Where will conservatives go if they leave the UMC in a few years?

[Basil the Great]

I tend to think that a split is coming within a few years, but I could well be wrong. It might just be that if the UMC changes it's policy on sexual mores to become like the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (USA), maybe a denominational split can be avoided. However, even if a split fails to happen, a policy change could well result in perhaps hundreds of thousands of conservative United Methodists waking out the doors and trying other denominations. It is hard to say where most would go. What do you think?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Logic would dictate any UMC Exodus would lead to an increase in the CotN movement. Both are born out of Wesley so the differences in doctrine would be little. Or should be at least

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Free Methodists would seem to be the most obvious choice.

 

[Basil the Great]

Yes, there is the Church of the Nazarene, the Free Methodists, the Primitive Methodists and the Wesleyan Church. However, many smaller communities would not have any of these four Wesleyan bodies.

 

[HereIStand]

The Church of the Nazarene was my vote. Having gone to a Nazarene school (Olivet) that seems a likely choice.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Non-denoms get my vote. There is a geography problem that makes schism toward any one denomination difficult. It seems like about every little town in the U.S. has a Methodist Church, others not so much. People will choose another church in their small community, which I think is likely to be a non-denom. Either that or a new body will be formed much as occurred with The Episcopal Church and ACNA.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Yes, there is the Church of the Nazarene, the Free Methodists, the Primitive Methodists and the Wesleyan Church. However, many smaller communities would not have any of these four Wesleyan bodies.

Hundreds of thousands of members leaving implies that many pastors, perhaps even bishops, would leave and take their congregations with them. These Wesleyan churches could end up with new congregations in these communities.

 

[hedrick]

Hundreds of thousands of members leaving implies that many pastors, perhaps even bishops, would leave and take their congregations with them. These Wesleyan churches could end up with new congregations in these communities.

There's another possibility. Some jurisdictions going one way and some the other. Congregations then moving into jurisdictions of their own orientation.

 

[circuitrider]

I think it is more likely that there will either be a split or at least a small Methodist spin off denomination.

 

[hedrick]

What form would a split take? I was assuming likely some jurisdictions would effectively leave, and then remaining ones would start to take churches from their areas.

 

[circuitrider]

What form would a split take? I was assuming likely some jurisdictions would effectively leave, and then remaining ones would start to take churches from their areas.

I could see an annual conference splitting off. Or I could see the Wesley Covenant Association forming a denomination and pulling individual local church outs who would then have to come to some agreement with their Annual Conference for the property.

 

[bekkilyn]

Are there really that many hardcore conservatives in the UMC who would feel so strongly about this one single issue that they would leave, at least in the U.S.? Most hardcore conservatives in my area seem to be already in some non-Denominational or possibly Baptist church because they already wouldn't agree with the UMC "super liberal" rules that currently exist.

 

[circuitrider]

Are there really that many hardcore conservatives in the UMC who would feel so strongly about this one single issue that they would leave, at least in the U.S.? Most hardcore conservatives in my area seem to be already in some non-Denominational or possibly Baptist church because they already wouldn't agree with the UMC "super liberal" rules that currently exist.

They must be pretty right wing if they think the UMC is "super liberal." The Episcopal Church, UCC, Evangelical Lutherans, Disciples of Christ, and even the American Baptists are more liberal on sexuality issues than the UMC.

I don't know what else we are involved in that could be general called all that liberal. It is a pretty middle of the road denomination generally.

I think there are a sizable group of conservatives that might pull out if they don't get their way on human sexuality. The UMC in the south is considerable more conservative, theologically and culturally, than the UMC in the rest of the US. Also African United Methodists, who are a much larger percentage of our membership every year, are quite conservative.

 

[hedrick]

I'm not sure how different the UMC is from other mainline denominations. Most of us aren't what you'd call radical. Liberal in this context really means that they don't think homosexuality is such an overriding issue that they're willing to interfere with congregations that want to include them. A few years ago we voted to allow congregations that wanted to accept gays to do so. Surveys suggest that this is a position that is consistent with how US Christians feel. I believe if the UMC was a US denomination it would have made the same decision as the rest of us. Likely it would have lost some conservative congregations. But it really doesn't affect those congregations all that much, particularly if they're in areas of the country where the whole region feels the same way, so not all leave.

What is different about the UMC is the African connection. The votes simply aren't there for the UMC to go the same way as the other mainline denominations. There's a hope for some kind of compromise, but every other mainline church tried that, and it didn't work. They ended up with a straight up/down vote. I don't think compromise will work with the UMC either.

I'm sympathetic with African Methodists. They're often in areas with strong Muslim presence. Even to vote to allow gays in the US branch of the church could put their lives in danger, and they might very reasonably decide that the cause of the Gospel in their area is more important than accommodating gays in the US. I think the only possible compromise would be to separate governance in the US and Africa enough that they don't have to vote on this issue. But I doubt that will happen.

So I suspect that the UMC won't go the same way as other mainline denominations. At that point you could imagine individual liberal congregations withdrawing. But the recent events in the Western Jurisdictions suggest that you may lose whole jurisdictions. It appears that a jurisdiction is the smallest part that could effectively ignore national policy (not that doing so is healthy for the Church).

 

[bekkilyn]

I'm in the south, so it seems that anything that isn't really far right is considered super-liberal around here.

Even so, I'm having a difficult time imagining any of my local UMC congregations leaving regardless of the decision. Maybe some individual people, but not the congregation as a whole. No one has been all up in arms about the issue that I've noticed, so maybe it's a bigger deal out west than it is here.

Or maybe I'm just naive, which is always a good possibility!

But yes, as far as votes go, Africa will definitely continue to be a factor. I'm not sure I'd be a fan of the idea of separate governance though. I really like the connectional aspect of the UMC and feel it would be weakened.

 

[JackRT]

Into the outer darkness where there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. The IMC is on the right track.

 

[circuitrider]

So I suspect that the UMC won't go the same way as other mainline denominations. At that point you could imagine individual liberal congregations withdrawing. But the recent events in the Western Jurisdictions suggest that you may lose whole jurisdictions. It appears that a jurisdiction is the smallest part that could effectively ignore national policy (not that doing so is healthy for the Church).

I think you have a pretty good grasp of the situation. I could see the Western and North Eastern jurisdictions pulling out and even possibly the north central. If that happens you have effectively split the US UMC in half. The African jurisdictions have the added problem that they depend very much on the financial help of the US. And some of the biggest financial supporters of the central conferences in Africa are in jurisdictions that might consider pulling out.

So on one hand Africa would like to maintain theological conservatism, it could come as a financial disaster for them and their conferences.

The problem that isn't really being discusses is how irrelevant the UMC could become if it is the only mainline denomination that doesn't support rights for LGBTQ people. We are too liberal for conservatives to want to join us and we aren't liberal enough (if we don't change) for liberals to want to support us. We could end up in a no mans land where we end up pleasing no one.

 

[Basil the Great]

I'm not sure how different the UMC is from other mainline denominations. Most of us aren't what you'd call radical. Liberal in this context really means that they don't think homosexuality is such an overriding issue that they're willing to interfere with congregations that want to include them. A few years ago we voted to allow congregations that wanted to accept gays to do so. Surveys suggest that this is a position that is consistent with how US Christians feel. I believe if the UMC was a US denomination it would have made the same decision as the rest of us. Likely it would have lost some conservative congregations. But it really doesn't affect those congregations all that much, particularly if they're in areas of the country where the whole region feels the same way, so not all leave.

What is different about the UMC is the African connection. The votes simply aren't there for the UMC to go the same way as the other mainline denominations. There's a hope for some kind of compromise, but every other mainline church tried that, and it didn't work. They ended up with a straight up/down vote. I don't think compromise will work with the UMC either.

I'm sympathetic with African Methodists. They're often in areas with strong Muslim presence. Even to vote to allow gays in the US branch of the church could put their lives in danger, and they might very reasonably decide that the cause of the Gospel in their area is more important than accommodating gays in the US. I think the only possible compromise would be to separate governance in the US and Africa enough that they don't have to vote on this issue. But I doubt that will happen.

So I suspect that the UMC won't go the same way as other mainline denominations. At that point you could imagine individual liberal congregations withdrawing. But the recent events in the Western Jurisdictions suggest that you may lose whole jurisdictions. It appears that a jurisdiction is the smallest part that could effectively ignore national policy (not that doing so is healthy for the Church).

Very informative analysis, hedrick. I had not given thought to the African connection.

 

[Dave-W]

I voted Nazarene. But I would give equal credence to either Free Methodist or Wesleyan denominations.

Of course there is also the AME denom.

 

[Maid Marie]

The Church of the Nazarene was my vote. Having gone to a Nazarene school (Olivet) that seems a likely choice.

A fellow Olivetian!