I am not a methodist. I don’t have a dog in the current fight going on within what has been one of the larger protestant denominations in the U.S. since its formation in 1968. At that time it boasted 42,000 churches and 11 million members. By 2020 its numbers were down to over 30,000 churches with 6 million members plus perhaps another 3 million people who identify as United Methodist but aren’t actually members (Pew Research). This denomination finds itself in a turmoil that is reflective of American society in general.
Politico posted an interesting article back in December comparing the schism to what denominations experienced in the 19th century as slavery became a more important and divisive political issue. Lots of denominational fractures and realignments occurred during the 19th century. Politico issued an ominous warning that similar fractures in the 1840s were a type of foreshadowing to the U.S. Civil War – a canary in the coal mine if you will. While our political divisions are no doubt getting wider, it’s hard to imagine another military-style civil war is looming.
People will more likely continue to vote with their feet. People who desire a more liberal approach to government, law enforcement and the social safety net will continue moving to the bigger cities while people who favor a more conservative approach to government, taxation and law enforcement will move to areas where they feel safer and believe they can maintain a higher standard of living.
But what is happening in the United Methodist denomination represents what is great about America. With no state-sponsored or national religion, congregations of like-minded individuals can assemble with whomever they wish and adopt whatever tenets or belief systems they choose. The General Conference (leadership body for United Methodists) can’t order the pastors of those departing churches be rounded up and imprisoned or executed. This is exactly what would have happened in many societies throughout history where the political leader and the religious leader were the same person.
The fact that it is a good thing doesn’t mean it’s painless to those involved. For many of the small congregations in more modest communities, the decision is pretty easy – stay or go. But I’m hearing from members of larger, more prosperous churches, the issue is much thornier for them. These churches have assets that in some cases belong to trusts under the control of the local conference. The congregation can leave but their endowments that fund much of their programming must stay behind. It is this desire to control assets that is leading the local conferences to become more aggressive with local congregations in their efforts to make it difficult for them to leave.
The big blue cities of the U.S. are ultimately going to face the same challenge, if they are not already. As wealthy people and businesses flee, the tax base shrinks. For liberal city leaders who have an insatiable appetite for social spending, this creates a challenge. Rather than attempting to make their cities and states more attractive to investors, they seem to be looking for ways to handcuff taxpayers. California is already considering ways to continue to tax former residents after they leave the state. After the end of Apartheid, the South African government made it very difficult for wealthy whites to get their money out of South African banks and into banks in Europe. The government didn’t mind if the people left, but they needed to leave their money behind.
In some of the larger, more prosperous churches that are located in or near larger municipalities, especially if the ministerial team prefers to stay aligned with the UMC, leaders are taking a cue from universities and other liberal institutions. They are controlling the message such that advocates for separating from the UMC are unable to present their views. In one instance it was reported that a member asked the leadership council if they should let the membership vote on staying or leaving. The (non-minister) council chair replied, “we are not baptist, the council will decide what is best.” At that same church, an internal group invited a local pastor whose congregation had recently voted to leave the UMC to speak with them about the issues and what lead to that congregation’s decision. The church council got wind of the meeting and promptly rescinded the invitation.
I believe Barack Obama once said something like, “sometimes social change is ugly.” What’s happening with United Methodists is ugly. But it represents what is great about America. Freedom of association has long been considered a logical extension of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court. If the internal group at the church I just mentioned decides to host the same meeting at a different location, there is nothing the church council can do.
While the political right was more likely to attempt to limit influences it disagreed with in the 1950s through 1980s, the political left seems to have taken the lead here in recent years. They demonstrated these intentions during the 2020 election and throughout the COVID pandemic, and are doing the same in select congregations in the United Methodist family. They call it the fight against “disinformation.” A Wayne State University professor recently claimed it was more honorable to murder right wing speakers than to simply shout them down. According to Professor Steven Shaviro, it is a justifiable response to limit the potential influences of disinformation from racists and (homo)phobes.
If our freedom to associate continues to erode in this manner, I’ll begin agreeing with Politico that the UMC schism is foreshadowing something worse for the U.S. on the horizon. But ultimately I’m an optimist and am confident that most of America will reject these approaches.