by Chris Ritter
Let me introduce United Methodist Schism Map 2.0. Its predecessor (appearing on Twitter) generated some interesting conversation and I have been asked for additional information and context. Here are some responses to inquiries I have received and other good questions to consider.
How do you determine whether an area is in Schism?
Land areas served by the UMC where the United Methodist Book of Discipline is no longer fully in effect make it onto the Schism Map. In most cases, annual conferences are added to the map when they have established ministry standards at odds with the standards of The United Methodist Church.
Where do you show Bishop Melvin Talbert, David Meredith, and other instances of denominational disobedience?
The Schism Map only shows conferences who have taken actions in direct contradiction to the Book of Discipline. Version 2.0 makes a distinction between conferences whose plenary body (or clergy session) has voted non-compliance with the Book of Discipline and those who are in de facto schism by action of their Board of Ordained Ministry. Wisconsin and Northern Illinois fit the latter category and are depicted in light gray. The map does not register congregations like The Orchard (a congregation that completely left the UMC) because they exited with proper permission from those charged in the Book of Discipline charged with making that decision.
Did any data change between Version 1.0 and Version 2.0?
Yes. The earlier version included the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference. They were listed because their Board of Ordained Ministry (BOOM) recommended Tara “TC” Morrow for ordination in spite of the fact that she is married to a woman. The conference did not make it onto Schism Map 2.0 because several pointed out to me that this recommendation was later rescinded. Due to this reversal of course, they did not make it onto Version 2.0. The Iowa BOOM’s executive team recently made a formal statement against our denominational ministry standards, but I did not include them because this was not an action of the full board.
Conferences like Minnesota are pretty liberal. Why aren’t they on the Schism Map?
Being liberal does not put a conference on the map. Defying the Discipline of the UMC does. I don’t have any record of Minnesota or other unlisted conferences officially stating that they would not obey The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church. Please comment if you know otherwise.
Why does the Schism Map only show the U.S.?
Great question. Schism is only happening in the U.S. While there are areas in Europe that would very much like to see United Methodist ministry standards change, they nevertheless respect the group discernment processes of the UMC enough to honor them. Schism is an American phenomenon alone. Below is a Global UM Schism Map. The areas in black are all those covered by the UMC. The areas in red are in Schism. These areas represent 5.37% of the global church by membership and 10.09% of the American UM Church.
Is there anything the Schism-ing conferences have in common? What makes a conference more likely to assume a posture of schism?
All conferences in schism are in the U.S. All conferences in schism are also in decline, but this is true of the U.S. Church in general. There are liberal, declining conferences in Europe who are not in schism, so a direct corollary cannot be made. Coastal, urban areas of the U.S seem to be the earliest and most strident practitioners of schism. Upper Midwest examples are more recent and somewhat more mild. Areas in schism all have bishops who have gone on the public record as opposing United Methodist teachings on human sexuality and ministry. This seems to be a key factor.
Does the Schism Map reveal a possible path forward for the UMC?
I think so. Logic would seem to dictate that those conferences who have written their own ministry standards, if they persist, should not have a role in writing the ministry standards of The United Methodist Church. We currently allow international conferences to gain autonomy upon request to their Central Conference. We could extend this same privilege to domestic conferences and their jurisdictions quite easily. These autonomous conferences could participate in United Methodist general agencies by negotiated concordat agreements. Wespath (formerly the General Board of Pensions and Health Benefits) is ready to do business with any conference that requires their services, whether they be UM or not. Autonomous conferences could also set their own borders to accept individual UM congregations and clergy that might want to join them… if these autonomous conferences agree to return the favor.
Losing these conferences would mean a membership drop of about 5% globally. We already lose around 2% annually in the U.S. just due to decline. (Recent data shows a range of U.S. decline from 1% in the Southeastern Jurisdiction to 2.65% in the Western Jurisdiction.)
General Conference could mandate that all the conferences in the Connection state whether they intend to live by the discernment of the United Methodist Church or not. For those that don’t, General Conference has some effective tools at its disposal to see that they find their way to a covenant they can follow with integrity.
Holding individual clergy and bishops accountable is eternally frustrating because there are enormous burdens of due process that depend upon the good faith of the actors charged with prosecuting the will of the church. Annual conferences, however, are nowhere guaranteed the right to be United Methodist. It may turn out that Schism is infinitely easier to deal with now that it has risen from the individual level to the level of the annual conference.
People Need Jesus 
I amaCotN pastor and truly enjoy your forum. This edition is thought provoking. Where can I obtain 2.0 Book of Discipline?
To allow Conferences to write their own Discipline is simply the “local option “. Grown large. No thanks!
Most likely won’t happen, and it shouldn’t.
To write their own Discipline would require their own General Conference. They would not be United Methodist at that point, but they could cooperate with the UMC through concordat agreements. Thanks for reading and commenting.
so what happens to local churches and districts who don’t want to covenant with an Annual Conference’s BoD 2.0? That looks like a bigger mess. Just as ACs disagree with the General Church so will local churches disagree with the AC. #notawayforward
Thanks for reading and commenting, Steve. Churches and clergy who do not like the direction of their conference could transfer out as a condition of the concordat agreement that autonomous conferences would have with the UMC. There are already provisions in The Discipline for churches to transfer to a new denomination. Remember that autonomous conferences could set their own borders and stretch them to overlap UMC conferences. There would be swapping that would happen, I am sure.
Why do we allow mental health professionals to diagnose and treat mental illness on the one hand and dismiss their professional advice about sexuality on the other hand as if we all have the right to be amateur mental health Professionals.
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
I’m guessing it’s because homosexuality is a moral issue, and the APA doesn’t make moral judgments on behalf of Christian churches. But maybe in your conference they do.
We used to consider addiction a moral issue. We know now that it is not. It is a function of brain wiring, among other things. Many of us, including health care professionals, see homosexuality in the same light.
Not only did BWC’s Clergy session reverse the BOOM decision last year, BOOM reversed its own course this year and never brought TC forward to the Clergy Session, even after weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Thanks for the additional information, Matt. I did not understand that the BOOM reversed itself. This is helpful to know.
Yes. I believe it was due to a change of leadership in BOOM. They pointed to the JC decision and said they were waiting to see further results of the COWF and the Special GC session.
Where in Judicial Council Decision No. 1341 is Bishop Oliveto declared “unfit”?
Fair point, Keith. That was my word, not theirs. Would “ineligible” be more accurate?
I’m an evangelical pastor in Cal-Nevada Conference. I don’t think this will work because our church would have to relate to an Annual Conference that is very far removed geographically. We would be an appendage and the likelihood of considered and beneficial appointment and appointment changes is low when the Bishop has no working knowledge of the local churches. My own view is that we should maintain standards and ask those who cannot or will not abide by them to do the ethical thing for themselves and leave.
Thanks for the feedback, Steve. The Western Jurisdiction would have to make a conference out of whatever was left of the WJ. We seem to be out of good options and are down to sorting through the bad ones. I appreciate the opportunity to hear your take on this.
Blessings on your ministry.
Steve, I am on the other side of this disagreement than you are, but you point out what I have always felt was the fatal flaw in the idea of borderless annual conferences. Good intentions notwithstanding, human nature guarantees that congregations and pastors who are geographically far removed from the episcopal “seat” will not be as well known and will not receive the same attention as those that are located within the traditional geographic bounds of the annual conference.
It is interesting that all of the conferences listed as in schism (with the possible exception of Oregon Idaho) acted in the last 1.5 years. Is the move towards formal schism accelerating, and what impact will this have on the Commission on a Way Forward?
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
Important question. It seems that the shift has been from informal disobedience to formal. I make the argument near the end of the piece that this might actually be a helpful development. The potential accountability measures for conferences are much less cumbersome than the frustrated accountability measures that have been attempted upon individuals in the past. I am praying for The Commission.
Dear Steve, I find a comparison between Schism and Divorce helpful. We can have a ‘Friendly’ divorce or duke it out in court. Luke 12:58 suggests we work it out before it goes before the Judge ! As in divorce, it’s the Children who suffer. Our Children may be the Mission and Ministry we have been doing together.
I completely agree.
Hi Chris,
I continue to have the concerns that others have named about non-geographic annual conferences and local options. One possible help I have thought of is that churches and clergy caught in a different ideological place than those around them might be able to become missional outposts of other conferences. For example, could the more traditionalist churches here in New England where I serve be mission churches of, say, the Florida Annual Conference, with cross-conference (cross denominational in the model where there’s full schism) appointments? Could reconciling congregations and clergy serving in Texas be mission churches of the Cal-Nev Conference, with cross conference appointments? My hope would be that we could use the strength of the connection to maintain both our witness and our diversity in reach.
I think there’s also an important point that your schism map doesn’t address, and that’s caucusing or a sort of snowball effect. For example, BWAC may not be in schism *at the moment*, but I think that if New England and New York ACs were writing a BOD 2.0, B-W would as a whole climb on board. When a small group of us in NEAC including myself wrote the original Non-Conformity resolution– a resolution intended not to be schismatic, but to keep us within the connection while living out the ministry with all persons to which we have heard God calling us– other conferences jumped on board, adopting similar resolutions modified for their contexts. I think there are some “swing” conferences that would quickly do the same.
My question is, what are the financial implications for the schism map as you have drawn it? I know that we in the Northeast and the Western Jurisdictions are a small portion of the global population, but what percentage are we of global funding, mission shares, etc? What is the impact on our ability to do mission together if the UMC minus all of the west and most of the northeast and some of north central and so on has to try to sustain itself, while the schism-ed out areas try to sustain THEMselves?
(Full disclosure: I believe we are stronger together, always. I think what we have in common is greater than what separates us, and that we can do more ministry in Christ’s name if we remain one body with many parts that are free to function in the ways that are appropriate for their contexts. )
Great questions. I have not run the numbers on finances as of yet. I often look at Puerto Rico as a model. The annual conference there decided to seek autonomy, but they still wanted to be in connection with the UMC. The operate under a strong corcordat agreement. They send their bishop to our Council of Bishops. The participate in our National Hispanic Plan. However, they hold their own general conference every six years and their annual conference every two years. They are not beholden to UMC rules except in the way of ecumenical relations. I think it is fair to assume that the next Methodism will be built somehow on the foundation of existing annual conferences. Conferences have assets, liabilities, and memberships. The “United Methodist Church” does not technically exist as a legal entity. What we are working out is the relationship among conferences (at various levels) and general agencies. I will have to save the deep dive into the financial weight of these conferences for another day. Thanks for the healthy dialog and for reading and commenting.
What about Mississippi where large congregations are leaving the denomination and taking their property with them, with the approval of conference officials?
I don’t include them because they went through proper Disciplinary channels. This map also only covers conferences and their actions.
Insightful article and discussion. Since local congregations are the basic agents of discipleship and bear the greatest harm in division, I am concerned that the way forward minimizes divisive debate in their ranks and best facilitates their ministry. Since most congregations live under the global discipline, THE DECISION about change of discipline, name and affiliation, should not be forced on them. A better way forward, regardless of location and current annual conference, is to offer the option to congregations to make a change from the global discipline, name and structures if their members desire.
But local congregations are not homogeneous any more than conferences or the denomination. Most UMC local churches, especially in places too small to have a “liberal UMC” and a “conservative UMC,” have members on both sides of the issue – as well as a lot who wonder what all the fuss is about. At whatever level decisions are made there will be the majority whose view “won” and the minority whose view “lost.” If schism is to happen, the best way forward will be one that allows all these people to continue to cooperate together on the most ministry with the least difficulty while preserving each one’s sense of doctrinal and missional integrity.
David, thanks for your thought. I agree with you that they are not homogeneous. Mine certainly isn’t. However, all local churches now live under the global discipline. Consequently, division in local congregations can be minimized if the movement for change is from the ground up, not the top down. (Sorry, it took me a week to think about that.) Therefore, changing our view on sexuality is not a focus unless the congregation’s members choose it to be a focus. Changing alliances is not a focus unless congregational members desire to discuss such a change. Otherwise, the congregation’s focus can continue on reaching new people with the saving power of the gospel, when believed, forming them as disciples of Jesus Christ and mobilizing them in His redemptive mission.
A person, church, or conference is no longer a United Methodist. They have divorced themselves from the body……..Why do we not simply enforce their abstinence from United Methodism……..the judicial council needs to rule they are no longer United Methodists.
Bill Lux
Iowa
Thanks for reading and commenting, William. Official, conference-level schism is a fairly recent development. This was not at all our focus at General Conference 2016. The era of trying to hold individual clergy and bishops was difficult due to iron-clad guarantees of due process coupled by bad actors who did not wish to enforce the Discipline. A think we have turned a page into a new chapter. I don’t think Judicial Council can or would rule anyone not United Methodist. But the concept conference-level accountability opens pathways previously unexplored. Thanks again.
Is it fair to call persons who practice conscience-driven disobedience “bad actors”?
Have you never been motivated to protest, resist, or disobey because of a conviction that a group you belonged to was on the wrong side of an issue? If not, maybe you should try it sometime. After all, that is essentially what Jesus did to the religious establishment of his time.
Thanks, Keith. I am thinking here of bishops who vow (of their own free will as a condition of assuming the office) to uphold the Discipline of the UMC. Not every bishop, of course, is a bad actor. But when a bishop appoints a counsel for the church who is actively seeking to help the defendant dodge accountability, I would call that a violation of covenant. Yes, I have never been shy about sharing my opinions. But I would resign if I was part of an organization that required me to act against conscience.
So you are suggesting that an entire class of UM’s can be simply stripped of their membership by judicial action? Pardon me for being blunt, but that is absurd! I’m glad you don’t make the rules.
Disappointed by this post. We should seek to better understand each other rather than name calling.
Name calling?
It is past time to split and not continue to make a mockery of Christ’s sacrifice by allowing the sin in the camp to continue. Am sick of our leaders blatantly ignoring the Bible, and the Book of Discipline! The longer we wait to move away from the sin, the more we become accountable for doing nothing. Unity is not possible. We need to move on. There are souls being lost due to this, and we, as conservatives will be held accountable before God if we don’t act… Now! Pastor Sandy
Maybe you don’t realize this, Ms. Johnson-Clark, but “pastor” is a much better title when others apply it to us, rather than when we add it to our own name . . . especially at the end of such a hateful rant. Clearly you consider yourself to be “without sin” since you have cast such a big stone at those you probably don’t even know. If the conservative UMs I know were like you, I’d be eager for schism, just to get away from you!
Keith, I once was in a church board meeting where an elderly man gave me both barrels of a verbal shotgun. It was a crisis moment. I realized after a sleepless night that I needed to hear his intensity, not just his thoughts, in order to respond appropriately. You have been hearing some intensity. And I hear your intensity, and I think you will hear us better if you share without personal judgment how our different statements either hurt or have hurtful implications. In that way we can learn from you and not merely dismiss your comments in our anger. Thank you for your boldness. Iron sharpens iron. God bless you.
Integrity is the crucial component in a covenant relationship. If someone violates that trust, it is hard to reestablish. Many pastors and bishops have violated their covenant with the other members of the church on the same sex issue. Since the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, how will we ever be able to trust them again? Some Bishops directly violate the rules they agreed to be bound by, others look the other way or provide a “just resolution” that simply encourages more infractions. All of the Bishops in the Western Jurisdiction, almost all in the North Central Jurisdiction, and some (maybe most) in the Northeastern Jurisdiction fall into one of those categories. When the split comes, the Progressives will be top heavy with Bishops. The Orthodox will have to look to Africa for episcopal oversight.
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity.
Hey Chris, if you ever wonder why some of us liberal/progressive UMs speak of the hateful intolerance of conservatives and some WCA types, you now have an example of why in this discussion thread.
Thanks, Keith. I certainly agree the tone of the conversation is often hurtful instead of helpful. As you are aware, the problem is not just on one side.
Pretty sad situation out here in the west. All the Bishops lack integrity in this jurisdiction, by taking oaths and not living up to them. Why would one not walk away from this if one can’t abide? (Well, money and power?) It still seems that denominational discernment should be crucial, and the current discernment is that The UMC stays orthodox as a body. (For myself, staying orthodox apparently means I have lost my old home church for good.)
The other mainline churches have reformed themselves, becoming more progressive except for the SBC. The schisms have hemorrhaged the Evangelical churches from those denominations (excepting Southern Baptists.) Unfortunately the results in a lot of harm and mayhem rather than peaceful separation.
The theological divide of at least two religions; Trintarian and unitarian and probably others, will not come back together without a Holy Spirit break through. It would be nice to show that we are valuing our Christian witness by peacefully going our separate ways. Even so, Holy Spirit break through and bring peace if not unity!
Seems like you’re pushing for the “Traditionalist” plan by your use of vocabulary. Not sure why the “Connectional Conference” plan wouldn’t achieve the same goals?
I support both the CCP and the MTP.
Chris, what if a conference was not in schism over questions related to the ordination of homosexual pastors or the celebration of same sex marriages, but some other matter? It could be issues related to abortion, immigration or marijuana usage (to name some other contentious issues in the US), not paying General Church apportionments, lack of the GBGC embargo of the East Africa Area, ordination of pastors in polygamous marriages or the celebration of polygamous marriages. As you can see the number of things over which the church could potentially divide is limited only by human imagination, and if the history of other denominations (such as the Baptist) give us any hint as to what might transpire allow for it in this circumstance surely sets us up for future issues and further division. Do you see the CCP becoming a tool for further divisions? If not, how does it prevent it?
Thanks for the question, Gene. Certainly schism is not limited to one topic. A vote to defy church teaching on any subject would qualify. I used to think that the CCP might be a prelude to a more comprehensive split. After further study I no longer feel that way. There is very little left in the general discipline that we disagree over. I believe it would create a stable resolution.
Has enough time passed since GC2019 fiasco to develop a working Schism Map 3.0? Is Germany now considered in schism? Possible notations need to be made for annual conferences who have published mass dissenting opinions. I don’t know if data is easily available, but I would like to see notations made for every congregation that has publicly refused to accept TP? Notations for those withholding apportionments? I believe your estimate of 6% in schism is far greater now that TP passed. Schism Map 3.0 needs to show the hearts of the individuals in schism. Schism Map 2.0 is outdated and was always a little too tidy.
Thanks, Theresa. I have considered such a project, but it is daunting… and rapidly changing. Hard to know where to begin.