Churches that disaffiliate from The United Methodist Church are overwhelmingly choosing to remain independent rather than join the Global Methodist Church’s splinter denomination. Why is that?
What’s the Matter with Texas?
The Woodlands Methodist Church, the largest congregation the Texas Annual Conference, recently voted by 96% to disaffiliate from The United Methodist Church.
But there was an oddity: the resolution simply said to disaffiliate from The United Methodist Church. It didn’t say it intended to join the Global Methodist Church. Huh. That is strange considering the Woodlands houses the Good News Magazine, the principle thought leaders undermining United Methodism since the days when the UMC approved clergywomen and racial integration.
Faithbridge is another megachurch that held a vote the same day as the Woodlands: 100% in favor of disaffiliation. Again, the same story: they voted to disaffiliate, not to disaffiliate and join the Global Methodist Church. Huh. You can read the UMNews article here.
Those decisions come with legal and costly repercussions: newly-independent churches have to file for non-profit status now they aren’t under the UMC umbrella, changeover of benefits from a group membership to individuals, tax and legal documentation…all of which they would avoid if they simply changed denominations and went from one group to another.
But even with these cost factors, the Woodlands’ and Faithbridge’s decisions are not uncommon. In many annual conferences (we are still receiving full reports), less than 20% of the disaffiliating churches joined the GMC.
So why didn’t they just immediately vote to join the GMC? It comes down to strategy and control.
Context (Editor’s Note)
(Edited to add 3 hours after publication) I received “I was in the room” feedback on the original version of this post that I was missing some data, so here it is and some clarity:
- When a disaffiliation under paragraph 2553 vote is held, that’s the only vote there can be. It’s not a ”both” disaffiliate and join the GMC vote, it’s only a disaffiliation vote. I did not have that clear originally, but I’m glad I do now.
- BUT after the church conference for this vote is adjourned, then the church can call for a regular church meeting to vote on joining the GMC. This has happened in numerous churches, particularly a large number in Central Texas.
So to be clear, what I’m commenting on in the following conversation are churches that held disaffiliation votes but did not hold subsequent votes to join the GMC. That’s an oddity to be explored.
Strategy
If a church is wanting to join the GMC, then there’s a strategic reason to wait to join.
Looking at the GMC documentation, the threshold for joining the GMC as a United Methodist Church is a majority vote if joining the GMC vote is held as a United Methodist institution holding the vote after the 2553 conference above. (Side note: I’d love an analysis of how long disaffiliating churches have had their senior pastor…I suspect most have had them longer than the “Methodist average” of three years).
However, the threshold for joining the GMC as an independent church is…anything. A local church has to have a congregational meeting, approve a resolution, and then their application is done. It says in the documentation:
The primary lay leadership body of the congregation determines the percentage of votes necessary to support the congregation becoming a member congregation of the new denomination.
So we see that it could be 25% threshold instead of 51% that take a congregation to The GMC, if the insistent play their cards right. So a much smaller group of people can take a church to the GMC than if they voted the “United Methodist” way which includes more voices and alignment. So the average congregant should be wary of their church leadership if they are gaming their voting process in this way.
Control
The second is the opposite of this: for churches that want to remain independent, at least for a time, disaffiliating rather than jumping to the GMC is worth the extra legal hassle because they can consolidate control without the accountability of outside polity.
It’s no secret that many churches are using disaffiliation to go independent if their theology has gone even further afield from Methodism. The aforementioned Faithbridge, for example, already offers baby dedications in violation of United Methodist polity–in fact, in violation of Global Methodist Church polity too!
But when a church becomes independent, they don’t have to structure anything according to United Methodist hard-won standards. Pastors can stay forever, financial decisions can be made by whoever they decide, there don’t have to be women on Trustees, etc. Free reign! It also means they don’t have to report any numbers or finances or be accountable for violations within their closed books or doors. Wesleyan Accountability as practiced by United Methodism keeps people who are in control TODAY from always being in control TOMORROW, by pastor or conference action. That won’t happen in independent churches as the people in power TODAY can be in power in perpetuity.
For people who are drowning in a rhetoric of freedom, there are plenty of control issues here. Time will tell if they thrive on their own or if they tether their tendrils to a new host denomination. The average congregant in these churches should be very wary of the power grab that could come from their leaders once they step out from under the umbrella of Wesleyan Accountability.
How should The UMC respond?
While I lament for the average congregant who may not know what abuses are on the horizon, it’s their choice to support such churches. What I’m more interested in considering is how does this trend affect how United Methodists are framing this moment.
Faithful readers of this blog know I haven’t committed a lot of space to analyzing Global Methodist Church polity. Strategically, it doesn’t make sense to poke holes in their polity because they can change them, plug loopholes, or fix errors at a whim, whereas United Methodists have to wait until 2024 to change anything. Besides, there are several groups that have done good work in this regard: South Georgia has the best topical comparison, Western PA has a deeper dive, and Rev. David Livingston continues as the best in-depth commentary.
But we see now that churches aren’t deciding whether to join the GMC or stay UMC, they are simply deciding to leave The UMC.
Thus, faithful United Methodists have the right strategy in the BeUMC campaign: reminding folks of the value of remaining in the connection. Because the potential for abuse is high, the incentive for congregational leadership to take autocratic control is anti-Wesleyan, and the “moving of the goalposts” means a small minority may be able to take a disaffiliated church to the GMC by hook or crook after they leave.
While progressives like me have long been frustrated by–or outright abused by–The United Methodist Church’s sinful shortcomings and sinsick structure, neither of these scenarios are better than our continued work towards a more just church on the inside.
These are all things to be wary of and lament for these churches that the grass is definitely not greener on the other side.
Your Turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, subscribing, and sharing on social media.
This is interesting. Our former church has voted to disaffiliate and go with the GMC. We left five years ago when the new pastor preached from the pulpit on his second Sunday that “homosexuals and anyone who supports them are going to hell.” (An aside: our gay kid wrote a blogpost about it that ended up going viral and became a whole thing, but that is another story for another day.) I believe the conference specifically put that pastor in that church for the purpose of turning it deep red. I don’t think they bargained for him destroying it like a bull in a china shop in the process but that is what happened. It makes me sad to see what has happened. Thank you for the enlightening analysis.
This blog post may be appropriate a year or so from now, but right now it looks like pure speculation–we have no idea what the likes of The Woodlands or FaithBridge will do as a next step. Traditionalist authors have recently been criticized for prognosticating what the continuing UMC will look like after separation, but this article does the same with disaffiliating churches, using less information (and less history) than those conservative authors in foretelling the fate of the UMC.
While the author has the UM standards down, it does not reflect the reality that many clergy step into under our appointive system. In over 40 years of ministry the vast majority of churches I was appointed to serve was for the purpose of cleaning up long ignored messes. One appointment had three pending lawsuits against it when I arrived. Another had members that had been entrenched in committees for over 20 years and were not about to let new people join in. While our polity looks good on paper, numerous pastors will tell you that in many cases it is more mythology than reality. We deal with what we’re appointed to and many times for the purpose of working issues out, the district or Conference leadership is not willing to do what needs to be done to move the churches back into compliance.
Perhaps many churches are simply tired of being at the beck and call of higher church leadership that neither appreciates or even knows the struggles they live with.
One more change needed, Jeremy, to keep things clear.
The vote to disaffiliate at a local church does NOT create the possibility for that church immediately to JOIN the GMC as a member. It can only, at that point, petition to become a “provisional member.” If accepted, it can then further petition to become a “full member” (i.e. be able to have vote in its annual conferences, etc) after the disaffiliation process is completed– that is, after the annual conference votes to enact its disaffiliation.
Even then that doesn’t make it a full member. The GMC website states the Transitional Leadership Council determines whether and when that happens. Local church actions do not.
in your hack job you wrote “That is strange considering the Woodlands houses the Good News Magazine, the principle thought leaders undermining United Methodism since the days when the UMC approved clergywomen and racial integration.” That’s not true and you if you knew anything about what you’re writing about you would know that the GMC will have and has women clergy already. The current GMC Leadership Transitional Team has women and blacks. If you had any knowledge at all of what is happening in the UMC you would know that the Bishops undermined United Methodism by allowing clergy to violate a Book of Discipline that they vowed to adhere to.
“and blacks”
….wow.
And our bishop Scott Jones violated his vows by trying to get the TMC conference to leave the UMC (sedition) instead of building and protecting that conference.
I know my FUMC voted for disaffiliation and to join the Global Methodist church because they do not want women in the clergy or trustees. They do not want women to teach Bible studies or Sunday school. And they definitely don’t want homosexuals in the church or take the monthly sacrament. This is in rural Texas. Almost 40% of their conference left because they want Trump as President and no liberals in their church. My mother, 82 years old hasn’t been able to sleep after hearing these things. It’s very sad. But if that’s who they are, better to find that out. I will just transfer my membership to the nearest FUMC. We will meet at people’s homes until we can get a new local building. I was born a FUM and will die a FUM. But I have no ill feelings. If someone tells you who they are, believe them.
According to their website, Good News megazine started in 1967.
The EUB started ordaining women in 1888- but according to Wiki, women clergy had only partial rights in the Methodist church until 1958- before the 1939 merger that created the Methodist Church, the MEC gave women clergy partial rights, the MEC south did not ordain women, and the MPC ordained women as equal to men.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_in_Methodism#
And, of course, the Methodist Church was officially segregated- that did not change officially until the 1968 merger with the EUB that created the UMC.
So:
1958: the Methodist church gives women clergy equal status to men
1967: Good news starts up calling for ‘renewal and reform’
1968: the UMC is founded as a racially integrated denomination.
Oh, and:
1972: the incombatibility clause is added to the BoD as a reaction to the addition of language stating that LGB folk are ‘individuals of sacred worth’.
The timeline matches up with Rev Smith’s statement. If you want to argue that Good News was always more about LGBT folk than women clergy or racial integration, go ahead- but they were all actively being debated when Good News was founded.
Roger, I agree 100% with you on this.
Blatant dishonesty or delusion.
Yes. GMC allows women and blacks to minister and perform marriages – but only to heterosexuals. No baptism for babies of gay couples either. If you get caught you go on trial. They barely mention this in the GMC website (and never mention it outright). That lack of transparency and honesty (and bigotry) speaks volumes.
*principal (thought leaders undermining United Methodism)
You have wearied the Lord with your words; yet you say, “In what way have we wearied Him?” In that you say, “Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and He delights in them,” or, “Where is the God of justice?”
Nowhere here do I see a discussion of the proposed changes in theology of the United Methodist Church…this is not simply about the “gay” issue…one of the statements that is proposed for the Book of Discipline is that Jesus was not the Son of God, and was merely a prophet…are you making people aware of THESE changes ?? Not so much…WHY not ???
Where is your documentation for this allegation?
Is the phrase “Jesus was not the Son Of God, as was merely a prophet” being proposed in the new Discipline? Where is this coming from? Please advise!
Citation?
You criticize that a minority can decide what affiliation if any, a breakaway church chooses. You ignore that most voting to remain are minorities of 34-40% telling the majority what to do. This guarantees distrust and discord. Our very large UM voted yesterday by 87% to disaffiliate. All churches should be forced to vote up or down as a “no confidence” vote on horrendous dysfunctional UM leadership. A largely southern conservative faith is led by out of touch elitist liberals who have ignored every vote and continues to ordain gay and heretical pastors. We hope to be independent regardless of inconvenience and costs to avoid liberals trying to enable their theology following their politics.
Jeremy, unless you have been a part of their discussions and prayers, then the worst you can do is speculate. And you’ve certainly done a lot of speculating here. Fortunately, being in the blogosphere, there is no written rule to be one of integrity. If it was, then you’d be kicked out.
No he would not.
I really just want to pray for the unity of all TX churches out there. Has anybody else been to our church or goes there for worship? https://lhhouston.church/ is really great and what we love about it is a sense of community for all people !
I am unsure of where baby dedication is “in violation of United Methodist polity–in fact, in violation of Global Methodist Church polity too!
Dedication, instead of baptism was included in the Book of Worship to include traditions of the Evangelical United Brother merger. (We got the United from them.) Granted, we have abandoned much of the EUB traditions as well as much of the UMC traditions and belief over the years.
Making something out of not following one vote by another, carries no weight. They are indeed two different decisions. Related? Yes. But not the same. When its time to upgrade my transportation I put up my car for sale. I then do the research on models I am interested in. I don’t have to go to a dealer and take what they offer.
Second, the vote takes place at a Church Conference, lead by an elder (usually the D.S). They have no interest in presiding over a vote on where a XUMC will land. It’s not there job!
One other reason a church may decided they want to be independent, is because they are independent people. Maybe even rebel against authority.
Those who disaffiliate and apply to the GMC will find the road smother. A major problem is the independent church is open to abuse, which you pointed out.
Perhaps the church recognized that the GMC is just a milder version of Progressive than the UMC. The position of female leadership in ministry is a progressive position, no conservative groups other than Pentecostals permitted it without there first being a weakening in their doctrinal standards. The idea that homosexuals may be permitted into membership and the Lord’s Table without repentance is not a traditional, orthodox position. Most denominations of substantial size have been infiltrated with some form of progressivism, and some congregations recognize that if they are going to avoid these battles they may have to go it alone.
Thanks for this article. I had wondered why some churches were disaffiliating but not joining the GMC. Now, it makes sense. I shouldn’t have been surprised. IMO the UMC has had a problem for a long time with ultraconservatives who are more akin to Southern Baptists than they are United Methodist.
While in graduate school at Southern Methodist University, I was hired to serve a small UMC congregation in Richardson, TX. In the mid-to-late ’70s that congregation had been a thriving congregation with over 1,700 members. They had planned for a fairly extensive building program. The ultraconservative bishop at the time killed that congregation. He thought the minister was too liberal, moved him, and over the next 10 years sent a succession of ultraconservative minister who were one year away from retirement. I guess when the church started losing members they could no longer afford the building program, and the First UMC that was only a mile East of that church needed to enlarge or build a new sanctuary. Somehow those building plans wound up with First Methodist. I know that to be true, because in a closet at the church was an architectural mock up of what the new campus would have looked like at the church I was serving, and the sanctuary at First United Methodist was the exact design the church I was serving was supposed to have. At some point, the bishop started another UMC congregation a mile west of the church and used 200 members of the church I was to serve to start that new congregation. So that was three United Methodist congregation all on the same major thoroughfare within 2 miles. When I was hired, the church had less than 300 members and when the minister who hired me had been appointed a year earlier, the church had fewer than 100 members and was in debt all over town.
I continue to believe that this split can be a very good thing for the UMC if we wake up and learn from it. I believe that if we are going to be able to react in a fast-paced, ever-changing world, that we either need to move entirely away from the General Conference idea, or have them every year. Change is incredibly slow with this mode of governance, especially since any new proposal can get tabled for several General Conferences, and even then may never happen, but even if it does, 12-16 years may have passed. I would love to see the statistics on this kind of thing. I also believe that a process must be created in which a bishop can be removed once he/she has been instituted. I know that there’s a bishop in Texas who urged many UMC congregations in the Houston area to leave the UMC. He finally resigned a few weeks ago, but he shouldn’t have been allowed to stay and do the damage that he did.
IMO no one in their right mind would ever set up a means of governing any organization either where it only meets every 4 years or that a minister could be make a bishop, but then have no process/means for removing them if work against the UMC.
What is totally shocking is that the groups that are screaming (the GMC) that the UMC is not upholding the discipline are not either. Read all of 2553 and I mean every last word. Church’s are lying to disaffiliate, well 99% of them are. Very few church’s are leaving because they actually want to have homosexual weddings or homosexual pastors.
btw your link for Good News Magazine is wrong… it leads to the NRA…. awkward? lol