I do not see how their tithes can simply be redistributed to the remaining churches. You can only do that so much before you begin to crush the churches remaining. Churches this size must be kicking a lot upstairs so there will be a sizeable budget hole.
This just looks like the leading edge of the unraveling yet to come as our connection breaks down.
Perhaps the districts and denominational governors should consider this before jumping onto the clearly heretical alphabet people bandwagon and condoning abortion.
The points of Christian living are
What would Jesus do?
and
If Jesus came again this parsec, would He be pleased with my words and deed?
Our words and actions should match and they bring either rewards or consequences.
I’m rather curious, also, about the amount of debt attributed to the church and its building. It seems to me that would be a way to move around the trust clause and ensure they can keep their building: if they had to revert their building back to the Annual Conference (which, per discipline, even if they left the denomination they would be required to do), they would be saddling the Annual Conference with such a large amount of debt for a single building that the Annual Conference wouldn’t necessarily want to keep that building as part of its assets.
(I think all of this is implied in a paragraph between your discussion of the trust clause and what would happen if the church got to keep its building, but is yet another aspect of poor stewardship on the part of a church, if that was their financial situation.)
I’m not saying that’s true for either of these churches, but it’s certainly something to consider for any church that’s had a major building campaign in recent years. They’re not the churches who have had the mortgage paid off for a century.
I can agree with the 1st and 3rd points, and while it is a shame that this will ultimately hurt the institution, it is not the institution that we are called to serve and protect. As far as the 2nd point, I am not in agreement. These churches are not going to load up their buildings and go somewhere else to find a new community in which to do ministry. The whole reason given for this decision, which must have been difficult, is that because of all the politicking and bureaucratic noise within the denomination, these church have found it difficult to do the work that God has called them to do in reaching people for Christ. I can totally understand that. The very institution that you are arguing is going to be hurt by this unfortunate situation has created an environment where it is impossible for Pastors and Lay Members to accomplish the mission of the church. Again, that mission is not to make sure that this broken system continues to be well funded.
I agree with you Mike. These are not rogue churches and the pastor are two of the finest pastors you would ever want. It would be good if christians reread Acts 22 through Acts 28. They deal with Christianity on trial. Paul stays firm to the teaching of the apostles doctrine.
As a church leaves and takes their apportionment with them, the annual conf. has a number of options in my mind. The ann conf. can reduce staff, reduce the percentage of general church apportionments, or reduce programming. They may also choose to try and retain the previous level of budget by increasing the apportionment asked of the churches. If a number “secede,” from a given ann. conf one or more of these responses seem to be the response.
If a great host of churches secede then the Church will be forced to look at changing structures from general church on foen to the ann church level. That’s when the rubber will hit the road. In my opinion.
I think, poor kids! There are BOUND to be some children who will grow up and either during or post their teenage years they will dig deep for the courage to speak with an adult (friend/family/church family) about their sexuality. This decision by these churches ignores the needs of the unknown children in the future. I feel sure it was not easy for them, but THAT is what I find so difficult to understand about their decisions.
Paul, I’ve got to missing something… are departing churches unable to speak with youth or young adults about sexuality? Are the remaining local churches… or their annual conferences… unable to speak with youth or young adults about sexuality? If anything, local churches within a global connection that seems unable to speak with a common voice about matters of sexuality would seem to be those that will have the greatest difficulty in inviting youth or young adults into those conversations. Independent congregations, it would seem, ought to be in a far better position to bring a consistent message to the conversation.
I love both of the pastors and congregations of these two churches. I understand their desire to kick the dust from their feet and move on. But I would have preferred that they waited and help lead the whole Annual Conference to go together if we are to leave. We may have a few liberal preachers, but we have no liberal progressive churches in Mississippi. The Methodist in Mississippi believe in the authority of Scripture, love Lord with all their heart, obey his voice and cling to him. By brothers and sisters in Christ let us join hands together and fight the good fight – whatever out future let us stay together.
It sounds to me that the article is advocating placing financial interests in front of upholding a doctrinal position. I believe there are loftier positions to take in favor of remaining in the denomination and fighting the good fight rather than money. It has the appearance of choosing mammon over God.
The money lost is not money for profit, but rather money used for Ministry, such as healthcare, Ministerial funds, UMCOR, the United Methodist News Service, etc. Some other people could name other good ways the apportionment funds are used.
“When a church leaves The UMC, they do not hurt the general church at the level they hope for…”
Do you think that is why they leave? To hurt people and the Church? Give them more credit as Christians than that! They are leaving to help people remain faithful to truth.
I agree with James that these churches deserve a more grace-filled understanding as to why they are leaving. I also agree that separating themselves from the UMC will enable them to engage in honest teaching re sexuality from a classical Christian perspective. I fully understand their feeling that they are ready to be done. It is no wonder that lack of trust in leadership has been identified as a huge problem within the denomination. This insane no-win argument has been going on for way too long. Sexuality should have never been allowed to become the do or die issue for the denomination.
Re the premise that the departure of these church will not impact the denomination: If the reports are true that the Western Jurisdiction is not financially self-supporting then you will be feeling their departure. Within the past couple of years another large conservative church in Pennsylvania was also allowed to leave the denomination because its debt was too large. The financial mainstay of many conferences are large conservative churches whose debt would tank the conference. Which, from my perspective, points to a more pragmatic failure in conference leadership.
In conclusion I leave you with this observation: After spending 4 long, disheartening years listening to the myriad of voices across the denomination, I find that one thing is perfectly clear: progressives are insistent that the whole church gets in lockstep with them. What progressives refuse to accept/understand is that is so not happening.
It is a shame that our hearts, minds and doors aren’t open enough to remain in community with our brothers and sisters with whom we disagree and sometimes don’t even like. I am broken-hearted and grieving for our church. I would argue that our lack of commitment to relationships in this case is similar to if not the same responsible for our high divorce rates. Remember that our hope is in God! God remains faithful to the covenant and will use even these difficult and divisive times to accomplish her good works. Pray for each other, for our church and especially for those with whom we disagree in this matter! Study Scripture in small groups including those with different interpretations than our own. Worship together with all.
The consideration should first be to how UMC doctrine is lining up with scriptures. People come to worship God, not the church. The church must examine itself to see if all its doctrines “be in the faith.”
This schism in the UMC reminds me of a self inflicted gunshot wound to the head. The fact that the UMC can’t obey it’s own laws, much less the scriptural ones, is a source of much confusion among the membership. Sin is sin, whether homosexual, heterosexual, or other, and it distances us from God. It seem that the “progressive” element of the UMC wants to see how much sin can be gotten away with and not affect the coffers, not that I hear the topic of sin preached upon much these days.Being a card carrying Methodist is not a automatic pass into Heaven, but the bearer may be pulled aside for further questioning. We are rapidly becoming lukewarm, and when we are spewed out it won’t be because God forsook us, but because we forsook Him.
Ahem, brother!
I do not agree with the church building going to the conference. After all, members of the church built that building. My father, uncle, aunts, mom and other people I know built our church building. If the church closed its doors for some reason I believe the remaining members or the founding father’s families should decide what happens to the building. I would vote for selling it and letting the remaining members and/or founding fathers families decide which charity gets the funds (and not one approved by the Methodist Conference, but one all of the members agree on). But then, I don’t agree with everything the Methodist Conference decides.
Possible problems with the decision as to which charity? Of course! But I believe it could be worked out peacefully.
Mya, with respect, I would note that the people you mentioned built your church not for themselves, but for the ministry of the church as a whole. They did so knowing that the building and land are held in trust for the denomination. That means that the trustees of your church have a fiduciary duty to the United Methodist Church in addition to your congregation. To breach that duty would be dishonesty of the worst sort.
Most churches have property and buildings that were acquired and built by prior generations who depend on current generations to carry forward their mission. I worship in a church building built in the 1830s on land deeded to the congregation by one of its members explicitly for the ministry of the denomination, not the personal use of the members. (Yes, we have an early version of the trust clause in our deed.) You simply cannot treat church property as the property of the members of a particular congregation. The Methodist system does not work that way and never has.
I need to correct my own post. I just re-read our church’s deed. The deed was not to the congregation at all, but to the trustees “in behalf of the Methodist Episcopal Church” (one of the UMC’s predecessor denominations). The deed does not even mention the name of the congregation. The deed says that the trustees are at all times to permit all duly authorized ministers of the M.E. Church to expound God’s holy word and to administer the ordinances of the church. It doesn’t get any clearer than that.
So, I guess I am still confused. Does this mean if your church chooses to go the Traditional Methodist route, the United Methodist conference can take the church and all other assets?
“take” ? No. He’s saying that the The United Methodist Church would KEEP the church for the church’s ministries, just as it had for years. Just as the generations before intended.
But of course all that would be overturned by the latest separation agreement.
A lot said about property and money but very little about people’s eternal souls.
It seems to me that in many cases within the UMC both regeonal and locally, the blind is leading the blind. Now if scripture was preached from the UMC pulpits as it should be, one should ask. Doesn’t the bible say that “ALL” will wind up in the ditch. Just how much being off target does it take for one to ‘miss the mark’. Long before the BOD came into existance, we had the good old KJVB. It seems to me our Bishops and conference leaders have neglected God’s word and replaced it with someone’s own interpretation. Our BOD agree’d with the bible until satan comes in with this LGBrQZ etc. to lead unlearned bible scholars astray. I and my family will be leaving the UMC for no other reason than this. The UMC Bishops and powers that bee is so complacent on this subject, I will not wait any longer for them to attempt to try to figure out “some way forward, etc” to kick in and in hopes that everyone just can get along. No where in my bible does it say I have to go along with their dragging their feet. They will be the cause of the downfall of the UMC.
Respectively
Beyond the building, what happens to the funds accumulated and invested in accounts and foundations? Some churches have accumulated large bank accounts due to the generosity of those members that have gone before us. What happens to those monies if a UMC closes its doors?
Your concern about finances, and people leaving and the “life cycle” of the United Methodist Church being disrupted by churches leaving, and acting like pointing this out to those considering leaving will change anything fundamentally misses the point.
The congregants of a local church that overwhelmingly vote to leave the United Methodist Church DON’T WANT TO BE A PART OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH. Concerns about the finances of the UMC, the membership of the UMC, the life cycle of the UMC, are so far beyond the point that they are hard to exaggerate.
Why would the members of a local church who paid for the mortgage on a new building, who have labored their time and effort to maintain the property via work days, who have spent hours and hours and hours on the campus of the church they love doing ministry with the people they love, want any of that effort and investment to go back to the organization that has abandoned their discipline and no longer stand for what that local church believes.
The local church isn’t leaving the UMC, the UMC abandoned responsibility to enforce discipline, and now the local churches are voting with their feet and finances.
Good riddance to the UMC and the entire bureaucracy that flagrantly ignores the book of Discipline, then uses the Book of Discipline to steal churches from congregations that stand up against this violation of responsibility.
My Local Church is currently having financial troubles. Our congregation is over 100 years old. Was mostly a family church through most of those 100 years, now it is down to fewer than 40 faithful attenders who can are not able to financially able due to retirement to tithe the full $9,000 need to run the church. The conference in Louisiana is no help. We meet with the DS and they wanted us to take some classes to help build membership, which said classes cost.