GC 2020 – Will GC 2020 be the death of connectionalism?

Frank Holbrook 2 GC 2020

In this prior post I referred to a recent estimate, attributed to Rev. Adam Hamilton that “between 3,400 and 7,500 churches across the U.S. will leave the UMC by this time next year.”  I’ve also previously referred to a blog post by the Rev. Shane Bishop entitled “We Want Out!” (the loudest voice the #UMC isn’t hearing) found here.   Bob Phillips recently wrote this thoughtful post concerning the decline of trust in the United Methodist Church.  There is a common thread in these posts that lead me to this question: “Are we seeing the death of connectionalism?”

Many years ago my wife and I used to shop at a particular furniture store and were always met with the same greeting by Pat, our regular salesperson: “Hi FrankandNorma.” We used to laugh at the fact that to Pat we were one unit named, FrankandNorma.  Pat’s greeting ignored the separateness of Frank and Norma.  I suspect we’ve grown accustomed to being the UnitedMethodist Church and have forgotten that there are two components to our name: United and Methodist.  The United aspect implicitly focuses on connection, the Methodist aspect focuses on the Wesleyan approach to Christian living.  GC 2020 and its immediate aftermath will  have some people prioritizing the United aspect of our name and others prioritizing Methodist.

A major underlying assumption for most of the various plans of separation being submitted to GC 2020, including the Plain Grace Plan (“PGP”), is that departing local churches will maintain some level of connection.  Most of the plans suggesting the creation of new expressions of Methodism all contain some minimum number, usually around 50, as the baseline for a new expression.  This becomes a minimum number for being “united” or in connection.

However, if 3,400 to 7,500 churches leave the United Methodist Church,  I think it is highly probable that a vast majority of them will prioritize being Methodist and become independent Methodist churches.  I recognize that there will be big and small congregations in urban ares included in that number.  Those churches leaving will be across the theological spectrum. But if I’m correct the majority will be smaller rural churches.  What will be the effects of this change?  In my mind, several consequences will be likely.

First, and most obviously, there will be no superintendency for these churches. This raises a whole host of issues.  Long ago I had a fellow church member disparagingly tell me “All you have to have is a Bible and a Collection Plate to start a church in that denomination.”  This may be the new standard for a host of Methodist churches.  Not only will the appointment process cease to be a factor for these independent Methodist churches, so will standards for the clergy.

One might think that this will result in fewer seminary trained clergy in the rural local churches but I don’t think the drop will be as precipitous as some might imagine.  I sense there already is a preference by seminary trained clergy to locate in areas that offer an urban lifestyle.  I’m also pretty confident it mirrors U.S. society in general.  The apparent preference for urban areas and the high cost of seminary trained clergy already results in a lower percentage or seminary trained clergy in rural areas where smaller, poorer churches predominate.  After World War One in the U.S. there was a popular song “How Ya Gonna Keep ’em Down on the Farm (After They’ve Seen Paree?)” The lyrics highlighted concern that American soldiers from rural environments would not want to return to farm life after experiencing the European city life and culture of Paris during World War One. I sense that some of that same type of sentiment exists in seminary trained clergy; how do you expect them to serve in more humble surroundings when they’ve experienced the spiritually and intellectually heady collegial environment of the seminary?  It’s not impossible, but it takes a certain type of individual. I’m pretty confident that data exists that would prove or disprove my sense of the situation and if I’m wrong I’ll stand corrected.

If independent Methodist churches proliferate, we may well witness a great irony in the argument for seminary trained clergy.  The irony will occur if voices within the United Methodist Church criticize independent Methodist churches for questionable doctrine or theology by these “untrained” clergy.  The voices within the United Methodist Church which insist that the denomination is not doctrinally or creedally based will have scant moral authority to criticize most teachings delivered from the pulpit of an independent Methodist Church.  When our focus becomes getting the proper proportions of the “Wesley quadrilateral”, as we redefine “experience and tradition” and we adopt constantly evolving scientific theories as “settled” reason, the church moves from a position of theological authority to a position of theological consensus builder.  Maybe that mirrors the New Kingdom inaugurated by the resurrection, maybe not.

Second, with no guaranteed appointments, ministerial compensation will be market driven.  I’ve had some recent conversations where the discrepancy between the number of liberal or progressive churches and the number of liberal or progressive congregations within an annual conference is lamented.  Similarly, I’ve seen comments posted by clergy that express concern for their future if their annual conference “goes Traditional” and they consider themselves centrist, liberal or progressive.  I suspect there may be similar mismatches running the other way in annual conferences.  This mismatch between clergy and congregation viewpoints will result in “market inefficiencies”.  Given the current number of clergy and the abandonment of clergy standards, I suspect that independent Methodist churches will be able to fill their pulpits.  You may not agree with me, but I believe the law of supply and demand will operate.  Churches will be hiring their pastors and keeping them in place as long as the congregation believes they are doing a good job.  Where compensation becomes market driven, the temptation might be for clergy to deliver a message that keeps the congregation contented. Will clergy temper their message to satisfy their employer?

Third, a higher percentage of missions will be local.  Local churches that look around see plenty of examples of poverty, abuse, addiction, loneliness, sickness and other concerns.  Without overarching support and resources that result from connectional giving, independent Methodist churches will focus more on their own communities for their missional priorities.  To many of those churches, dissatisfied with general church priorities, that will not be seen as a net loss.  Dissatisfaction with general church priorities  probably is one of the reasons a local church would move toward independence.

GC 2020 needs to be aware of several realities that may factor into the movement towards independence and away from connectionalism.  First, I don’t believe there will be any legal impediment that prevents these churches from calling themselves Methodist.  The United Methodist Church’s Cross and Flame logo is trademarked so it may not be used, but I doubt that the word Methodist enjoys any trademark protection.  In addition, I’ve read many pieces where sources comment on the declining importance of the “United Methodist” brand in the United States. Churches will be free to call themselves “Methodist” or go with a generic name that ignores using the Methodist label.  Churches will become independent, in part, because for many people in the U.S., the word “United” adds little to the “Methodist” brand.  This may result in a renewed focus on what makes a congregation “Methodist” and could result in a renewed awakening of Wesley’s emphasis on social holiness. Including class and band meetings and other forms of small group discipleship.

Second, while many persons assume that the trust clause gives the denomination significant leverage over departing churches I fear that the leverage may be overestimated in the case of rural churches. Take for example, the actual church building and grounds.  What is the fair market value of a rural church building, often with a cemetery as part of the grounds?  To make that determination one has to assume there is a willing buyer.  Do these buyers exist?  I suspect if you surveyed annual conferences about their inventory of closed churches, you’d find these properties are not in great demand.  Moreover, in many cases these closed properties are a net liability, not a net asset.  When a business is failing and a lender presses the owner for payment, sometimes the business owner responds by tossing the keys to the business onto their desk and telling the lender “it’s yours”.  What happens if local churches, take an analogous path and tell the annual conference “its yours”?  The annual conference can make noises about satisfying apportionments and pension liabilities, but what is the enforcement mechanism and what is the cost of enforcement?  Neither the ability nor the will to prevent churches from becoming independent may exist at the annual conference level.

As a practical matter, after GC 2020 the United Methodist Church may find itself in the midst of something resembling the Cloward-Piven strategy.  If Rev. Hamilton’s estimate is correct, imagine the time and resources required of annual conferences to navigate the maze of church closures, clergy defections, legal enforcement by the annual conferences and responses to legal challenges from local churches deciding to become independent.  The sheer number of defections to independent status might be enough to bankrupt some annual conferences.

The United Methodist Church has long considered itself to be in a slow decline.  But what about the possibility of a sudden collapse?  I have a friend who occasionally quotes Ernest Hemingway’s response to the question “How did you go bankrupt?”  Hemingway’s response: “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”  We may be at that moment in the church, where our decline has been working gradually but is about to turn the corner to suddenly.

As I drafted the PGP, I tried to consider the fact that some churches just want out, want out now and have no desire to remain in connection.  I modified the “Gracious Exit” plan adopted in 2019 with three significant modifications to ¶2553. First, human sexuality as the cause of departure was eliminated.  A local church could leave for any reason.  I’ve recently been reading The Autobiography of Peter Cartwright, a Methodist preacher from the early 19th Century.  In it he reminds us “The organization of all Christian Churches is the voluntary association of individuals, under the accredited supervision of a Divinely-appointed ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, and not a ministerial act separate and apart from the voluntary choice of the individual consent of the members that compose that Church.”  Although there is always tension between freedom of choice and supervisory authority, in the church supervisory authority depends on voluntary compliance. I continue to believe our divisions run deeper than human sexuality; therefore, the presenting condition of human sexuality should not be the outer limit for a church’s right to end its voluntary association with the denomination.

Second, the PGP “Gracious Exit” was modified to require a simple majority vote.  This avoids the situation where a minority keeps control over the physical assets of the local church but the denomination has lost the trust of the majority.

Third, the PGP “Gracious Exit” speeds up the process so all exits are completed by  October 15, 2022.  Speeding up the process should give those who want out “now”, some reason to engage in the process of an orderly disaffiliation rather than throwing the keys on the desk.  Setting an early end date for departure also requires those churches that don’t want to be in some type of connection to leave before Gracious Affiliation votes begin.

With the exception of the modified “Gracious Exit”, the PGP is designed to encourage connection; what that connection looks like will be something that each new expression works out for itself.  However, if connectionalism is considered a core value worth retaining, then GC 2020 should recognize that connectionalism after 2020 will undoubtedly look different than connectionalism looks now.

As I re-read this post it occurs that many may think this is Chicken Little screaming “The Sky is Falling!”  I am also reminded of Mark Twain’s famous quip: “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated”.  Is GC 2020 the death of connectionalism? I don’t think so.  But just as those travelers on the road to Emmaus didn’t recognize the resurrected Christ, we may not recognize the resurrected connectionalism that emerges from GC 2020.

P.S. I’m sure many will be shocked that I re-read or proof read my posts – I do. I periodically apologize that the Executive Director of the PlaneGrace World Interplanetary Enterprises’ Proofreading Department is so inadequate.  If I had the money, I’d fire myself from the position. Most people grant me grace, thank you.  Some people don’t, thanks for being good at proofreading and posting corrections in the comments.  I’m sorry if they make your head hurt.