by Joseph F. DiPaolo

Students of the New Testament know that Jesus aimed his sharpest criticisms not at skeptics, or at government officials like Caesar or Pilate, but at the religious authorities – people who claimed to revere the Bible, but who often bitterly opposed the Lord. Primary among them were the Sadducees, who filled official positions within the Temple leadership structure, like the high priesthood; and of course, the Pharisees, who were biblical scholars and proponents of the oral law. These and other groups (Herodians, Essenes, Zealots, etc.), often had bitter disagreements with each other (e.g., Acts 23:1-10), but they joined forces against Jesus and, later, the early church. An example is Mark 3:6, when Pharisees and Herodians plot together against Jesus.

Why? Why would such folks, steeped in the teachings of God’s Word on such things as the love of God and neighbor, act in such bitterly hostile ways to destroy other members of the people of God? Certainly, they had their disagreements with Jesus on interpreting Scripture, but the New Testament is not subtle about pointing to a deeper reason: self-interest and self-preservation.

In John 11:48, at a meeting of the Sanhedrin, the governing council of the Jewish people, we read the real reason both Pharisees and Sadducees agreed to kill Jesus: “If we let him go on, pretty soon everyone will be believing in him, and the Romans will come and remove what little power and privilege we still have” (The Message). Their chief concerns were not fidelity to Scripture, or the welfare of the common person in the pews, but simply protecting themselves and their positions.

There was also money. Jesus exposed the hypocrisy of leaders who used legalistic rules to secure funding for themselves. In Mark 7:6-9, Jesus took aim at the Pharisees for their use of “corban” – which means “devoted to God as a gift.” To maintain themselves, these religious leaders taught that if people declared their resources to be “corban”, then they were released from their obligation under the fifth commandment to care for aging or needy parents.

An even more egregious example is alluded to in Mark 12:40 – perhaps a more specific example of the corban rule in action – when Jesus decries how the religious leaders found ways to seize the homes of widows (the most vulnerable in society), turning them out into the streets, but then dressed it up with religiosity: “Watch out for the teachers of the law…  They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers” (NIV).

I could not help but think of the behavior of some of our institutional leaders – especially when I saw clips from the Cal-Pac annual conference session in June. [See here, starting at 15:30] Cal-Pac is one of the most progressive in the connection, where orthodox Wesleyan congregations are rare – but there are a few. California is also the land of astronomical property values, and the Cal-Pac leadership decided to add a 50% property valuation charge for any church disaffiliating under paragraph 2553. At one point, lay delegate Helena Kim came to a mic and decried such an impossible burden as “unjust… unrighteous and… punitive in nature.” She pleaded with Bishop Dottie Escobedo-Frank to allow leaders of her Korean-American congregation “to sit down with you, have conversation and come up with a resolution that we can work with.” The bishop made no response whatever to Kim’s pleas, and simply moved onto the next speaker, Rev. Glen Haworth. Haworth said that his congregation, which voted to disaffiliate, would be forced to pay millions of dollars under the rule, amounting to $60,000 per member – an amount they could neither raise nor borrow. He made a motion to have the conference trustees consider reducing the requirement. But Escobedo-Frank ruled it out of order, refusing to allow the conference even to discuss the matter. Then, as if to act out Mark 12:40, she offered a “lengthy prayer” that God might help these disaffected churches “find their way.”

Escobedo-Frank, of course, could choose to waive the payments, or at least use her authority to engage in conversation with the disaffiliating congregations and the conference trustees to change the policy – as has happened in other conferences. But she clearly has no interest in doing so. Luke 11:46 came to mind: “Jesus replied, ‘And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them’” (NIV).

There are still many United Methodist congregations which want to be allowed to leave the UMC graciously, using either paragraph 2553, or some another (like 2449), amicably, with good will, for reasons of conscience. That was the whole reason 2553 was adopted in 2019 – ironically, to allow progressive congregations to leave graciously for conscience’ sake.

Instead of grace and goodwill, however, we have far too often seen hostility, stonewalling, and a refusal to consider anything but the most punitive use of 2553, piling on costs and requirements that violate the spirit in which it was originally intended. Instead of allowing a separation which could preserve goodwill and post-separation cooperation on matters of mutual concern, too many have chosen to demonize and marginalize traditional-leaning members. With government enforcement of the trust clause as their primary weapon, they force churches to choose between surrendering to a woke, progressive theological agenda, or being turned out into the street, leaving behind all the money and property their members have sacrificed for decades to provide.    

Would Jesus force people to continue following him if they didn’t want to? Would Jesus use the power of government – the power of the sword – to take away their synagogues to fund his salary and benefits package? These questions answer themselves. Yet, these are precisely the sorts of actions some bishops are taking. I wonder what Jesus would say to the religious leaders of the UMC today? Perhaps something like what he said in Mark 12:38-40:    

“Watch out for the teachers of the law [bishops?]. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces [media culture?], and have the most important seats in the synagogues [churches and conference sessions?] and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ houses [of worship?] and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men [and women] will be punished most severely” (NIV).

Still, Jesus’ love extended even to his opponents – and still does. It is not too late for our religious leaders to change their course. They can demonstrate – through their actions – that they care about the people in the pews, and the health and viability of local congregations whose donations have supported the hierarchy for decades, and who, for conscience’ sake, now wish to leave the UMC and pursue their ministries in peace.

Let us pray that they do.

Rev. Joseph F. DiPaolo is a clergy member of the Eastern PA Conference of the UMC, and also a member of the Wesleyan Covenant Association’s Global Governing Council.