This information is also available in PDF format for those who might want to print and distribute it.
by Chris Ritter
The Separation Protocol agreement announced in January 2020 creates options United Methodists will want to carefully consider. If the legislation is approved at the next General Conference (August/September 2022), annual conferences and congregations will be empowered to change affiliation without losing their properties or incurring significant exit costs. Separation has already begun with the exit of both traditionalist and progressive congregations, but these exits tend to be expensive and contingent upon local negotiations. The Protocol is designed to open a wider door in the interest of peace and goodwill. The primary options for congregations will be (1) remaining in a post-separation United Methodist Church or (2) joining the new Global Methodist Church. Votes will happen first at the level of the annual conference. Congregations that disagree with the decision made by their annual conference may hold a church conference to consider a different affiliation.
Planning for the Global Methodist Church has been the work of the Wesleyan Covenant Association and a wider Transitional Leadership Council that includes some UM bishops. The vision for this new denomination supports more local control, less denominational bureaucracy, and classic Christian doctrine/ethics. Walter Fenton of WCA estimates that 3,000-5,000 congregations in the U.S. will join the GMC initially, with perhaps another 1,000 joining a bit later. These numbers include a handful of U.S. annual conferences that will take a 57%+ vote to opt into the new denomination. There will likely be significant numbers of United Methodists overseas joining the new connection, but this is impossible to calculate. It is fair to say the new denomination will be distinctly global.
So far, there are two competing visions for the future of the post-separation UMC. The first is an effort on the part of Progressives to shape the remaining institution around the concepts of intersectional justice. This is the “Out of Chaos… Creation” Group. The other vision is captured in a working document shared by a group of bishops that calls for a regionalized, theological “big tent.” This more recent proposal seems to be aimed at keeping Centrists and Traditionalists in the UMC. The post-separation United Methodist Church will go through an undetermined period of adjustment following separation. We can anticipate a decided shift in the Progressive direction. This will show up initially in terms of theological emphasis, marriage and sexuality standards, and advocacy for abortion rights. A proposed re-write of UM Social Principles provides a preview. District, annual conference, and jurisdictional maps eventually will need to be adjusted in light of the new demographic realities. There will also likely need to be further attempts to right-size the general agencies in light of separation and decline.
Here is a simple chart that compares the two primary branches that will flow from approval of the Separation Protocol (should that happen at General Conference in August/September 2022). Information about the Global Methodist Church is based on the draft Book of Doctrines and Discipline. These provisions will not be enacted unless and until adopted by a convening General Conference (late 2023 or early 2024). In the meantime, the Global Methodist Church will be governed by the Transitional Discipline which is much closer to what we have today.
| v. 1.5 | Post-Separation UMC | Global Methodist Church |
| General Conference, AC, District Structures? | Yes. Annual conference and district boundaries likely will be adjusted in many locations following the separation. | Yes. Annual conference and district boundaries will be new in many places. General Conference will meet every two years while the church is organizing and every six years afterward. |
| Boards and Agencies? | Inherits the current 13 general boards and agencies. | New, leaner structure with a single connectional operations officer over all. |
| Name? | The United Methodist Church | The Global Methodist Church |
| Trust Clause on Local Church Properties? | Local church property held in trust for the annual conference. | Local church property owned by the local church. |
| Global in Nature? | Likely yes (U.S., Western Europe, parts of Philippines, and maybe Africa) | Likely yes (U.S., Eastern Europe, part of Philippines, and Africa). Some former UMC conferences in Latin America and Asia have indicated an interest in joining, too. |
| Openly Non-celibate homosexual or Transgender Bishops and Clergy? | Yes | No |
| Clergy Performing Same-Sex Weddings? | Yes, if they so choose. | No |
| Female Clergy at All Levels of Leadership? | Yes | Yes |
| Clergy Deployment | Ordained clergy guaranteed an appointment by the bishop, and the local church guaranteed a pastor of the bishop’s choosing– with consultation. | Collaborative appointment system where church lay leaders have a bigger voice in the appointment. No guaranteed appointments for clergy. Bishop must sign off on the selection made. Minority candidates must be considered. |
| Ordination | Elders and Deacons are separate orders. Commissioning is a step toward ordination in both orders. Many/most clergy are non-ordained, licensed local pastors with limited sacramental authority. Deacons do not have full sacramental authority. | [Note: This is a work in progress.] In an effort to restore the connection between ordination and the sacraments, there may be a return to the pre-1992 understanding that elders are first ordained as deacons. Local pastors will first be ordained as deacons. When they have completed course of study they may pursue elder’s orders. There will be permanent deacons and deacons on their way to becoming elders. Deacons have sacramental authority. |
| Bishops | Yes. Bishops for life (in the U.S). Selected by Jurisdictional/Central Conferences and paid by General Church. | Yes. Term-limited. Called by the annual conference from a list of candidates approved at General Conference. |
| District Superintendents? | Yes. Appointed by the bishop. | Presiding Elders (the historic term for DS’s) may also serve a local church. They will be selected by the bishop from a nominated slate elected at a district conference. District size will be smaller. |
| Clergy Appointment Length? | One year at a time. | Open-ended. The bishop’s consent is required to declare a pulpit open. |
| Clergy Pensions? | Administered by Wespath | Administered by Wespath |
| Apportionments? | Yes | Yes, General Church apportionments will be about half of what is paid by a UMC congregation currently. Conference apportionments are up to each annual conference but encouraged to be lean. |
| Position on Abortion | Likely Nuanced Pro-Choice | “We believe that life is a holy gift of God whose beginnings and endings are set by God, and that it is the particular duty of believers to protect those who are powerless to protect themselves, including the unborn. We believe human life begins at conception and abortion ends a human life.” |
| Theology | Pluralistic, flexible per “Our Theological Task,” with articles and confession retained as historic markers. | Classic per the Methodist Articles of Faith and EUB Confession of Faith, but updated into a single document in today’s vernacular (this work is to be done by a blue-ribbon commission created at the first Convening Conference). |
Thank you for the succinct chart – I knew most of this because my conservative pastor son-in-law has been keeping me in the loop, but this really puts it all out there for people to see the major differences.
How would the Global Methodist Church and the United Methodist church be connected? Since the name “Methodist” is in both names I’m thinking there must be a connection.
Thanks for the question, Bonnie. There are currently 80 Methodist denominations, including Free Methodists, Africa Methodist Episcopal Church, and Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. But these are not connected except by ecumenical partnerships. There is talk of the UMC and GMC sharing in disaster relief and clergy pensions.
Very helpful comparison chart. I would add one more item – Retired Elders – UMC => Voting member of Annual Conference; GMC => Voting member of Annual Conference for only the first seven years after retirement. (re: Para. 416 Transition Book of Doctrines and Discipline).
If post-separation church is leaving the traditional UMC as it has been known and want to be so liberal and not follow John Wesley in their beliefs and disciplines why are they keeping the Traditional UMC symbol(cross with flame) and the more Traditional valued UMC(now Global UMC)the ones making a new symbol for themselves?
Great question, Belinda. A special General Conference was held in May 2019 to settle the issues around human sexuality. The traditional view was upheld. Many conferences in the U.S. protested this action and traditionalists concluded that the institution is not reformable. Progressives generally do not intend the leave the UMC and there is not really a way for force this. So the Protocol agreement involves those who agree with current teaching to leave. It seems backwards, I know!
Belinda, this is not about following Wesley. I support the 25 Articles of Methodism and affirm the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, but strongly oppose the Traditional Plan. I don’t want John Shelby Spong’s theology any more than I want Franklin Graham’s theology in my church.
John, there is no one in the GMC or WCA who thinks we will be adopting Franklin Graham’s theology. We are intent on continuing Wesleyanism, as John Wesley first articulated it.
I have been a Methodist alll my life.(85 years). I would be a Baptist, but they would accept Methodist baptism, so all of us stayed Methodist. I never could tell the difference, but the amount of water used in baptism. There are lots of differences today. Some are not Inmy Bible. Wonder which church my Christ would lead in? HE came to save us sinners!
Thank you Tammy. This is very helpful.
I guess the Methodist Church has to take a stand on today’s issues, ie abortion, the LBGQ, Trans, and women in leadership rolls. I just pray that kindness, compassion, and understanding also play a major roll.
Thank you, very helpful comparison chart. From what we observe it is clear the founders of the GMC are heavily influenced by the situation in the US UMC. The situation UMC outside the US is completely different. The proposals regarding the abolition of the Trust Clause are problematic for Africa, Europe, Philippines. Similarly, changes in surgeries or the issue of appointment. Can anyone imagine the GMC GC approving candidates for bishops? And how will they select them? It will probably only be those who are somehow known to the leaders of the new denomination. And there are many such problems. In our opinion, the new GMC should take over the BOD of the UMC and make adjustments here at the next GC.
We ahould all be independent churchs. Holding title to our property inside an association much like Southern Baptist but teaching the Methodist way.
I am pleased to see this comparison chart. I think the GMC still has a ways to go in ensuring they don’t repeat the failures of the UMC. Charges should have absolute input on who their pastor is, with Bishop’s approval. I would rather see a pool system where pastors could avail themselves to charges looking for new pastoral leadership. Kind of like Indeed or Monster on a much smaller denominational scale.
Presiding Elders should be given very limited scope and authority to get too deep in the weeds on charge management. Find me a pastor who has had a successful relationship with a DS and I’ll show you a “company man,” rather than a Sheperd leading a flock.
I’m a bit confused about the selection of Bishops. I would think Annual Conferences would nominate candidates to General Conference for approval and appointment, not the other way around.
Very glad to see the GMC’s positive position on Abortion. The 2016 Book of Discipline is about a clear as much on this deeply concerning issue, though it’s pretty clear it supports abortion rights, not human rights.
“Position on Abortion” seems a little odd given the other items in the comparison chart? I guess I’d wonder why “Divorce,” isn’t up there as well (and I don’t know the stance of the GMC on divorce).
Thanks, Sky. I included this as a point of difference in which people seem to have a lot of interest.
Gotcha. Thanks for replying.
The written stance on abortion says life begins at conception and ending a pregnancy ends this life. Will this stay the exact wording and absolutely oppose abortion. Will there be added jargon as is in the 2016 UMC book of discipline which I call double speak.
The idea that we would conflate abortion with divorce tells you all you need to know about the difference in the two Methodisms.
I’m curious – where did I conflate abortion with divorce? Or for that matter, with any of the other issues listed?
It appeared that you tied one to the other when you wrote that since the stance on abortion is listed, you would suspect divorce should be there as well. From your question I will assume that was not your intent. Thanks for allowing me to explain.
Most certainly. Peace and a blessed weekend.
Will there be any comingling of monies, boards, conferences, or any other such mingling?
There are discussions about sharing UMCOR as a disaster response ministry. Any partnerships would be the nature of those ecumenical partnerships that most denominations have with one another.
you might add “logo’s” – both look like they were sketched on a napkin. Both are, or will be, jettisoned by churches with money to put toward marketing and logo design.
I imagine you will not publish this comment but here goes.
80% of it is accurate of course but it has three blind spots.
First, the sections on the beliefs of the post-separation UMC on abortion and pluralism are pure conjecture and have nothing to do with the Protocol.
Second, it leaves out contrasting information that is less of a selling point such as the new section of the GMC Discipline on “congregational fidelity.”
Third, it implies that this is a binary choice between two destinies, a narrative which I do not agree with (the Protocol allows for the gracious exit of more than one denomination, a “traditionalist” denomination and a “progressive” denomination).
In short, it is a simple and persuasive chart but it is clearly biased.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Steve. I worked to make the information objective and “non-partisan.” Of course, you and I both have our biases. As to your first concern, we really don’t have to guess much on the abortion issue. The new draft of Social Principles tells us where the General Board of Church and Society would like to go on this. Their major obstacle has been the conservative caucus. It is reasonable to assume they will have an easier time getting their way once a significant group of traditionalists departs. The GMC statement on abortion comes from work done by WCA. Nothing is set in stone, but I don’t know of any serious observer claiming there will not be divergence among the two denominations on this issue. Theology is a little more difficult to nail down. I based my assumptions on “big tent” language used by those planning the psUMC and theological discussions happening on the GMC side. I stand by my work here. As to your second point, there is a lot of information that did not make it into this chart (which aims at providing a simple comparison). It sounds like there is a specific concern that you have related to the GMC. The section you cite is in the Transitional BOD which is intended to govern the GMC in the two years between formation and the Convening General Conference. The goal the transitions BOD is to keep things operating in a stable way until a BOD can be formally approved. Related to your third point, I stand by my prediction that there will be two primary groups coming out of the Protocol. The LMX, for instance, has not attracted the 100 congregations needed to start a thoroughly progressive Methodist denomination. Even if they did, they do not qualify for the Protocol because they were formed before the Protocol passed. If facts on the ground change, I am happy to make adjustments to the chart. But at this point it looks like a binary choice as described. Thanks again for taking time to read and comment.
I understand what you are saying and can certainly agree to disagree. I appreciate your dialogue here.
I, too, stand by my observations as a centrist that wishes to stay in the UMC and have put my concerns in the form of an open letter, for the purpose of putting an alternative out there. I am not condemning your chart, I am simply pointing out that it is intended to persuade people to leave our denomination and written with that strategy. People should read it with that in mind, and compare it with other ideas.
Here’s my open letter:
http://stevewestsmusings.blogspot.com/2021/07/an-open-letter-to-chris-ritter.html?m=1
Dear Steve,
I can check one item off my list of life goals. I have now had an “Open Letter” addressed to me. United Methodist world has no shortage of open letters these days. But we don’t hold a candle to the first Methodists. As he changed the Christian landscape of his day, Wesley wrote and received dozens of public letters. And now, the landscape is shifting once again. I appreciate you taking the time to read and write about my Two Methodisms Comparison Chart.
The chart originated as a conversation tool for the leaders of the church I am appointed to serve. Our church council required a side-by-side comparison of what might likely emerge from the Feinberg Separation Protocol’s adoption. It was only after receiving repeated requests from outside my congregation that I decided to share it online. What began as an afterthought turned into the most read post of the year. People are sharing it so widely, I suppose, because they are hungry for accessible information.
I tried to make the chart as objective as possible. When it was first released, different folks took issue with this or that detail. I incorporated these suggestions into the chart through five revisions. While I remain open and grateful to constructive critique, I stand by my work. You own comments on the chart are there on the post for all to read and consider.
I was a bit surprised you chose an open letter to refute the chart. The obvious response to a chart you deem defective is to produce a chart that you feel is not. But you seem opposed to a side-by-side comparison of the UMC and GMC at all. Does the Protocol present us with a binary choice? So far, I believe it does. While it is possible that any number of denominations could conceivably emerge from the Protocol separation process, it appears currently that only two will. In addition to the post-separation UMC, we have only the Global Methodist Church that has announced their intentions.
The Liberation Methodist Connexion, for instance, does not seem to have the 100 congregations necessary to qualify under the Protocol. Even if they did, they would still be ineligible because they formed before the Protocol was passed. There have been rumors of individual annual conferences that might seek status as their own denomination. But these efforts seem to have been subsumed into the GMC effort. Individual congregations that are disaffiliating have nothing to do with the Protocol legislation. If another viable Protocol option for congregations becomes available, I will add it to the chart.
Let me briefly respond to your other specific concerns. First, you take issue with the idea that the UMC will be different from today in terms of teachings on abortion and embrace of theological pluralism.
Along with homosexuality, abortion has been a hot-button issue throughout United Methodism’s history. The last major battle on this front was a successful effort on the part of traditionalists in 2016 to require the Women’s Division and General Board of Church and Society to cease lending the United Methodist name to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. In spite of this restriction, the GBCS soon thereafter used our apportionment dollars to lobby for public funding of abortion. With traditionalist leadership leaving to form a new denomination, the resistance to pro-choice political advocacy will be weakened. Both the current and (suggested) revised Social Principles offer a nuanced pro-choice position. I feel very safe in describing the position of the post-separation UMC as “likely nuanced pro-choice.”
Rather than retaining the long and complex UM statement on abortion, the Wesleyan Covenant Association suggests the following simple language for the Global Methodist Church: ““We believe that life is a holy gift of God whose beginnings and endings are set by God, and that it is the particular duty of believers to protect those who are powerless to protect themselves, including the unborn. We believe human life begins at conception and abortion ends a human life.” This is the language I included in the chart.
With regards to theology, the chart describes the likely future of the post-separation UMC as “Pluralistic, flexible per ‘Our Theological Task,’ with Articles and Confession retained as historic markers.” When the UMC approved its theological framework in 1972, the New York Times offered this headline: “Methodists Back Theological Pluralism.” No attempt was made to reconcile the Methodist Articles of Religion and the EUB’s Confession of Faith. Instead, a theological document speaking of four sources of UMC doctrine (scripture, tradition, reason, and experience) was adopted. I don’t believe there is any serious question whether the post-separation UMC will be a theological “big tent” in which multiple theologies simultaneously move forward. That is offered as one of its selling points. When the Protocol was announced, President of the Council of Bishops, Cynthia Fiero Harvey told reporters: “My prayer is that the post-separation United Methodist Church will continue to be a big tent church, a place where everyone can be the best that God has called them to be — the best expression of what it means to be a United Methodist.”
The Global Methodist Church has announced its intended foundational theological documents. After Holy Scripture itself, a hierarchy of sources is listed. As Foundational Documents, we have the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed, along with the Christological definition of Chalcedon. Next there are constitutive standards that define Global Methodism: The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church and the Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church. The convening General Conference of the Global Methodist Church is expected to empower a blue-ribbon commission to merge these documents into a single theological statement in modern vernacular. Another layer are “Normative Wesleyan Standards”: The sermons of Wesley and his Explanatory Notes on the New Testament. Along with the Methodist General Rules, these documents are under a restrictive rule.
One church will be a big tent guided loosely by the Quadrilateral. The other will focus more on the historic documents. This is the difference I tried to capture with the chart.
Finally, you mention that I failed to include information unfavorable to the Global Methodist Church. You specifically cite a statement on congregational fidelity found in the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline. The transitional discipline guides the GMC until a convening general conference can be seated. The statement says that if a congregation advances doctrines or engages in practices inconsistent with the GMC, it may be disaffiliated. Maintaining an option for involuntary disaffiliation, the paragraph states, is intended to protect the integrity of the church. A disaffiliated church, however, would leave with their properties intact and there is a process of appeal. Compare this to the UMC where Mt. Bethel UMC experienced the seizure of its properties and assets by the conference trustees without due process, hearing, or appeal.
You are troubled by the amount of authority vested in the Transitional Leadership Council (TLC). Unlike the UMC, the GMC does not yet exist. There is no body authorized to meet and speak for the denomination. The bishops, clergy, and laity of the TLC are doing this work until a General Conference can be seated. What you are seeing is the difference between a church already established and one that is not yet organized.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to dialog on these matters. I believe the chart is fair and objective. The fact that so many people continue to access it tells me that it meets a need for concise and objective information.
Grace & Peace,
Chris Ritter
Here’s what bothers me.
80% of it is accurate of course but it has three blind spots. First, the sections on the beliefs of the post-separation UMC on abortion and pluralism are pure conjecture and have nothing to do with the Protocol. Second, it leaves out contrasting information that is less of a selling point such as the new section of the GMC Discipline on “congregational fidelity.” Third, it implies that this is a binary choice between two destinies, a narrative which I do not agree with (the Protocol allows for the gracious exit of more than one denomination, a “traditionalist” denomination and a “progressive” denomination). In short, it is a simple and persuasive chart but it is clearly biased.
I hope that people who see this chart will realize it is WCA biased, intended to persuade people to leave our denomination.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Steve. I worked to make the information objective and “non-partisan.” Of course, you and I both have our biases. As to your first concern, we really don’t have to guess much on the abortion issue. The new draft of Social Principles tells us where the General Board of Church and Society would like to go on this. Their major obstacle has been the conservative caucus. It is reasonable to assume they will have an easier time getting their way once a significant group of traditionalists departs. The GMC statement on abortion comes from work done by WCA. Nothing is set in stone, but I don’t know of any serious observer claiming there will not be divergence among the two denominations on this issue. Theology is a little more difficult to nail down. I based my assumptions on “big tent” language used by those planning the psUMC and theological discussions happening on the GMC side. I stand by my work here. As to your second point, there is a lot of information that did not make it into this chart (which aims at providing a simple comparison). It sounds like there is a specific concern that you have related to the GMC. The section you cite is in the Transitional BOD which is intended to govern the GMC in the two years between formation and the Convening General Conference. The goal the transitions BOD is to keep things operating in a stable way until a BOD can be formally approved. Related to your third point, I stand by my prediction that there will be two primary groups coming out of the Protocol. The LMX, for instance, has not attracted the 100 congregations needed to start a thoroughly progressive Methodist denomination. Even if they did, they do not qualify for the Protocol because they were formed before the Protocol passed. If facts on the ground change, I am happy to make adjustments to the chart. But at this point it looks like a binary choice as described. Thanks again for taking time to read and comment.