Random Thoughts and Ramblings

Tag: Disaffiliation

  • A Letter to the M.S.A.C. General Conference Delegation

    After a four year delay, the 2020 session of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church is only weeks away. Soon, delegates will gather in Charlotte to debate legislation that will shape the future of our church and, perhaps, decide the future for several of our annual conferences. Mississippi has been hit particularly hard by disaffiliation and there is legislation that would allow disaffiliation to continue in one form or another. I’ve been through this with a congregation and I do not care to go through it again for a myrid of reasons. To that end, I have emailed the delegates (well, the ones I could find email addresses for) and expressed my views on the legislation. Find the contents of that email below. If you would like to contact your delegates to express the same views, feel free to take what I have written and adapt it for your context.

    Above all: Pray for our delegates and the proceedings of General Conference. This one is going to be tense and it’s vital that there is focus on God’s kingdom above all.

    Dear Delegates:

    I greet you in the name of our risen savior Jesus. I pray you all had a great Easter and that you received anew the blessing of resurrection!

    I want to take a moment to say a couple of things. First, know that I’m praying for all of you as General Conference draws near. The time it takes to prepare and the sacrifice of time away has to take a toll and I hope you all don’t think it goes unnoticed. Especially in the difficult season we find ourselves in, I know your jobs are not easy and I appreciate your willingness to serve and to represent Mississippi United Methodists at General Conference.

    With that in mind, we’re all aware of the impact that disaffiliation has had on the Mississippi Annual Conference. I’m not sure how many of you have had to deal with disaffiliation at the church level but I can tell you that it’s painful. When Pleasant Hill in Lucedale disaffiliated, I was serving there. While things were not as ugly as I have heard from other pastors in other appointments, I received my share of vitriol and abuse directed at me from certain individuals because I did not support disaffiliation and would not encourage the congregation to leave. I was accused of not being a real Christian and of being unfaithful to God. In short: It was the most difficult season of ministry I have ever endured (that word was used intentionally). The toll it took on my family was also immense. I’m healing but there was harm done. I can only imagine how much more harm has been done in other places as well as the cumulative harm done to the conference.

    I urge you all to prayfully consider voting against any disaffiliation proposals that come before your committees and the plenary. Our first general rule has been broken numerous times because of Paragraph 2553 and the harm is being continued through the closure policy adopted by the conference trustees. The intent may have been good, but the only thing accomplished is increasing the already tremendous pain being felt throughout our annual conference. Because of how this policy has been implemented, the appointment making process must be a difficult, if not impossible, task right now, due to the uncertainty and the number of congregations that exercised Option C. I predict we will have clergy finding out at annual conference that they will be moving, needless to say a less than ideal situation for all parties involved.

    As a colleague stated in a meeting last year: “Human sexuality is the excuse, but power and property are the reasons.” We should not be enablers of harm any longer.

    I truly believe the future viability of the Mississippi Annual Conference is in your hands and the rest of General Conference. I appreciate your time and consideration of my comments. Please reach out if you have any questions.

    In Christ,

    Rev. Jonathan Tullos

  • 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.

  • A Question Disaffiliating Churches Should Be Asked

    Photo by Olya Kobruseva on Pexels.com

    On Sunday, the General Conference delegation from Mississippi hosted a webinar where they presented the actual facts about disaffiliation and the hopes of those who wish for the UMC’s stance on human sexuality to change, those who want to change our stance to remain the same, and the hopes of those whose intention is to remain United Methodist regardless (a camp that I find myself in). As we were going through all the points presented, I sat with many of my folks from Pleasant Hill and Salem and started pondering questions I believe should be asked of congregations wishing to disaffiliate. David Stotts, Mississippi’s conference treasurer, did an excellent job of presenting subjects that congregations ought to consider as they discern their path forward. However, there was one question that I found myself believing was left out that I really wish disaffiliating churches would be asked:

    “If you are not making disciples of Jesus Christ now, what will you do differently that you cannot do now as part of the United Methodist Church?”

    I believe this question is especially relevant as a significant percentage, if not the majority, of churches that choose to disaffiliate are small (less than 50 average worship attendance) and, often, have not reported a profession of faith in years, sometimes in a decade or even more. More often than not, I hear people claim that the debate has kept them from focusing on the Great Commission. Every single time I hear or read such statements, I just shake my head. Nothing should keep the church from being the church and doing what Jesus commanded us to do, which is to make disciples. I’ve written before that distraction is a choice. I believe that people are choosing to make the debate over human sexuality the main focus of their church rather than evangelism and mission. I would be very interested to know what disaffiliating congregations and clergy believe will be different for them apart from the United Methodist Church. This is a question that I believe should have to be answered and thought through as part of the disaffiliation process.

    I’ll never forget when The Orchard and Getwell Road were trying to leave the Mississippi Annual Conference before a disaffiliation process was codified in our church laws. Brian Collier, the lead pastor of The Orchard, said something to the effect that the debate over human sexuality was a distraction to their mission of being the church. My question back to him would have been: Why? Also, how? How has any of this, other than choosing to be distracted, made bringing people to Jesus harder? How has a debate over human sexuality impeded your ability to conduct missional outreach? Exactly how has a General Conference debate kept you from being the church?

    Hot take: It was an excuse then, and it’s an excuse now.

  • Disaffiliation: What About the Rural Church?

    Photo by Eric Smart on Pexels.com

    As the United Methodist Church has fully entered the annual conference session season, much of the talk has been about churches choosing to disaffiliate from the UMC. While there are exceptions such as Mt. Bethel in the North Georgia Annual Conference, many of the churches choosing to leave under Paragraph 2553 of the current Book of Discipline are small and/or rural. In the decade that I’ve been serving as a United Methodist pastor, almost all of my appointments have been to small rural churches, so I have seen first-hand the challenges these congregations face. Many are in areas that have been in decline for years, and can not even afford to pay a full-time salary for a pastor without going on a charge (for non-UM folks: This means they team up with other congregations to form a circuit, whereby they share a pastor and expenses such as salary and housing). Because of these factors and more, I am greatly concerned that these congregations will be the most harmed by this mess.

    And, frankly, I don’t believe many of the people in these congregations fully understand what they are getting into by going independent or joining a fledgling denomination.

    I’ve heard from several colleagues who have shared stories that only add to my concern. One such story came from a now-former DS who was meeting with a congregation that had indicated they would like to discern disaffiliation and the possibility of becoming independent. This congregation was receiving salary support through equitable compensation funds provided by their conference so that they could afford a full-time pastor. My friend indicated that they were not only surprised to learn that they would no longer receive these funds but that they would not receive a newly appointed pastor from their annual conference when their then-current pastor left. Somehow, they assumed they would continue to receive conference support after disaffiliation.

    I wish I was making this up.

    I heard another colleague tell of their bishop having a conversation with leaders from a denomination that was wishing to disaffiliate. This is a congregation that had been around for approximately 150 years. The bishop reminded them that one of the reasons they had likely survived for so long was receiving an estimated 70 appointed clergy during that time and the fact that United Methodist clergy must be held accountable for actions they take which are detrimental to the church. By being independent, they would not have such safeguards and likely have a difficult time hiring their own pastor due to their remote location.

    Yet another former DS related a story of a congregation within his annual conference that was choosing to fight the trust clause in court and “they have spent more money on legal fees than if they had simply gone through the disaffiliation process.” Whoever is giving them advice clearly does not have their best interests in mind, but because they have refused to cooperate with the annual conference to reach a settlement, they are incurring debt at a fast rate that will possibly endanger their future viability.

    I truly do not believe that many of these congregations and clergy who are choosing to disaffiliate fully understand what will happen once they sever their relationship with their annual conference. My fear is that once they realize the gravity of their decision, it will be too late and the harm will have been irrevocably done. For me, this is not preserving an institution. Expressing my concerns is about doing my part to educate people on this issue that should not be taken lightly and begun flippantly. This is about doing what I can to minimize the harm done to these precious bodies of saints who deserve the best support and pastoral leadership they can possibly have.

    And let me add that most of the decisions and policies made by the breakoff denomination seem to be best suited for large churches in suburban areas. There is very little that I’ve seen that has been done with rural congregations in mind. Within the Global Methodist Church, congregations will be mostly responsible for finding clergy from a list of available clergy provided by their GMC annual conference. The congregation and clergyperson will have to reach an agreement on salary, etc. that will have to be approved by the bishop and cabinet. However, that congregation will not receive a clergyperson under appointment, at least not in the way the UMC currently appoints pastors. If a congregation can’t find a clergyperson willing to serve their congregation, it seems they will not receive much, if any, assistance from the annual conference beyond providing a list. Clergy will not be sent to an appointment under the GMC system. It’s nothing more than a call system with a few more hoops to jump through.

    Rural churches, hear me: If you decide to disaffiliate at this point, you will quickly find out that you will be on your own in every way imaginable. You will have to find your own clergy, which will be a huge challenge given that many rural and/or small churches simply can not pay enough for a full-time pastor on their own and are in areas where many people simply do not want to relocate to (and let me be very clear: This is NOT a reflection on my current appointment if any of my people see this. This is simply a fact for many rural and small congregations). While you certainly won’t have to pay apportionments or submit yearly reports anymore, you will find out that benefits such as conference-provided health insurance for your pastor will be an expense you will have to provide on your own; you also will no longer be covered under conference liability and property insurance, which also tends to be very expensive for churches. Many of the other safety nets you currently have – such as assistance with compensation to afford a full-time pastor – will be gone.

    The grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence, not without a bunch of manure being spread.

    I’m certain some people are going to bristle at what I have to say and that’s their prerogative. However, I believe that a lot of this has not been said, and it’s been to the detriment of people who make up small and rural congregations who may want to float the idea of disaffiliation. Consent is either informed or it is invalid. Again, my hope is that no more harm comes to any of our churches for any reason.

    One of my concerns has always been that the rural church be represented and cared for in the same way as larger suburban and urban churches. From the floor of annual conference this year, I advocated for as much when we had an opportunity to codify diversity on our delegations to general and jurisdictional conferences, one of those means of diversity being congregation size and setting (the measure ultimately failed, unfortunately). I said that the rural church is largely not being well represented currently and it’s not. But know that the rural church won’t be represented at all by leaving for the new denomination on the block.

    It’s not time to leave.