Random Thoughts and Ramblings

Tag: United Methodist

  • Hello, Johnston Chapel UMC!

    Baptizing our youngest daughter (Ginny) as my wife (Jessica), older kids (Luna and Noah) and mother-in-law (Connie Crosby) look on

    First things first: I still love to write. Lately, I’ve just been channeling that passion into other areas—family life, ministry, and the usual whirlwind of “other stuff.” If you’ve found your way here, chances are you Googled me because I’m your new pastor. If that’s the case: Hello! I’m glad you’re here, and I hope this space gives you a glimpse into my life, my heart, and the journey that’s brought me to Johnston Chapel.

    My name is Jonathan Tullos (pronounced Tull-is), and I’m incredibly honored and excited to begin my appointment as pastor of Johnston Chapel United Methodist Church. My whole family is thrilled to join you and see what God has in store for us together. We’re trusting that God will use each of us—clergy and laity alike—to reach Pike County with the love of Christ.

    A little about my crew: I’ve been married to Jessica since 2008. She’s a middle school English and science teacher at Loyd Star Attendance Center. We’re blessed with three amazing kids we adopted through the foster care system: Luna(9), Noah (5), and Ginny (1). Our daughter Hannah went to be with the Lord shortly after birth, and her life continues to shape our family’s story in meaningful ways. Luna will be starting 4th grade at Loyd Star in August, and Noah will be joining her as a kindergartener. As for Ginny—she’s got a few years left to rule the daycare roost.

    I was ordained an Elder in the Mississippi Annual Conference in 2022 by Bishop James Swanson. My ministry journey has taken me to churches in Meridian, Stanton, Kentucky, and Lucedale before my current appointment at Adams UMC. I grew up in Philadelphia—Mississippi, not Pennsylvania—and graduated from Philadelphia High School in 1999. I hold degrees from:

    • Meridian Community College (A.A.S., Broadcast Communications, 2001)
    • East Central Community College (A.A.S., Paramedic Science, 2011)
    • Liberty University (B.S., Religion, 2015)
    • Asbury Theological Seminary (M.Div., 2019)

    One day, when the chaos of toddlerhood gives way to more quiet evenings, I’d love to pursue a Doctor of Ministry degree.

    Before I answered the call to pastoral ministry, I worked in radio as a personality and music programmer, dabbled in video and audio production, spent time in retail, and served as a paramedic. It was during my EMS days that I could no longer deny God’s call to ministry. I kept working on the ambulance while serving my first two appointments and completing seminary. Those years taught me more than I can ever put into words.

    I’m often asked how all of this comes together in ministry. I’m glad you asked!

    I’ve used my media background to strengthen the digital and audiovisual ministries of the churches I’ve served. That experience was especially crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic when we had to pivot entirely online. Out of this, I launched a digital ministry consultancy called Strangely Warmed Media. Through it, I offer free consultations to congregations looking to begin or improve their online ministries. I believe digital ministry is a vital part of evangelism—very much in line with John Wesley’s commitment to preach wherever the people were. Today’s “town squares” are often online, and the church must show up there, too.

    I also run BSPN – The Bears Sports Network, which livestreams sports for West Lincoln Attendance Center. It’s a joy to support our local schools and build community through these broadcasts.

    My time as a paramedic gave me a deep appreciation for people from all walks of life. I saw the struggles of those with complex medical needs, mental health challenges, and limited access to care. Those experiences taught me empathy, and many stories from “the truck” will likely find their way into sermons.

    As we begin this new chapter, I hope to get to know each of you better. I’m always up for a cup of coffee and conversation (yes, there will be a Keurig in my office). Once we’re settled in, I’ll be setting up visits and offering regular office hours—both at the church and out in the community.

    In the meantime, please know I’m praying for you and your current pastor as this season of transition unfolds. John Wesley’s final words were, “The best of all, God is with us.” I believe that with my whole heart. God is already present in what’s happening and what’s to come—and I can’t wait to see where the Spirit leads us.

    To God be the glory! See you soon.

    In Christ,
    Bro. Jonathan

  • Would Jesus Have Live Streamed the Sermon On The Mount? (Nurturing Faith in a Digital Age)

    book, bible, training

    In today’s digital age, the landscape of ministry is undergoing a profound transformation. The advent of digital technology has paved the way for churches to expand their reach and engage with their congregations in unprecedented ways. While some critics argue that digital ministry fosters consumerism and promotes spiritual laziness, a closer examination reveals that the advantages far outweigh the supposed drawbacks.

    Embracing the Digital Landscape

    Digital ministry is not a replacement for traditional worship but rather an expansion of it. One of its most significant advantages lies in its ability to break down physical barriers. Geographic distances and mobility limitations no longer stand in the way of individuals seeking spiritual guidance and community. This accessibility is especially crucial for those who cannot attend in-person services due to health concerns or other circumstances.

    A Welcoming Community

    Critics sometimes argue that digital ministry fosters consumerism, creating an environment where people consume religious content without actively participating. However, this perspective overlooks the vibrant communities that form online. Digital ministry platforms often provide spaces for people to connect, share experiences, and offer support. Online communities can be just as warm and welcoming as in-person ones, promoting a sense of belonging and shared faith.

    Empowering Outreach

    Another advantage of digital ministry is its capacity to reach a broader audience. Through social media, streaming services, and websites, churches can share their messages with a global audience, transcending borders and cultural differences. This outreach enables congregations to engage with individuals who may have never set foot in a physical church. In this way, digital ministry can be a powerful tool for spreading the message of love, hope, and faith. In other words: Digital ministry enables the church to be the church wherever people are, just as it always has. People were once found in the pastures and market crosses. Today’s market crosses are social media platforms and other digital spaces.

    Flexibility and Convenience

    Digital ministry provides flexibility and convenience for both congregations and pastors. It allows individuals to engage with spiritual content on their own schedules, removing the constraints of specific service times. For those with busy lives, this flexibility ensures that faith remains a vital part of their daily routine. Pastors, too, can use digital platforms to deliver sermons and messages to a broader audience, ensuring that their guidance reaches those who seek it.

    Spiritual Nourishment

    Now, let’s address the criticism mentioned at the beginning of this article: the idea that digital ministry is a “cheap substitute” for in-person worship. This perspective is, at its core, a misunderstanding of the nature of digital ministry. While it’s true that digital ministry cannot entirely replicate the tactile and sensory experience of physical worship, it offers something equally valuable: spiritual nourishment.

    Digital ministry provides a platform for worship, teaching, and connection, allowing individuals to explore and deepen their faith. Just as a printed Bible can be a valuable tool for spiritual growth, digital ministry offers accessible, condensed, and convenient avenues for encountering God’s word and the teachings of Jesus. It doesn’t cheapen the experience; rather, it enhances it.

    Digital ministry presents a wealth of advantages, from expanding access to welcoming communities, empowering outreach efforts, and offering flexibility and convenience. While it cannot replace the beauty of physical worship, it complements it, providing spiritual nourishment to those who seek it in a digital age. The statement that online church is a “cheap substitute” fails to recognize the genuine opportunities for faith, community, and growth that digital ministry offers to individuals around the world. Embracing digital ministry is not about diluting faith but rather about extending the invitation to experience the transformative power of God’s love to all, wherever they may be.

    To Wrap Up

    To be clear, digital ministry or “online church” does not replace the physically gathered community. I don’t believe that digital ministry is intended to do that. On the contrary, I believe digital ministry strengthens the ability of the established physical church to reach more people than it ever could before.

    Would Jesus have live-streamed the Sermon On the Mount? Yes. Yes, he would have.

  • Hello, Adams UMC and Sweetwater UMC!

    A photo taken of us just after I was ordained. Credit: Greg Campbell.

    We live in a digital age, and it’s not lost on me that one of the first things people of the UM church do is google the person announced as their new pastor. So, to the folks of Adams UMC and Sweetwater UMC who have found my website: Hello!

    My name is Jonathan Tullos (Tull-is), and I’m excited to join you all soon. I’m originally from Philadelphia, Mississippi, and I’ve been a pastor since 2012. I have degrees from Meridian Community College (2001 – Broadcast Communications), East Central Community College (2012 – Paramedic Science), Liberty University (2015 – Religion) and Asbury Theological Seminary (2019 – Master of Divinity). I was ordained an Elder by Bishop James Swanson in 2022. I’ve enjoyed serving parishes in Meridian, Mississippi; Stanton, Kentucky; George County/Jackson County, Mississippi; and soon, Lincoln County!

    I’m married to Jessica (Crosby) Tullos, a Franklin County High School graduate. For her higher education, Jessica attended and earned degrees from Co-Lin, Southern Miss, and Mississippi State. Jessica is excited to be back in an area that she knows as home, reconnect with old friends, and make new ones. Jessica has already been offered a job and intends to teach within the Lincoln County School District when the new school year begins. Some of you may know Jessica’s father, Rev. Johnny Crosby, a former superintendent of the Brookhaven District and former pastor of Jackson Street UMC and Meadville UMC.

    We’re licensed foster parents through Mississippi Child Protection Services (CPS) and we currently have two foster children we intend to adopt as soon as they’re legally cleared. We have a seven year old girl who will be entering the second grade and a three year old boy. Please forgive me for not providing their names here. CPS does not allow foster parents to provide identifying information about children in foster care online. They’re both excited about moving to their “new rooms,” and are excited to meet you all. We hope they will be a source of much joy for y’all!

    I know you have many questions about me, and I will answer some of them here for you. Please remember, however, that this is a mere snapshot of who I am. You will learn much more about me and my family as we get to know one another and serve God together. The first question I always seem to be asked first is about my theology. If I had to label myself, I’d call myself an orthodox Christian Wesleyan Methodist. Putting our faith into action is vital in reaching people for Christ, especially in a world that trusts the church less and less each year. I believe that all people bear God’s image and need to know how much God and God’s people love them. At Christ’s table, the invitation and welcome are wide. As such, I believe the church should use all means (including digital platforms) for ministry. For a time, I worked for Hard Rock Café, and I like to add a bit to one of their slogans: “(Love God), Love all, serve all.”

    The next question I always seem to be asked is my feelings on the Book of Discipline. When I was ordained, I made a vow before God and our annual conference that I would submit to the order and discipline of the United Methodist Church. I took that vow seriously and continue to do so. In short: I will uphold and obey the Book of Discipline.

    A final frequently asked question is what I like to be called. Well, you can call me whatever you want, just don’t call me late for supper! Seriously, Brother Jonathan, Pastor Jonathan, or whatever you typically call your pastor is perfectly fine. I rarely use the title “Reverend” in anything but formal settings or in letters.

    I hope this gives you a positive first glimpse into me and my family. We’re eager to meet you all and can’t wait to become part of your community and your lives. Once again, know that I’m praying for all of you and your pastors who are also transitioning. Your prayers for us and my current congregations are appreciated. Until moving day, God bless you all! We’ll see you soon.

    In Christ,

    Bro. Jonathan

  • 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.

  • Hot Take: Predictions for the Global Methodist Church

    Since the Global Methodist Church has launched and begun holding convening conferences, I believe now is an excellent time to give predictions of what I believe may be in store for the GMC. I fully and freely admit that these are my hot takes and may or may not come true. Perhaps I should remind myself to return to this post in a year or two and see how accurate my predictions are.

    LGBTQ+ Inclusion Will Become a Debate

    I will give the GMC until their second General Conference before LGBTQ+ inclusion becomes a debate for them. For the people who say, “But this won’t happen,” well, as we say back home, “hide and watch.” It will. A small but vocal faction will bring this up, and the topic of ordination and wedding rites for LGBTQ+ persons will happen. Carve it in stone. It will happen. Why am I so confident? I’ve talked with pastors going to the GMC who believe this will happen. If they’re saying it, I’m pretty confident in this prediction.

    The Ordination of Women Will Be Challenged

    This is another area where I’m told there won’t be any challenges. I believe the one who believes the ordination of women won’t be challenged is either naive or hasn’t been paying attention. I’ve spoken with several clergy persons heading to the GMC who have all made similar statements: “I would never go to a church that wouldn’t allow my daughter to be ordained.” I believe them. However, I also know that the laity tends to be more conservative than the clergy. I know many of the laity – including women – who do not and never have supported the licensing and ordination of women as clergy. And, yes, I know there are clergy who do not support the ordination and licensing of women. I believe the ordination of women will be challenged very early in the life of the GMC, possibly at their opening General Conference.

    Small and Rural Churches Will Be Second Class

    Many folks who make up small and/or rural churches in the UMC believe they are second-class and do not receive the attention they should. I acknowledge that this does happen. Small and rural churches often receive pastoral appointments that are terrible fits. People in small/rural churches often believe they are asked to pay apportionments and receive little to nothing. While I do my best to educate my people on how they benefit from mission shares and connectional giving, I understand why many feel this way. In my reviews of the GMC’s discipline and doctrine draft, I see a polity and clergy deployment system that favors the larger suburban and urban congregations more than the small/rural congregations that currently make up the majority of any given UMC annual conference (including – perhaps especially – my own). Small/rural congregations that decide to join the GMC will find themselves forgotten and ignored. At the same time, resources will be diverted to support existing larger congregations and the establishment of church plants in affluent and/or suburban areas.

    Your Turn

    What are your predictions for the Global Methodist Church?

  • 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.

  • Yes, There is False Information Being Spread About the UMC. Here’s Proof:

    In my last post, one of the things I harped on was the spread of misleading and false information about the UMC being conducted by people connected with the Global Methodist Church/Wesleyan Covenant Association. Below is a prime example of what I’m talking about:

    This is petty and ridiculous. While I do not know exactly who created this tissue of lies (I’m trying to find out – and I fully intend to find out), I do speculate it was someone connected with WCA and/or GMC. The fact that GMC is doing absolutely nothing to refute or to discourage this kind of mudslinging is pretty telling. But let’s talk about a few of these points they allege about a “post-separation” UMC:

    • No, the UMC will not become pluralistic. As I have already stated in my previous writing (see link above), the Articles of Religion affirm faith in Jesus Christ as the sole means of salvation. Because of the Restrictive Rules, these can not be amended. It’s not happening. Period. But let’s say it did happen: I would be one of the first out the door.
    • There’s no guarantee that annual conference boundaries will change, but at some point perhaps they will. There’s no way to know for sure at this time if, or how, that will happened (that will ultimately be up to General Conference/Jurisdictional Conferences).
    • As for international membership, I speculate that a lot of the African central conferences are going to opt to remain in the UMC for various reasons. As has already been demonstrated in places such as Nigeria, the GMC has very limited support within some of the conferences on the African continent.
    • The Trust Clause claim is also false. Let me be very clear: Annual conferences DO NOT own or control the banking accounts of congregations. They never have and never will. Period. This is patently false and intentionally misleading to cause fear. The only time the Trust Clause even is a factor is in the event a congregation chooses to close or disaffiliate, otherwise it has no bearing on the day-to-day operations of a congergation.
    • Whether or not LGBTQ clergy will be allowed to be ordained or licensed for ministry, or whether or not LGBTQ marriage rites/weddings will be allowed will be up to the General Conference. Frankly, given the trend of conservative representation from the central conferences only expected to increase (with the prediction being over 50% by 2028), I find it hard to believe that our stance is honestly likely to change.
    • The UMC’s position on abortion can be best summed up as being against abortion except in rare circumstances but that abortion should be legal and rare. For more, see our social principals. You will note that it’s very pro-life and not what many people seem to believe it is. One thing you will see very plainly is that the UMC DOES NOT endorse abortion as a means of birth control. Never have, and I doubt ever will.
    • The primary church focus is “social justice?” Really? (eye roll emoji goes here).

    I’m sick and tired of having to explain these falsehoods to both parishioners and others who, when they find out that I’m a pastor in the UMC, they make all sorts of assumptions and repeat the junk that floats around online. Frankly, me and my colleagues should not have to invest so much time and energy into dispelling these falsehoods.

    Once again, I call on the Transitional Leadership Board within the Global Methodist Church to do everything they can to stop this kind of fear mongering and misinformation being distribubuted by people clearly affiliated with their denomination. If they choose not to, they are complicit and I will only assume they endorse these tactics.

  • 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.

  • Sometimes, Distraction Is a Choice

    Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

    Over and over as the chasm between conservative, centrist, and progressive factions within the United Methodist Church has been growing, the word that keeps being thrown around over and over is: “Distraction.” On both sides of the theological aisle, churches have left with “the distraction of the continued debate on LGBTQ inclusion” cited as a primary reason. They claim that the “distraction” of the debate has prevented them from effectively ministering and otherwise working for God’s kingdom.

    Has it, now?

    https://twitter.com/methodistmonk/status/1516479791095902209
    My response was (note: I have protected my Twitter account so my response is copied and pasted):

    I have maintained throughout that anything is only a distraction if one allows it to me (sic). Anyone who says any of this has kept them from doing the work of the kingdom is admitting thay they have allowed the enemy to win.

    Here’s the thing: Ministry must still be done regardless of our desire to engage in endless debates and discussions over human sexuality. Now, I’m not saying that these conversations aren’t important. What I am saying is that when one chooses to make this the sole focus of their life, then, yes, they are distracted from the work that God has called us all to undertake.

    “Distraction” is a choice.

    The truth is, all of this is only a distraction if we one allows it to be. For me, I have discussions about denominational things from time to time, but I spend much more of my time talking about Jesus and the gospel. I do this because I have chosen to not allow human sexuality debates to be what keeps me from ministering to the people in my midst and to those outside it I’m able to reach. Simply, anyone who cites the “distraction” of LGBTQ inclusion as why they want to leave or why the church should split is admitting defeat. At the end of the day, no matter how many pieces the UMC is carved into, things are going to continue to come up. If it’s not LGBTQ inclusion, it will be something else later on. Then what? Are we going to keep splitting and not doing God’s work because we’re “distracted” by something new?

    Citing “distraction” is an admission that one has allowed the enemy to win. You better believe the enemy finds this hilarious, a joke at your expense. Or, perhaps, at the expense of your witness.

    Let’s do better, church.