Random Thoughts and Ramblings

Month: March 2023

  • The Impact of Disaffiliation on This Pastoral Family

    men's white dress shirt

    If you follow me on social media, you know that one of my churches has voted to leave the United Methodist Church. Their decision has a far-reaching effect on many fronts, including impacts on my family and me. As I am committed to remaining in the United Methodist Church, we will be uprooting ourselves and going to a new appointment that our bishop and cabinet discern best suited for my gifts and graces. Before I go further, let me be clear about a couple of things: 1: I’m not here to criticize my congregation’s decision, although I disagree with it for many reasons (I have shared these views with the leadership on multiple occasions). 2: I am not looking for sympathy or throwing a pity party. This post is me telling you how disaffiliation affects pastoral families because I have not seen a lot of discussion on this front. I believe people need to understand that disaffiliation has impacts beyond the congregation, the annual conference, and the general church.

    The most obvious impact for me is that I will have to move to a new appointment, thus (most likely – the cabinet is still discerning where to send other pastors and me) ending my ministry at both churches I serve. My other church cannot afford my salary on its own, and as I’m an Elder in Full Connection, I must serve full-time. I have loved serving my parish, and we have been through a lot together. When I first moved here, COVID-19 was beginning, so we navigated the tangled mess of two in-person shutdowns mandated by our bishop, social distancing, masking, and all the other things that came along during the pandemic. It was here that I grew in my skills related to social media and live streaming, was reminded of the importance of phone calls and text messages, and how to try and hold two new-to-me churches together while we had to be separate. Here is where I learned about being creative in bringing internet access and streaming capabilities to two churches in the middle of nowhere and where I could use those skills to help a nearly 200-year-old camp meeting revival join the digital age. We have mourned the loss of loved ones together, celebrated new people coming into the churches, and met many needs in the community. I don’t believe that God is finished with either of these congregations, and I hope they keep growing in Christ and making disciples.

    Not only have we weathered the ups and downs of the church, my family and I have had many events during our nearly three years here. When we moved here, we had a foster child that we hoped we would get to adopt. These churches walked along with us and cried with us when she left our home to return to her biological family (we’re thankful that this ended up being a positive thing for her, though we still miss her very much). They celebrated with us when the local CPS office was able to place two other children with us, who it looks like we will get to adopt by the time it’s all said and done (their cases are different, and both are on track to be legally available for adoption soon).

    The act of moving is not something I’m looking forward to. On top of the obvious tasks of packing up my office and boxing up our things in the parsonage, I have to say goodbye to these people I’ve grown to love. I have to depart a community that I have been able to be involved in through participating in events and being part of the volunteer fire department. My wife will have to (likely) find a new school to teach at, and my kids will have to adjust to a new house, school, and daycare.

    Many people take for granted the nature of itineracy. It’s naturally assumed that those of us who agreed to go and serve where we are sent would move silently and without emotion. For many of us, that does happen, at least it seems to. We – the clergy – don’t voice our lament very often. Yet, when a move is unexpected or due to sad circumstances, people should know that we go, but we don’t go without sorrow, grief, and sadness. Grief is especially the case for my family and me due to this move coming about because of disaffiliation. My father-in-law served this appointment when he returned from seminary, so Jessica remembers spending some of her growing up in the same parsonage that we now call home. She remembers people still here and those who have departed to the church triumphant as being like other grandparents, aunts, and uncles to her and her sister. For her, the grief is also raw and honest.

    I believe naming and expressing our grief is healthy. But, again, please don’t see this as me asking for pity or ranting against Pleasant Hill’s decision (even if I disagree, I will never fault a congregation for going in a direction they genuinely believe God is leading them). I hope that people understand that disaffiliation has far-reaching consequences beyond church doors. As I prepare for whatever is next, I thank God for our time here and mourn what feels like a profound personal loss.

  • Abolish the Jurisdictional System

    In this season of splintering in the United Methodist Church, the most common questions I see are about accountability. “Why can’t the bishops hold themselves accountable for breaking the discipline?” “Why can’t we (whoever that may be) make a complaint?” “Why can’t someone do something?” As it turns out, there is a very simple explanation for the lack of accountability within the United Methodist Church.


    It’s because of the jurisdictional system.

    Recall that a split into northern and southern Methodist factions happened just prior to the civil war over the issue of slavery. When the Methodist Episcopal Church (MEC), the Methodist Episcopal Church-South (MECS) and Methodist Protestant churches came together in 1938, there was a lot of wrangling by the southern church over the issue of receiving bishops from the north. Simply, the southern church did not want someone from outside of the south coming to one of their annual conferences to impose desegregation on them. One has to remember that this is still the era of Jim Crow where blacks and whites were separated in nearly every facet of society. Worship services were not exempt from this. Even if African Americans were allowed to attend services in white churches, they had to sit in separate places such as a balcony. The southern church had no desire to change this and didn’t want some “yankee” telling them they had to.

    Other attempts at reunification of the Methodists had failed in the 1920s over polity issues (again, the southern church did not want northern bishops imposing on their system of segregation). In the 1930s, talks resumed and a compromise plan came together.

    This third plan for a unified church came before the MEC and MPC general conferences in 1936. Because it was a “bundle of compromises,” it had several features that made one or another of the parties uncomfortable. One was the jurisdiction system, which seemed to some Northerners more likely to divide than to unite. Another was the continued use of bishops, which made some MPs remember that their denomination had left the main church in large part because of powerful bishops. Another was the Judicial Council, which drained power from the MEC general conference and from the MECS bishops. Even then, some in the Southern church still feared the MEC predominance in the proposed general conference. But solid majorities in each denomination decided they could live with all that.

    https://archives.gcah.org/bitstream/handle/10516/9808/Methodist-History-2015-10-Sledge.pdf?sequence=1

    The jurisdictional system ensured that bishops would not be appointed by the General Conference and that the jurisdictions themselves would elect and deploy bishops. Quite simply, the MECS did not want a northern bishop coming in and trying to undo Jim Crow. Sadly, the MEC was already practicing segregation and there had been little interest in changing the status quo. The formation of the jurisdictional system is what allowed “separate but equal” to fully take hold with the formation of the Central Jurisdiction.

    The proposed Central Jurisdiction was a racially-based alignment of annual conferences, counterpart to five geographically-based white jurisdictions. The concept was a compromise, since the MECS favored the creation of a separate but allied Negro Methodist church encompassing the AME, AME Zion, CME and MEC black memberships. The white and black Methodist churches would then relate to each other in a fashion similar to the MECS-CME connection. The MECS delegates did not get their way on his point. The compromise plan called for the creation of a race-based Central Jurisdiction which would be within the fellowship of the new church, but with personal interaction only at the general level.

    https://archives.gcah.org/bitstream/handle/10516/9808/Methodist-History-2015-10-Sledge.pdf?sequence=1

    These bishops would not be accountable to the general church, rather to their jurisdiction and the jurisdiction’s College of Bishops. Since bishops would not be deployed at the general church level, they could not be held accountable to the general church. The Council of Bishops, while a denominational body, has very limited power to hold each other accountable. It’s ultimately up to the jurisdictional College of Bishops to handle complaints made against bishops. What’s more, a clergy or layperson in one jurisdiction cannot make a complaint against a bishop in another jurisdiction because they have no standing to do so. In other words, I could not send a complaint in on a bishop serving in the South-Central Jurisdiction because I am a member of the Mississippi Annual Conference in the Southeastern Jurisdiction.

    I contend that many of the current problems within the United Methodist Church could have been avoided if we had done the right and just thing by abolishing the jurisdictional system in 1968. Simply put, the jurisdictional system is a relic of racism that should never have existed in the first place. In the year of our Lord 2023, such a system has no place within the UMC, let alone in any denomination. The Judicial Council has ruled that, since bishops are accountable to their jurisdictions (see Decision 1341), the general church has virtually no means by which to hold bishops who go against the Book of Discipline accountable. Accountability has been a major complaint of those wishing to leave the UMC.

    Why, then, have many of these same people been in favor of retaining the jurisdictional system? I won’t even begin to speculate on that, other than to say that they see the current system as benefitting them. As I was told once, “At least it keeps us from getting a gay bishop.”

    I agree that there needs to be more transparency and more accountability within the United Methodist Church. There needs to be consequences for those who break their vows in any way to uphold the church discipline and to obey the order. So long as we are five churches (jurisdictions) within a church (the UMC), I believe that we will continue to have these issues. Among my many hopes for GC 2024 is that we begin the work of abolishing the scar that is the jurisdictional system.