Traditional Plan Vote
ST. LOUIS, Mo. – Bishop Cynthia Fierro Harvey observes the results from a February 26, 2019, vote to strengthen The United Methodist Church's policies against homosexuality. The vote came on the last day of the Special Session of the General Conference of The United Methodist Church in St. Louis, Mo. Delegates approved the Traditional Plan, which strengthens penalties for LGBTQIA clergy and prohibits same sex weddings. (Photo by Paul Jeffrey, UMNS.)
United Methodist Focus | April 23, 2026
When I began considering a book about United Methodism’s next chapter in the United States, it was clear that the impact of disaffiliation was a central reality that conferences and congregations were having to engage. The tragedy of disaffiliation was disastrous for the denomination as a whole as it dominated the attention of leaders at all levels for multiple years. The results have left wounds and disappointments that may never heal. However, the spirit of those staying in the United Methodist Church is, for the most part, exceedingly joyful and hopeful. People want to turn to the future and already have. The removal of negative and contentious language from the Discipline by the General Conference in 2024 seemed to lift an unnecessary weight. Differences in policy remain but the differences are among those who have chosen to journey together.
This article helps set the stage for those future steps by recognizing how the results of the disaffiliation process impact our witness today and decisions for the future.
Recap of Disaffiliations
In 2019, legislation approved by a special session of the General Conference made it possible for a church to disaffiliate for reasons of conscience around issues of human sexuality and keep its property after fulfilling certain financial obligations. Disaffiliations ended on December 31, 2023.
25 percent of congregations left and about the same portion of members.
The characteristics of churches leaving were remarkably similar to those staying, especially in the size of their average attendance.
One notable exception is racial in that the majority race of 97.4 percent of disaffiliating churches was White, whereas for all United Methodist churches, the percentage White was 89.6 percent.
Before the disaffiliation process, the Southeastern Jurisdiction made up 35 percent of all churches. However, 50 percent of the disaffiliating churches came from the Southeastern Jurisdiction.
The greatest variations in disaffiliations occurred at the annual conference level where the range was from no disaffiliating churches to one conference where 81 percent of the churches left.
Two Years Later
As pleased as congregational and denominational leaders are to have the nightmare of disaffiliation behind, most face new challenges in the aftermath of disaffiliation.
Congregations. Few congregations escaped the damage of disaffiliation even if they never seriously considered it. The noise of disaffiliation was so similar to other voices in society that most churches had members identifying with the message of disaffiliation. And congregations that got as far as voting (which churches were not required to do), invariably were frightened and left weaker as a result. It is no different from a family that loves one another but all of a sudden is forced to choose sides on one of the contentious issues of the day. Then there are remnant congregations left without a home because their churches voted to disaffiliate. Each situation is somewhat different, but it is not unusual for those persons to bond around the United Methodist values they continue to seek to serve.
Conferences. It is at the annual conference level that the most consistent patterns of regrouping are taking place. While it is true that some annual conferences felt little impact from disaffiliations, some of those conferences had undergone significant losses of people and revenue over previous years. This is a reminder that virtually all the negative results from disaffiliation continued a path of decline well underway before 2019. The pandemic also contributed to the challenges as did a general turning away from religious observance among the general population.
Districts. The most visible change at the conference level is the continued reduction in the number of districts. The trend toward fewer districts has been the pattern for several decades. It was always interesting to see how conferences were careful to stress that actions to reduce districts were not driven by finances. Of course, they always were. Today everyone knows that finances are driving the expanding size of districts. Parts of the denomination have always had especially large geographic districts, and some annual conferences are looking toward mergers as well.
Bishops. There are fewer! In the United States, the movement over many decades had been toward bishops having episcopal areas made up of only one annual conference. Conference mergers made that easier to achieve in some jurisdictions. Now, the pattern of bishops having responsibility for multiple conferences is common again. Needless to say, bishops, and district superintendents as well, are having to discern new ways of working that fit their changed situations.
Finances. Churches and annual conferences face varying degrees of financial stress. The key issue for congregations is finding a new economic equilibrium based on covering their annual operating expenses through recurring and predictable income. The temptation to draw from accumulated assets for operating costs must be resisted in favor of resetting a financial baseline that can work. At the annual conference level, disaffiliating churches were required to provide some funds to help the subsequent loss of funds to the conference. The purpose was that the financial burden should not be left to the churches choosing to remain. However, those funds are limited, and conferences know they must transition quickly to new financial baselines. The conferences facing the most future challenges are, just as with congregations, those relying too heavily on various sources of nonrecurring funding to avoid deficits. General agencies face continuing reductions as funds available are more limited.
Avoiding Going Back to Normal
A common expression after the pandemic was a desire to “get back to normal.” All of us can appreciate that sentiment after the massive disruptions in lives and congregations during the pandemic and then the disaffiliations. However, the hopefulness of today’s United Methodists should not be channeled into a return to some previous time. In truth, “back to normal” is the last thing the United Methodist Church in the United States needs today. To go back to normal means going back to a way of being church that for 60 years now has resulted, however unintentionally, in our withdrawing our witness from the United States as we serve fewer people each year. It is time for hope but also for prayer, discernment, and truly good work to carry John Wesley’s vision of holiness of heart and life to the world.
For more information:
The final Lewis Center for Church Leadership report on disaffiliations: Disaffiliating United Methodist Churches, 2019-2023: Final Report
The Rev. Lovett H. Weems Jr.
Wesley Theological Seminary Photo
The Rev. Dr. Lovett H. Weems, Jr., is distinguished professor of church leadership emeritus at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, DC. He came to Wesley in 2003 as the founding director of the Wesley’s Lewis Center for Church Leadership after eighteen years as president of Saint Paul School of Theology in Kansas City. Previously he was a pastor in Mississippi for many years. He is the author of many books on church leadership that have had a broad appeal to a large constituency of leaders in both the public and private sectors.