What Does It Mean to Dissolve The United Methodist Church?



Comments (11)

Comment Feed

1 corinthians 6:1-11

All it takes is for Christ-centered people on both sides to conference and agree to a plan for schism. Or do you really want a secular court to decide? Paul had a lot to say about that.

I am so disgusted with both sides that, after 70 years of being a Methodist/United Methodist, I say Bless you all as you go "forward" ..... without my membership.

Henry Jones more than 2 years ago

Organic agreement on dissolution

Jeremy, you and I are thinking along the same lines. Yes, dissolution from the ground up would allow freedom to create new structures and entities in a more organic (and less litigious) way. I second the motion. Now, who will write legislation?

Darryl W. Stephens more than 2 years ago


First time I have agreed with something Mr. Smith has posted. Scary but this makes sense.It honors our past as members of the American republic. If egos could be set aside, in humility we could honor each other and our conscience . We have a maxim in recovery, “Live in the solution, not the problem. “ Methodists could use this as a mantra to agree to disagree and to allow Methodists to worship as their conscious contact with God directs them to do.

Matthew Gotthardt more than 2 years ago

thinking outside the Methodist box to implement the Simple Plan

I believe we are better together than separated. I’m totally against schism, separation, divorce, slicing the baby down the middle, or carving up the fiscal pie.
But I am also aware that we participate in a voluntary covenant of governance by consent of the governed. And that our BoD needs to represent a consensus, rather than a punitive plan for enforcing rules to which a large majority objects. Our BoD never envisioned holding an endless stream of church trials of those determined to enact ‘Biblical obedience’. You don’t have to be a bishop to see that that’s just not gonna work.
Lining lawyers’ pockets while we pick over the fiscal bones of the United Methodist carcass is not the way to go.
But I’m also totally against the Jones/Bard Plan, in that it’s the last gasp of Tom Lambert's Coalition to launch a lifeboat for the few traditionalist annual conferences and traditionalist churches who are determined to enforce the Traditionalist Plan.
While I hate to see them leave, we really can’t stop them, since they’re so determined to have their way. And, what’s way worse, to claim the mantle of being 100% right in how they read the Bible and enforce the Discipline. That’s called punitive judgmentalism: My Way or the Highway to Hell. Not exactly what Jesus had in mind.
If new legislation enacted @ GC 2020 allows annual conferences to leave the UMC, let's encourage the vast majority to do so. Without needing to pass constitutional amendments to create a new Central Conference in the USA, we could see a new ‘daughter denomination’ emerge with its own GC and BoD.
And, most importantly, without the burden of having its direction determined by the votes of GC delegates from Africa and the Philippines.
We can’t force the African Central Conferences to vote for autonomous status. Chris Ritter says that is envisioned in the Jones/Bard Plan (or, alternately, joining the Traditionalist Methodist Church).
I suspect that GC delegates from African Central Conferences do not want to be squeezed out of the UMC unwillingly. Everything from their perks, their free travel, their free cell phones, their political clout among American traditionalists and incentives to vote with them, their financial subsidies, their episcopal funding, and their pride in their bishops (especially the Côte d'Ivoire Methodists, who wanted to have a bishop when they merged with the UMC in 2004), their cross & flame logo, and their UMC identity would be hard to give up.
And all that is just for starters!
Let's not forget their addiction to preserving the "incompatible" language in the Discipline as external/eternal validation of their cultural homophobia. And our implicit neocolonial mindset that works both ways to keep African Methodists emotionally tied to their relationship with Americans.
if the Africans won’t leave the UMC, let’s leave them.
Plus AC's in AL, south GA, KY, TX, & western PA to hold up the tent pole of what was a very big tent.
Simple Solution for the Simple Plan.

Wayne more than 2 years ago

You have your head in the sand

Dear Mr. Wayne, You have your head in the sand if you don’t believe there will be a major split, schism, dissolution or whatever you want to call it. You will not be satisfied in a denomination that upholds our BOD and we Traditionalists absolutely will not stay connected to the denomination you desire. Be a realist and let us go our separate ways in peace.

John more than 2 years ago

no sand here

Mr. John, your comments would have greater credibility if you bothered to read my plain English first before reacting to what you THINK I wrote. I never denied that there is likely to be some form of schism. I just said I was totally against it because I believe we are better together. Meaning that we are far better at engaging in mission if we don't have to spend our treasure and energy on fighting a losing battle against one another.
Read my lips (metaphorically).
But given all the options including the option of disaffiliation for annual conferences, I propose that the great majority of US annual conferences could leave the UMC for a 'daughter denomination', leaving the Traditionalists and Central Conferences to fight over the UMC carcass.
I predict that they will soon be at each other's throats.
Just one of those unintended consequences when the Africans discover that they've naively precipitated the dissolution of the 'big tent' denomination they so want to preserve for their own benefit.
Since the Traditionalists clearly didn't want to support most of the general boards and agencies, maybe they could pack up and leave with us.
Of course the Africans will want to keep the General Board of Global Ministries that is their St. Nicholas. And the WCA wants to disown it. Go figure how that will shake out.

Wayne more than 2 years ago

I can read quite well

You start off in your caption advocating for the “Simple Plan,” a proposal which would obviously cause a major divide in the denomination as Traditionalists and perhaps even a sizeable number of so-called Centrists would leave since that plan forces all congregations to host homosexual weddings and accept ordination and assignment of homosexuals. Knowing the adoption of such a plan will force a mass exodus, you then argue you are against division because we are better off together? How are we better off together when all we do is sling mud, snide remarks and accusations of not honoring Scripture? How can be stronger together when we don’t even remotely share the same beliefs? That is not a formula for a stable growing denomination. Sometimes the “big tent” can get so big that being inside it loses all meaning. I understand you disagree with our BOD, you have that right. But I do believe based on your original entry that you have your head in the sand if you believe we can possibly stay unified, or are somehow stronger together, if the denomination would just somehow pass the “Simple Plan.” You have your opinion, I have mine. I wish you blessings on your faith journey.

John more than 2 years ago

you're still not reading what I wrote!

Mr. John, I'm no longer going to engage with what you wrote. Simply because you obviously have a bias which prevents your reading simple English. I never said I believe "we can possibly stay unified." Please stop worrying about my head and simply try to get through reading the Simple Plan. You may find that the Simple Plan does not force anybody to do anything. It Simply turns back the clock, as it were, to the days before the "incompatible" language and punitive measures were added to the BoD. If you research Methodist history before 1972, you may find that without the prohibitive language there were no church trials.

Wayne more than 2 years ago

John is right

Traditionalists want to worship with other Christians, not with secularists who deliberately want to disobey God’s word and who choose to follow a social justice agenda instead of a Biblical course. Thus, we can’t be stronger together as we can no longer be together.

Steve more than 2 years ago


Just walk off. Individually or congregationally. Leave the building. Just walk off.

Richard F Hicks more than 2 years ago

My thoughts.

Annual and Central Conferences - This is where the bulk of the assets are owned. I would imagine splitting an annual conference as a very litigious event.

General agencies - I would be surprised that outside of the entities staying open under the Texas/Michigan plan that there are much assets here. A lot of salary expense, but not much in the way of assets. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

Seminaries - Maybe there would be title issues, but I would think these are essentially stand alone entities already.

Bishops - Under the Michigan/Texas plan, the three new entities would elect bishops as they wished. Current bishops would be either elected by those entities, retire, or I guess return to their original conference.

I'm not seeing the valuation and legal issues outside of the annual conferences. Those come about once the annual conference doesn't give out gracious exits, which I don't think there will be many other than assets that no one thinks are worth anything.

Anonymous more than 2 years ago