One of the options for The United Methodist Church is dissolution: ending The UMC denomination and dividing resources and churches. What does that look like in practice?
Dissolution is not a Divorce
A commonly-used metaphor for the United Methodist Church is to say we are in a divorce proceeding. Divorce makes it seem straightforward and simple. That metaphor is not helpful (if anything, we are in a domestic violence proceeding as an abusive spouse has done harm to the other for 47 years), and, it turns out, it isn’t legally accurate either.
The United Methodist denomination is a government, not a marital relationship. A bishop was the first person who articulated this reality to me: the structure and framework of the denomination is a governing entity. It facilitates the worship of God known through Jesus Christ, but its function and purpose are more like a country more than a non-profit.
The UMC is a connection, a web of relationships, a quantity more than the sum of its parts. This is true. But it is also a government, a corporation without a head. Dissolution is the dismantling of a 50-year-old corporation’s governing relationships. It will be less like a divorce proceeding and more like…well…what would it look like?
I’ve asked some polity and outside counsels’ opinions and here are some thoughts if this ends up being The UMC’s future.
No precedent in church or society
There’s no contemporary precedent for this question of dissolving the United Methodist Church, even when we look at other churches.
When the other Seven Sisters of Protestantism engaged LGBTQ+ inclusion, there were eventually majorities that were affirming of LGBTQ+ relationships. There was no dissolution proceeding: the Traditionalists just left. The Presbyterians who didn’t agree with LGBTQ+ inclusion joined the Presbyterian Church of America, and the Episcopalians who didn’t agree with LGBTQ+ inclusion became the Anglican Church of North America. They did not dissolve anything: one sizable chunk just left and reconstituted, leaving the mother organization behind.
Other denominations experienced disaffiliation and reconstitution—they didn’t practice dissolution. If in the UMC the LGBTQ+ affirming folks disaffiliated and left, or if the Wesleyan Covenant Association disaffiliated and left, that has precedent, but that scenario is not dissolution. The ending of a denomination—closing down the mother organization entirely—has not been seen on this scale in modern times. On a smaller scale, when multisite Mars Hill church ceased to exist in Seattle, they eliminated the coordinating entity and set free each individual site to be on their own church–we’ll come back to this idea below.
There also isn’t a precedent in the secular recent history. The closest to taking a company and breaking it up into two competitors would be the anti-trust breakup of Bell telephone system into the Baby Bell telephone companies in the 1980s: a large company broke up into regional companies that were in the same market. The second closest is a scenario where a private equity firm buys up troubled firms for really cheap (ie. Richard Gere in Pretty Woman) and renegotiates the terms of their debt, splits or streamlines the company, and then does something with the pieces.
So without precedents, we are forced to step outside of examples and case studies and move into informed conjecture: What if the UMC decided to Dissolve? What would it look like?
It turns out there are at least two ways to do it: one with millions of dollars poured into lawyers and accountants—and the other (possibly) with those millions kept for missions and ministries.
Assets and Liabilities: The [Twenty] Million Dollar Problem
The closest comparison we might get to ecclesial dissolution is the restructuring of a corporation. The Rev. Christy Thomas, a blogger on Patheos, replied to my Facebook query about dissolving the UMC with this truly helpful commentary:
I asked my husband your questions–he has done this sort of thing for many years [in the secular world]. First, the main reason a company would do that (split into different companies) is because the administrative load has become unwieldy. It is unlikely they would intentionally be competing with each other. At the very least, they would work in separate territories.
Second, the firm seeking dissolution and restructuring would start with a first class accounting firm–something like Price Waterhouse (and their billing rate probably begins at about $400/hour for the more junior of the accountants). As they begin to sort out the assets (and if we are talking about the UMC, keep in mind that they are owned by lots of different agencies, jurisdictions, and AC’s), the complexity of the situation probably means several years of work. At that high billing rate, which will only go up as the complexities are uncovered bit by bit. Once the assets and ownership have been fully laid out, it becomes time to bring in the attorneys to draw up the dissolution and reorganization contracts.
That work demands that the CEO’s of the new divisions (or their reps) both be at the negotiating table to battle for their respective sides. They will need their own set of attorneys, and their sky-high billing rates, to represent them. Since the UMC doesn’t have CEO’s, that will be yet another challenge.
Likely, considering the complexity of the situation, we’d be talking at least [millions of dollars] in accounting and legal fees and several years of work.
Here’s the key point: figuring out assets and liabilities is not cheap. Both dissolution models (like the one written by the WCA President) and reconstitution models like Bard-Jones (writeup here on UMNS) reference determining assets and liabilities so they can be divided equally or proportionally. The above is what that means: hiring outside consulting firms to determine them, and then dividing them accordingly.
If we must determine such assets and liabilities, then the above is a likely scenario: years of work and small armies of accountants and lawyers draining our reserves, and in the end, all we have is fewer assets to disperse.
A [Better] Way to Dissolve: Set free.
The above example (using an asset/liability model which is part of the WCA President’s Plan and, to a lesser extent, Bard-Jones Plans) imagines Dissolution from the top-down: a consulting or strategic advisory firm comes in and evaluates and divvies up The UMC after years of resources have been consumed.
Is there a better way? Yes.
What happens if we do it from the bottom-up?
Technically, The UMC does not exist. What exists is a network of separately incorporated entities (annual conferences, general agencies, jurisdictions, and other institutions) doing business as “The United Methodist Church.” Legally, each entity owns its own assets/liabilities, though they are fiscally bound together as part of the whole.
Maybe the simplest answer is to just set free all the actual entities. The annual conferences, the general agencies, and other institutions all become independent, separate from each other. They already have their own legal statuses, 501c3 numbers (edit based on comments, they would have to get their own new 501c3 number because the UMC does have a group one that all entities are under), boards of directors, and organization plans. Annual conferences own their own property as the holders of the trust clauses. So by setting free each legal entity, you free the UMC from having to evaluate and divvy up assets and liabilities.
Then each legal entity can self-determine how to affiliate with other entities:
- Annual Conferences can choose to band together with other like-minded or geographically close conferences to share resources, appointments, etc. Local Churches can choose to go with their parent conference or they can leave and become independent through whatever process the AC determines. ACs already legally own their clergy’s pensions so their asset/liabilities would go with them at the funded rate, not the market rate.
- General Agencies: Some general agencies are wholly dependent on apportionments, so perhaps a 2-year funding plan can be part of any dissolution to give them time to reorganize. Some entities (ie. WesPath and United Methodist Women) are self-funded. Others may become part of their host institutions (Global Ministries is located in an Atlanta local church, Archives and History is at Drew University). And, sadly, some would close, sending their missions into different bodies.
- Seminaries, Universities, Hospitals, etc that already are their own legal entities would be set free to affiliate however they want.
- Central Conferences already exist in their own legal framework given their multinational presences, so they can affiliate with whatever legal entities they choose to be bound together with.
- Bishops would be problematic because they are technically employees of the GCFA. But they would be figured out by transfer to an annual conference or something.
In short, to avoid the asset/liability calculating conundrum and divvying up of General Agencies, the entities that comprise the United Methodist Church could simply disconnect and re-network together. That takes trust and relaxation of control, but it helps The UMC retain its money for missions and ministry.
Summary
Dissolution, like the 2019 plan by the President of the WCA, is the most costly direction forward for The United Methodist denomination, sucking millions of dollars from UMC coffers—dollars that local churches thought were for ministry and instead would go to legal processes, accountants, and lawyers. While proponents would claim it could be done cheaply, if we take our billions of dollars seriously—and the ministry they provide—then we should engage a reputable consulting firm if we are forced to evaluate assets and liabilities. To do any less is to dishonor decades of tithes and offerings.
But it turns out we don’t necessarily have to do it that way.
If dissolution is the way forward for The United Methodist Church, one possible path to avoid that would be to simply close down the network and allow the individual nodes to reconnect organically. Each legal entity as small as a community building and as large as an annual conference could become independent and band together with whichever conferences they want to, and contract for services from whichever former General Agency or Independent Commission they want to. It would take a few years, sure, but each entity could self-determine its best future, or hopefully band together with others for a common future.
The choice is ours: years of litigation or years of forming new expressions of Wesleyanism. I know which one I’d prefer.
Your Turn
I’m not advocating this as my preferred way forward—but if we do go this route, it doesn’t have to be a top-down process of lawyers and accountants but could be much more organic and collaborative, though surely not as simple as I outlined above. In this blog post, I’m just naming some of the realities we will have to contend with as we spend the next two months crafting something new by the September 18th deadline.
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media
Just a comment, not a thought. From what I understand, GBGM owns Grace UMC. They aren’t just ‘housed’ there but make all decisions for them in terms of access, etc.
Thank you for this thoughtful analysis. What General Conference actions and/or constitutional changes would be necessary to “set free” the various UMC entities? If constitutional changes are necessary, how feasible is this course of action?
Some questions about what you proposed in the more organic model: You stated that pensions are property of the annual conference. So, the individual clergy person has no “ownership” over any aspect of the pension (surely the Personal Investment Plan portions?) If the Annual conference goes one way and the individual church/pastor goes another, does the pastor lose his/her pension?
Bishops are employees of the GCFA? So does the episcopal fund apportionments we pay go to them? Maybe the bishops are employees of the GCFA, but their housing is owned by the annual conference, I’m sure. That’s another ball of wax
Most churches have endowments which is technically owned by United Methodist Foundations while benefitting the individual church. Must foundations and indivudual churches re-affiliate with the same entities for the churches to retain the benefit of their endowment corpus? I can see issues with endowments and foundations being a problem.
Must churches individually dissolve and re-incorporate? probably so. Must pastors become re-ordained by the new entitiy they join in order to legally operate as a “minister of the gospel?” probably so.
What a big mess. But–seems we’re bound for a mess regardless of the way forward.
What a big mess is exactly correct!
From what I understand about our history, it is a big mess that had its origins in the latter half of the 1800’s when Bishops at the time felt that what the church did was more important than what the church believed; the theory being that beliefs are a more divisive force than simply agreeing on what the church needs to be doing. As a result, everybody has developed different beliefs about God and the church. Well, we are learning just how divisive beliefs are when they lead us to completely different understandings of what it is the church needs to be doing.
The Jesus dissolution plan:
“…we lack one thing. Go, sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, then, come follow me.”
Amen.
This solves a lot of problems.
No ‘spend’.
Nobody has to commit to anything they don’t agree with.
It’s a little chaotic. It’s probably the easiest/quickest way to get to where we need to be, particularly considering the lack of trust that’s inherent in the system right now.
I would hope that the freedom to go any way you want would apply to the AC of the Central Conferences as well. In two of the European Central Conferencens the different ACs are divided in the same way that the US ACs are.
I would hope that freedom extends to the Central Conferences.
Perhaps too, down the road, we could follow some of the standards the British Methodists have set.
A little quibble regarding “They already have their own legal statuses, 501c3 numbers…”
While the ACs certainly have legal statuses and EIN numbers, in my experience, many of them haven’t applied for their own 501(c)(3) status from the IRS because they’re covered under The United Methodist Church Group Tax Exemption Ruling (“UMC GroupRuling”). All UM agencies, annual conferences, local churches, and other UM entities are covered by this single IRS determination. While some local churches also acquire their own 501(c)(3) status, typically when they have a foundation or a preschool, if there was a broad dissolution, many churches and annual conferences would probably lose their current coverage under the UMC GroupRuling. Standard disclaimer: IANAL.
“…EIN numbers…” — oops. I’ve knocked people for saying “PIN numbers” and so I’m *SMH* at myself now for doing the same thing! 😉
Thanks David. I conflated EIN with 501c3 designations. I’ll update the post.
You have some excellent points. I do wish you could begin an article without finger pointing and saying harm has been done for 47 years or whatever…Harm works both ways and speaking of it constantly is really not helpful and only causes a stirring of the already complicated UMC spaghetti problem. Your idea of saving money by dissolution by the bottom up is interesting and causes all of us to think.
This can be done with little harm to anyone and that should be our goal. Thank you.
So you’d prefer he dilute the truth to make you feel better?
No I believe he’s saying why start with a negative and criticism.
Sometimes the truth is hard to hear. But hearing the truth about harm that I caused (intentionally or not) is not harm to me. It’s a gift of truth.
People who think they are just trying to share the good news by telling LGBTQIA+ folks who to love and how to be ARE COMMUNICATING THAT WHO LGBTQIA+ FOLKS ARE IS BROKEN AND UNACCEPTABLE. This is an attempt (volitional or not) to shame, to say “who you are is not acceptable.”
On the other hand, when LGBTQIA+ folks say “that’s hurtful,” they are saying “your actions cause harm”. This implies some guilt, but it does not entail shame. Guilt is a feeling that I did something wrong and I know it (and ideally my guilt motivates me to turn and go the other way…. Also known as “repentance.”) Guilt is not about who I am, but what I have done.
I get that the Traditionalists cannot believe Queer folks were wonderfully and powerfully made by God to be exactly who they are. But I’m still waiting for some of them to understand that their words communicate a rejection of the very being of the people who they’d like to change. Queer folks know who they are. There is no “love the sinner, hate the sin” lecture that will translate as actual love for people when the lecturer is telling them that who they are is incompatible with Christian teaching.
I’m sorry if some people feel offended or attacked or sad or misunderstood for their Traditionalist positions. I am unwilling to call this “harm” or to say that this causes harm to Traditionalists.
[Deleted some unhelpful sarcasm about what I WOULD call those feelings]. Because I am trying to tell the truth in love.
Helpful analysis, Jeremy. Thank you.
In terms of any division of assets, I think general church assets are what we would be looking at, not local church or annual conference assets. (Annual conference assets designated for pensions would have to be factored in to the pension liability question.)
Regarding valuation, every year GCFA values the assets of the general church. Could we not agree to accept those valuations without the need for forensic accounting? A division of assets could take place via negotiation where possible, with an arbitration board making final decisions where necessary.
Another idea mentioned by Wespath several times in their report to the 2019 General Conference is the converting of all the post-82 pension plans to cash value plans, which would eliminate in one stroke all the unfunded liabilities that are of concern. See pp. 157-161 of the ADCA. It would also eliminate the need to reapportion liabilities among the various annual conferences as local churches realign with different expressions. That would probably save millions in administrative time to calculate all the liabilities.
Just some thoughts as we seek to find the best way to resolve our impasse.
Thanks Tom. I hadn’t seen the ADCA section, so that will be helpful to read.
Regarding valuation, I would hesitate just based on how many local churches value their properties in round numbers, so they don’t actually know. While it wouldn’t be too hard to do, I fear the slippery slope of accepting numbers that are not always on the level.
#umcSetFree
UmcSetFree.org
Time to take back the UMC. https://blog.acton.org/archives/2286-review-taking-back-the-united-methodist-church.html
https://www.change.org/p/united-methodist-church-members-remove-politics-church-society-from-the-united-methodist-church?recruiter=53749527&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=Search%3ESAP%3EUS%3EBrand%3EProper%3EExact&recruited_by_id=50e8bb10-b7d3-0130-eaaf-3c764e04873b
I challenge anyone with a mind for geometric relationships to draft two, three, four flow charts that depict relationships of the multiple entities and levels possible for the UMC and an MC. When we actually see the whole mess perhaps all the esoteric and ecclesiastic gobbledegook can be sorted out creatively.
I think we need to look back at the Civil War period and earlier to see how the Protestant churches divided on the question of slavery. Many main stream churches tolerated and even advanced slavery ideals while others were abolitionists. Let’s explore how these churches healed after slavery. Maybe we can get some ideas.
Also in these trying political times I am seeing churches divided by Trump policies. Many claim they will fight to the death and the victor will have to pry the guns from their dead hands to promote the policies of Trump. Others in the church have vowed to die before allowing tyranny and fascist policies to rule. how is the Church going to handle this great schism ?
Unfortunately, very true
Districts. We never talk about Districts. In larger conferences, there is a huge difference in demographic and economic realities between various districts leaving a lot of tension for decisions to be made. Easy to say we just dismiss that all as “middle management”, but then we lack accountability and connectivity and networking.
I am waiting for the plan that takes the local churches into consideration. This theological divide goes all the way into the local church and in areas like mine, some will have absolutely nowhere to go other than a completely different church/denomination. Everybody will be dealing with some amount of membership loss and I would not be surprised if some local churches that are currently holding their own are decimated.
I firmly believe that we are better together than separated, and personally I’m totally against schism, separation, divorce, cutting the baby down the middle, carving up the fiscal pie, or whatever you want to call it.
But I am also aware that we participate in a voluntary covenant of governance by consent of the governed. And that our BoD needs to represent a consensus, rather than a punitive plan for enforcing rules to which a large majority objects. Our BoD never envisioned holding (and paying for) an endless stream of church trials of those who are determined to follow a course of ‘Biblical obedience’ resulting in ‘ecclesial disobedience.’ You don’t have to be a rocket scientist (or a bishop) to see that that’s just not gonna work.
Having survived the world’s worst divorce, I agree with Jamie that lining lawyers’ pockets while we pick over the fiscal bones of the United Methodist carcass is not the way to go.
But I’m also totally against the Jones/Bard Plan, in that it’s the last gasp of the Tom Lambert coalition to launch a lifeboat for the few traditionalist annual conferences and scattered traditionalist churches elsewhere who are determined to salvage and enforce the Traditional(ist) Plan.
While I hate to see them leave, we really can’t stop them, since they’re so determined to have their way. Or else. And, what’s way worse, they’re doing their best to claim the mantle of being 100% right in how they read the Bible and enforce the Discipline. That’s called punitive judgmentalism: my way or the highway to Hell. Not exactly what Jesus had in mind.
If new legislation enacted @ GC 2020 allows annual conferences to disengage from the UMC in order to join a ‘new expression’ of Methodism, why not encourage the vast majority to do so? Without needing to pass constitutional amendments to create a new Central Conference in the USA, we could see a new ‘daughter denomination’ emerge with its own GC and BoD. And, most importantly, without the burden of having its direction determined by the votes of GC delegates from Africa and the Philippines.
In other words, we can’t ‘force’ the African Central Conferences to vote for autonomous status. Chris Ritter says that is envisioned in the Jones/Bard Plan (or, alternately, joining the Traditionalist Methodist Church).
I very strongly suspect that GC delegates from African Central Conferences do not want to be squeezed out of the UMC unwillingly. Everything from their perks, their free travel, their free cell phones, their political clout among American traditionalists and incentives to vote with them, their financial subsidies, their episcopal funding, and their pride in their bishops (especially the Côte d’Ivoire Methodists, who wanted to have a bishop when they merged with the UMC in 2004), their cross & flame logo, and their UMC identity would be hard to give up.
And all that is just for starters!
Let’s not forget their addiction to preserving the “incompatible” language in the Discipline as external/eternal validation of their cultural homophobia. And our implicit neocolonial mindset that works both ways to keep African Methodists emotionally tied to their relationship with American Methodists. (I’m eliding the word ‘United’ here.)
So, bottom line is: if the Africans won’t leave the UMC, let’s leave them—plus the annual conferences in Alabama, South Georgia, Kentucky, Texas, western Pennsylvania, and perhaps a few others—to hold up the tent pole of what was a very big tent.
I believe we are better together than separated. I’m totally against schism, separation, divorce, slicing the baby down the middle, or carving up the fiscal pie.
But I am also aware that we participate in a voluntary covenant of governance by consent of the governed. And that our BoD needs to represent a consensus, rather than a punitive plan for enforcing rules to which a large majority objects. Our BoD never envisioned holding an endless stream of church trials of those determined to enact ‘Biblical obedience’. You don’t have to be a bishop to see that that’s just not gonna work.
Lining lawyers’ pockets while we pick over the fiscal bones of the United Methodist carcass is not the way to go.
But I’m also totally against the Jones/Bard Plan, in that it’s the last gasp of Tom Lambert’s Coalition to launch a lifeboat for the few traditionalist annual conferences and traditionalist churches who are determined to enforce the Traditionalist Plan.
While I hate to see them leave, we really can’t stop them, since they’re so determined to have their way. And, what’s way worse, to claim the mantle of being 100% right in how they read the Bible and enforce the Discipline. That’s called punitive judgmentalism: My Way or the Highway to Hell. Not exactly what Jesus had in mind.
If new legislation enacted @ GC 2020 allows annual conferences to leave the UMC, let’s encourage the vast majority to do so. Without needing to pass constitutional amendments to create a new Central Conference in the USA, we could see a new ‘daughter denomination’ emerge with its own GC and BoD.
And, most importantly, without the burden of having its direction determined by the votes of GC delegates from Africa and the Philippines.
We can’t force the African Central Conferences to vote for autonomous status. Chris Ritter says that is envisioned in the Jones/Bard Plan (or, alternately, joining the Traditionalist Methodist Church).
I suspect that GC delegates from African Central Conferences do not want to be squeezed out of the UMC unwillingly. Everything from their perks, their free travel, their free cell phones, their political clout among American traditionalists and incentives to vote with them, their financial subsidies, their episcopal funding, and their pride in their bishops (especially the Côte d’Ivoire Methodists, who wanted to have a bishop when they merged with the UMC in 2004), their cross & flame logo, and their UMC identity would be hard to give up.
And all that is just for starters!
Let’s not forget their addiction to preserving the “incompatible” language in the Discipline as external/eternal validation of their cultural homophobia. And our implicit neocolonial mindset that works both ways to keep African Methodists emotionally tied to their relationship with Americans.
if the Africans won’t leave the UMC, let’s leave them.
Plus AC’s in AL, south GA, KY, TX, & western PA to hold up the tent pole of what was a very big tent.
Simple Solution for the Simple Plan.
You can say that again…….
I laughed. Oh, the demon of duplication, get thee behind me! 🙂
I like what you wrote….but it is still a dissolution plan
“if anything, we are in a domestic violence proceeding as an abusive spouse has done harm to the other for 47 years”
Thank you for acknowledging the harm that has been done by the progressive wing of the church over the last 47 years. I look forward to the day when we stop harming one another. Unfortunately, that statement was followed up by this description of the UMC. “It facilitates the worship of God known through Jesus Christ”. That statement seems to imply Jesus is not God. Surely that was not the intent. Was it?