A close review of our Methodist church history yields a rather convincing 1939 parallel of how a like-minded movement to today’s Global Methodist Church turned out.
An Inaccurate Comparison
Recently, as the administrator of the 11,000 member United Methodist Clergy Facebook group, I deleted a post that was offensive.
The post was about the Methodist Episcopal Church South (MECS), which, in 1844 just before the American Civil War, broke off from the Methodist Episcopal Church so they could continue to cling to slavery and reject free abolitionist authorities. The post compared the MECS to the Wesleyan Covenant Association’s new splinter denomination (the Global Methodist Church) that is so determined to cling to anti-gay hysteria that they are willing to break away from The United Methodist Church.
Traditionalists on the Facebook group were unsurprisingly unhappy at being compared to the slaveholding Methodist Episcopal Church, South. They complained and so I deleted it.
But I deleted it because there’s a more accurate and more recent parallel to the Global Methodist Church in our history, and churches and pastors should know our history so they know what they are signing up for if they break away now.
The Segregated Methodist Church, 1939
In the 1930s, a movement was underway to reunite the aforementioned Methodist Episcopal Church (basically the North), the MECS, and the Methodist Protestant Church. While creating a Plan of Union, some in the South balked at unifying with the North because they didn’t want to have the black churches and pastors gain equality with the churches of the South.
Those seeking unity capitulated to this group. Per Jane Ellen Nickell in We Shall Not Be Moved: Methodists debate race, gender, and homosexuality (2014), quote:
“[Delegates] did not argue in favor of an integrated church or increased power for African Americans. Instead [they] assured MECS delegates that the plan addressed such concerns by keeping African Americans segregated and by limiting their influence on the larger church.” (Nickell, 43)
As they sought unity, they accomplished it through perpetuating racial injustice and structural racism in the newly-formed Methodist Church. Nickell continues:
“White southern delegates were satisfied that their racial authority was secure and that the prospect of being overpowered by the north was balanced by the increased power the unified church could wield in the larger society. Geographic jurisdictions afforded white southerners some degree of control over their own affairs, and ensured leadership by pastors and bishops from that region. In the end, arguments for unity and inclusiveness carried the day—yet unity was related to the overall structure of the new denomination, which nevertheless incorporated a new form of internal division in its geographic and racial jurisdictions, and inclusiveness referred to token numbers of black delegates, while white men still comprised the vast majority of General Conference delegates and could direct the course of the new church according to their interests.” (Nickell, 45)
Eventually, the Plan of Union combined the three denominations (along with some Spanish-speaking churches) at the Uniting Conference in 1939. Black pastors and black churches were placed in the racist “separate but unequal” Central Jurisdiction, and the newly minted Methodist Church was divided into jurisdictions to ensure northern bishops couldn’t preside over southern conferences. The UMC’s current Jurisdictional structure–which Traditionalists hate so much because the West can practice LGBTQ+ inclusion–was the result of Southerners wanting their own autonomy.
The Separated Methodist Church, 1937
So what does this have to do with the Global Methodist Church? Let’s see what happened.
During the unification efforts, there were folks who clung so tightly to their segregationalist beliefs that they could not stomach even being in a denomination that enshrined white supremacy but nonetheless included black preachers and churches. So a contingent created a new denomination. Nickell again:
“A few disgruntled holdouts formed the Southern Methodist Church, which grew out of the remnants of the Laymen’s Organization for the Preservation of the Southern Methodist Church. Inspired by Bishop Candler and led by Bishop Collins Denny, the Laymen’s Organization was founded in 1937 as a last-ditch effort to stave off union. This denomination lost legal battles that prevented them from using the MECS name or retaining any property, but it continues today with 5,000 members in over 100 congregations throughout the southeast.” (Nickell, 45)
The Southern Methodist Church was founded in 1940, a year after the 1939 Uniting Conference.
The reaction to efforts towards unity resulted in a new denomination bitterly opposed to any legitimacy or shared life with a minority group. Sound familiar? Today with the Global Methodist Church, it is LGBTQ+ persons, but in the 1930s, it was Black Americans.
Southern Methodist Church, redux?
The parallels are…curious:
- The 1939 merger ended up with two racist denominations: one small one that practiced separation, and one large one that practiced segregation.
- The end result of the Protocol, if it passes, will be two anti-gay denominations: The GMC that practices separation, and the UMC that continues to exclude LGBTQ+ persons from the full life of the church, even if changing that has a better chance with fewer anti-gays in the voting ranks.
- When you look at the Southern Methodist Church website and their own history, there’s absolutely nothing there that indicates its documented “segregationalist” origins.
- When you peruse the Wesleyan Covenant Association (or the Global Methodist Church website), there’s absolutely nothing there that indicates its anti-gay separationist origins.
- You noticed the dates, right? The Layman’s association began before the vote on the Plan of Union to influence it and call for continued separation, then the denomination SMC came after the vote, joined by a smaller group than the Layman’s membership.
- Likewise, the WCA was created before the 2016 General Conference, in order to influence elections and decisions. They continue to say the GMC new denomination will start “after” the Protocol is passed, though all the groundwork is already laid.
You can see the comparison is not perfect, and there are surely better examples in our history. But I’m struck that the origins, the method, and the narratives are strikingly close, just supplementing substituting anti-black with anti-gay animus.
Is the GMC’s power base in the same region as the Southern Methodist Church? Yes. Will the GMC be larger and broader than the Southern Methodist Church? Undoubtedly. So time will tell whether this is a 2.0 situation that replicates the past, or a spinoff that is new in trajectory, but similar in origins.
Damage Done
My greater concern from this history lesson is when the GMC affiliates leave, will The UMC be stuck with a permanent anti-gay structure because the damage was done?
The predecessors to the Southern Methodist Church’s insistence on segregation turned a unification effort into a cobbled-together unity, with divisions due to racial bias seeking middle ground with people who had no intention of ceding ground at all. Unity was achieved at the cost of deep wounds for generations because of making peace with people who wanted no peace. Methodist Nice is one of our original sins in our denomination.
Likewise, in The United Methodist Church today, the GMC affiliates are withholding apportionments, withholding pulpits, leading an outright air-war against the bishops (which they don’t have the same authority in the GMC plans), and wanting to vote on UMC matters when they already are leaving, and indeed are calling for people to have dual membership in The United Methodist Church and the GMC so they can continue to thwart plans for full inclusion even after the GMC is gone.
The United Methodist Church is still infected by the decisions 80 years ago to give in to racial animus rather than confront it. Will we do the same in this moment of LGBTQ+ inclusion? The way forward for The GMC is to regress, will the UMC progress or be pulled backward by the undertow?
The choice is ours.
A Future Hope?
After this article published, a commenter Warren Gill made the following comment on social media, which I republish now with permission:
I don’t know much about the SMC, but I do assume at some point it has moved away from its racial separationist views. Part of that assumption is there’s an SMC congregation 45 minutes outside of D.C., and three of its four staff are men of color. While I don’t know how much congregational autonomy each church enjoys, I would assume that if the denomination still took a hardline anti-integration perspective, it wouldn’t have Black clergy. (I recognize there are a lot of assumptions here.)
I think that’s a great lesson also for the GMC. The SMC was founded on segregationist, white supremacist, anti-Black principles, but it was not able to maintain that in the longterm. The GMC will not be able to maintain indefinitely its anti-LGBTQ+ identity. The Holy Spirit has a way of sneaking in and turning stone hearts into hearts of flesh and love.
Even if that congregation is the only racially integrated SMC, it should also serve as a warning for the GMC. Aspirations of doctrinal purity never stand the test of time.
Dang. That’s a sermon in a comment! Thanks Warren!
Your Turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, subscribing, and sharing on social media.
Well researched and stated, Jeremy. I’ve been looking for a piece like this to remind that even when we know our history, we can still be doomed to repeat it. I’m curious how many the the SMC started with, to now have only 5000 members after more than 80 years…
In middle school (6th-7th grade) – in the mid-80s – I learned to frame my “opponent’s” argument in as charitable a way as possible, in keeping with classical, rhetorical best practices. Being charitable (assuming the best in your “opponent”) actually strengthened your case (see Cicero, et al).
Your post manages to jettison all this. This is a gigantic pile of narrative, uncharitable bull crap, and an honest broker would have admitted as much. You’re singing your own tune.
You’ve managed to make someone like me (ordained clergy) really, REALLY come home to a split. And I’m an “institutionalist.”
The good news? We’ll see in 10 years how this all shakes out.
I was looking for a substantive critique. Did something in particular stand out?
As a former Methodist with kids now in their early twenties, I can only speak to how the Methodist Church fails repeatedly to choose love and remain relevant to a new generation of believers. The anti-gay section of the denomination —by choosing a legacy of exclusion and discrimination— will die out because today’s youth, the future of the church, won’t faithfully follow and support an aging denomination that won’t welcome all with equal rights in the church.
If the church fails to remain relevant, it will die with the hardliners who think God’s love and favor applies only to them. Based on the church’s history, it appears this is the way Methodism is headed.
It is about following Christ. Homo-sexuality is a sin. So is adultery, murder and a number of other things. In Jesus we have forgiveness if we repent. But if we condone sin, then what forgiveness is there when we call evil, good. As soon as we begin to jettison those truths, there is then nothing to hold any of the rest of it together. Do people fail? Of course. But to condone sin is something that cannot stand. Jesus didn’t tell the women caught in adultery that “It’s ok, don’t worry about it.” He said “Go and sin no more.”
Someone in a homosexual lifestyle that is looking for truth is great. In fact it’s one of the reasons we have church buildings. But if we can’t tell them the truth about sin and how it separates us from Jesus, then we’ve not helped the person, but hindered them. We have become a stumbling block. The bible is crystal clear regarding adultery, homo sexuality, bestiality and a number of other things. Some churches failures during slavery and then segregation is a good example of ignoring what the bible has to say. We cannot ignore the clear teachings of the bible regarding sin such as homo sexuality, adultery and more.
We cannot follow both the world and God. God will clean his house first.
You are so correct on all points! When we go to the doctor to find out what is ailing us, we want to hear the truth, no matter how bad it might be. It should be no less needful regarding the eternal destination of a lost sinner. In order to be “healed”, they need to know the truth about what is wrong.
I don’t think that any laity who are members of churches that have withdrawn from the UMC by the time the GC is actually held can maintain their credentials as GC or JC delegates; likewise for clergy delegates who have chosen to withdraw from the UMC, either individually or with their congregations. The credentialing committee of the GC should closely review all delegates to ensure that they are still qualified for service as GC delegates. Some will not qualify at all; additionally, those who have stated their intent to withdraw from the UMC following the passage of the protocol should have their voting rights restricted to only those matters that directly impact the Protocol; they should not be allowed a vote on legislative items dealing with matters exclusive to the continuing UMC (i.e., GCF&A, Faith Order, etc.)
Voting for the Protocol would not activate any change in a delegate’s status as a member of the UMC nor as a duly elected representative of their annual conference. Some delegates are willing to vote for the Protocol because they know there are churches and pastors in their annual conference who want to be released from those with whom they disagree. Bear in mind that the Protocol would also release churches, pastors, or even an annual conference as a whole to join the new liberation connection.
It is far more likely that members, congregations, districts, and entire conferences will join the GMC. The number of folks looking to join the Liberation Connection can probably be closely tied to the numbers of united methodists that subscribe to UMCNext, and other LGBT UM websites. As the Commission on Finance has already stated, the psUMC’s future is bleak if not nonexistent.
This may be an apt comparison, at least in the South (I wouldn’t know), but I don’t think it fits the WCA folks I’ve known in the Northeast. They look much more like the Wesleyan Methodist Connection or Free Methodist folks from the 19th century. They seem to be a breed of holiness folks here (many who have MP or EUB heritage, or have served congregations coming from those traditions).
I wonder how much all of our perspectives are shaped by our regional differences? I’ve never been a part of a congregation or conference that was MEC-S, but I’ve been connected to one that included an EUB church before a merger, and I’ve lived where both the Wesleyan Methodist Connection and Free Methodists first withdrew of were forced out (in New England and New York).
Thank you for your work and effort on this post. I am saddened by our theological differences that has caused our schism.
When I first learned of the United Methodist Church and studied its history, background and theology I was taught that a UM used what Albert Outler coined as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral… and because of that it was ok and acceptable to view things differently in our theological perspective.
As I served in our denomination and have had hundreds of conversations with UM about their views I learned that far too many UM have no idea or understanding of the concept that I believe made the UMC a great church to be part of.
I am a retired UM clergy person who on this day is greatly saddened by the split that has already begun and continues to tear the church I love apart. It is time to say Good-Bye to those who want to leave so we can be the church that I believe God wants us to be…. This way both sides will be doing what they believe to be God’s will.
I can only imagine how our Lord is grieving over what God’s children have done to His church.
You are so correct in your final statement. John Wesley would not claim today’s UMC as his church!
Jeremy,
This is a thoughtful piece on the current predicament in the UMC. But I think you are fundamentally wrong, because your perspective is limited to the American experience. The 1800’s split that took place (including the formation of the SMC) was an entirely North American phenomenon. While it is certainly possible that the new GMC could be socially marginalized by its refusal to accommodate to “progressive” movements, leading to a numerical decline, I doubt very much that this will be the case.
What you miss is the global context of Christianity. The most vital aspects of the Christian movement are happening OUTSIDE of Europe and North America. And there is no guarantee that the “progressive” movements in the West will take hold outside of those locations. In fact, the critique of so-called “colonialism” actually makes the majority world countries more resistant to progressive values. It will be fascinating to watch Western liberals abandon anti-colonialism in favor of pushing progressive values worldwide. Resistance is futile – or so “progressives” think. The whole overarching narrative of progressivism (which has, in mainline liberal churches and secular society become the content of a new religion) is not, as often assumed, inevitable. And that is particularly the case outside of Western society.
My bet is on the global church (not the Global Methodist Church). I’m much more interested in following the movement of the Holy Spirit than following the spirit of the age. It’s always a challenge for the church to discern between the two. I suspect our brothers and sisters outside of the Western church will an important part of helping us to do that, and the outcome in a generation may surprise us all.
Writing about the 1930s segregationists without the context of its ante-bellum ideology is akin to discussing Reconstruction with its predecessor, slavery.
I’d like for your history to include the anti-gay, parallel, separatist structures that were being conceived not long after the merger creating the UMC. Setting the start point with WCA makes it sound new. ie/ Good News, IRD
Also, responding as a gay clergy person, I am confident that the wedge driven into the UMC has nothing to do with biblical authority or human sexuality. I have yet to see consistency in those arguments. We are just the current scapegoats of a shrinking imperialism wrapped in scripture.
Thank you for the article and for including Warren’s comment.
I agree Dan – that there are other forces at play here. Namely, financial incentives and loss of trust is a primary reason so many churches are filing for disaffiliation. They are using the prevailing argument, but the congregants are really wanting to take back control for fear the UMC will slide further or shutter their doors or other unfounded fears.
The psUMC, what’s left after traditionalist leave can form and rewrite the discipline to include anything they desire. Your attempt to compare the GMC with segregationalism is absurd at best. The GMC will not be anti-gay, that’s a false narrative dreamed up by liberals to drive a wedge between gays and traditionalists. If anything the GMC is pro-scripture and has not forgotten Matthew 5:17 which is often skipped over by those who believe the Old Testament doesn’t apply to today. We left the UMC in 2019, not because of the “gay” saga, but because liberal bishops had departed from their walk with Jesus Christ, in search of something else. We saw liberal bishops ordain gay clergy in violation of church law, appoint a gay bishop in a same-sex marriage in violation of church law, and perform same-sex weddings in violation of church law.
These acts should be abhorrent to everyone. If you remove the gay aspect of these actions and simply look at them as violations of church law, you should wonder if they were willing to break with this law, what other laws might they be willing to set aside.
Now let us get to the real concern among the psUMC group. The general commission on finance has already stated very plainly that there is no financial future for the psUMC. Liberal bishops grossly overestimated the number of folks that would stay psUMC. Traditionalists have for the past year or two started voting with cash. That’s the practice of withholding tithes and apportionments. Many have diverted their tithes to charities, other denominations, and still, yet many more tucking their tithes away in an account to transfer to the GMC after the GC.
God rewards the faithful and punishes the sinner. I think the psUMC is inching closer to finding out that God’s punishment will mean the psUMC becomes a small scattering of churches that can easily hold its GC in a high school gym.
Not sure what you mean by saying the GMC isn’t antigay when the whole reason the GMC is mad is because people broke church law in order to include gay people fully in the life of the church, and fought any attempt to be merciful or change said church law. Seems like a pretty disingenuous claim.
As for us dwindling to a small number, well, we’ll figure it out in the high school gym, Brother. Enjoy the $$$$ and power and influence you’re banking on.
It depends on what you mean by anti-gay and love. You should read “Is God Anti-Gay” by Sam Allberry.
Comparing sexual orientation to race is unethical and down right racist. Keep the arguments were they belong. If allowing women to participate in every avenues of the church is an issue, let it be that. If class and location in terms of equal distribution of finance is an issue, let it remain that way. But to compare sexual orientation to race is racist and I hope and pray that the LGBT community would stop forcing people to accept their choices..Yes I am a black man..
I am a white woman and had the same thought. The Bible says there is one race – humankind so racism should never have been in the church. The same Bible says homosexuality is a sin so homosexuality has no place in church leadership. Comparing the two is unbiblical but that is not surprising considering the authors stance.
The Bible also says greed is a sin. And eating food from an animal with cloven hooves. And gluttony. And hypocrisy. And worshiping false idols. And coveting what other people have. So… I assume the GMC followers will exclude all of THESE people from their church leadership and from a full life in the church as well? It’s the same old thing — religious people seeking to elevate themselves by excluding others, conveniently “ranking” sins so that Other People’s Sins are greater than their own.
Jeremy, I have to confess I am kind of baffled by your post, because I don’t see how traditional Biblical Christianity can be likened to segregation. The reason why this tragic schism is happening is because of a lack of “Methodist Nice” that you seem to regard as being a problem.
What I don’t understand is why the modernist Methodist church does not take on the new branding, and surrender the United Methodist branding to the traditionalists. The strange thing about this schism is that it is being done backwards, despite the traditionalists forming the Global Methodist Church having a majority of the worldwide membership and accounting for most of the fast growing congregations, thanks to the missionary work of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Africa.
But I think the GMC encouraging its members to retain membership in the UMC is fair, in that the schism needs to end, and the best way to do that is to retain the presence of the GMC community in the UMC conference in order to compel a reconciliation based on the Traditional Plan.
Trans gen & sexual diversion are not only issues. UMC sent nationally sent representatives to Congress to lobby for Biden’s abortion bill. UMC is “woke” which is just too socialist liberal communist for true Christian faith!