The United Methodist Church’s experience with the disaffiliations of a number of its congregations has received widespread coverage in church media and in some secular media outlets. Because the polity of the UMC differs from that of many other denominations, this chapter in our denomination’s history may be confusing to those with different approaches to the ways congregations and whole denominations govern themselves.
Some may find it helpful to learn of the steps that led to the disaffiliation process, what its effect has been upon the denomination and what it may hold for the future of the denomination in the United States. The following constitutes a brief overview of these concerns.
Disaffiliation
The COVID-19 pandemic and the period in which United Methodist churches in the U.S. could disaffiliate from the denomination overlapped. In 2019, legislation approved by a special session of the General Conference — a worldwide gathering ordinarily held every four years — 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 Dec. 31, 2023. United Methodism has, along with some other denominations, a “trust clause” in which local church property is held in trust by the annual (regional) conference for use by those desiring to worship as United Methodists.
“The pandemic was a disaster, but disaffiliation was a tragedy.”
The pandemic was a disaster, but disaffiliation was a tragedy. It did not have to happen. Needless grief and conflict occurred because some found it impossible to live together in the denomination while differing on an issue about which Jesus and John Wesley said nothing and the Bible very little.
Bishop Will Willimon was right in calling disaffiliation “one of the biggest mistakes and saddest moves ever” for United Methodists. “What organization develops procedures for destroying their organization?” he said.
When I began considering a book about United Methodism’s next chapter in the U.S., it was clear the impact of disaffiliation was a central reality conferences (the regional bodies) and congregations were having to engage. 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 about homosexuality by the General Conference in 2024 from the denomination’s policy book, the Discipline, seemed to lift an unnecessary weight. Differences in policy remain, but the differences are among those who have chosen to journey together.
Some of the results of the disaffiliation process included:
- 25% of congregations left, and about the same proportion 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% of disaffiliating churches was white, whereas for all United Methodist churches, the percentage white was 89.6%.
- Before the disaffiliation process began, the Southeast (known as the Southeastern Jurisdiction) made up 35% of all churches. However, 50% of the disaffiliating churches came from the Southeastern Jurisdiction.
- The greatest variations in disaffiliations occurred at the regional level of annual conferences, where the range was from no disaffiliating churches to one conference where 81% of the churches left.
Two years later
As pleased as congregational and denominational leaders are to have the nightmare of disaffiliation behind them, 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 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. There also are remnant congregations left without a home because their churches voted to disaffiliate, leaving the minority of members without a church in which they feel at home. Each situation is somewhat different, but it is not unusual for those people to bond around their values and link with those in comparable positions from other nearby churches.
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.
“Virtually all the negative results from disaffiliation continued a path of denominational decline well under way before 2019.”
This is a reminder that virtually all the negative results from disaffiliation continued a path of denominational decline well under way before 2019. The pandemic also contributed to the challenges, as did a general turning away from religious observance among the general population.
Districts. A regional annual conference (often synonymous with a state) is divided into districts, usually with 50 to more than 100 churches, and led by a full-time district superintendent. The most prominent change is the continued reduction in the number of districts. The trend toward fewer districts has been the pattern for several decades. It always was interesting to see how conferences were careful to stress that actions to reduce districts were not driven by finances. Of course, they always were.
The Louisiana Conference was forced to close it’s cherished mission site. (Photo: Louisiana Conference UMC)
Today, everyone knows finances are driving the expanding size of districts. Parts of the denomination always have had especially large geographic districts, and some annual conferences are looking toward mergers as well, especially where there are natural geographic affinities.
Bishops. Bishops preside over one or more annual conferences. There are fewer bishops now. In the U.S., the movement over many decades had been toward bishops having primary episcopal oversight of only one annual conference. 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. Drawing from accumulated assets for operating costs is a tempting alternative to resetting their financial baselines.
At the annual conference level, disaffiliating churches were required to provide some funds to help compensate for the subsequent loss of funds to the conference. The purpose was that the sudden financial loss 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. National and international 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, for United Methodists, the disaffiliations. However, the wisest path for 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 U.S. 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 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.
Lovett H. Weems Jr. is distinguished professor of church leadership emeritus at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C. This article is adapted from this Substack newsletter, United Methodist Focus. His new book on United Methodism’s future is An Aura of Hope: United Methodism’s Next Chapter in the United States.