Different Incentives Hold Promise

Why the Global Methodist Church Might Get It Right

From its beginnings, it has been clear that Methodism had ahold of something special. It was not just numerically successful, but it was terribly effective at facilitating the transformation that the Christian faith requires among the millions of lives it touched in the first generations. John Wesley, of course, located the “something special” in the doctrine, spirit, and discipline of the revival movement. I, of course, have my own opinions about what characteristics were (and still are) essential for us to seriously consider that we are still Methodist in any meaningful sense. If you haven’t read that series yet, you can find it here.

There are many things from the past that we can and should make real again now. Among these, I contend, are the exclusivity of our churches, the primitive prioritization of early church norms, and the primary concern of holiness above all things. I have a lot of clarity about some of these things, but not so much about others.

For instance, Methodists at various points in time have argued that certain things are essential that have more to do with polity or sectarian theology (ex. bishops, itinerancy, infant baptism, female clergy, Arminianism, the trust clause). It is true that our polity and theology have often, and in some senses always, reflected these things. But are these things key to our success, however that may be defined?

In the newly-formed Global Methodist Church, we are holding fast to some of these features, but not all. In particular, a major departure from previous Methodist polities is the absolute abandonment of the trust clause. This article is about the huge impact of that decision.

The Trust Clause & Hard Power

From the beginning of the Methodist Revival, leadership insisted on remaining in control by having ultimate authority over Methodist buildings and assets. Local churches could not be faithful participants in the larger covenant body without entrusting themselves to their overseers. That meant the doctrine and discipline of Methodism were consistently defended by leaders who had the means, and sometimes the will, to separate unfaithful covenant partners from their buildings and assets. If a local church started preaching any number of heretical doctrines, or they began to poison the connection in any number of ways, bishops had the hard power needed to remove not just the pastor, but sometimes the entire body from the assets they had accrued.

For centuries, this hard power largely kept congregations in line. At every stage of Methodist history, there have been churches that fell afoul of their leadership and were dispossessed of their assets. Even so, Methodist denominational bodies largely maintained the trust clause.

Why the trust clause had to go

Most recently, thousands of churches left The United Methodist Church en masse because of widespread and longstanding covenant disobedience on the part of denominational leadership. While it would have been ideal to have a proper amicable split, as was originally envisioned by the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation Plan, denominational leadership instead elected to use, sometimes quite heavily, their trust clause privileges. That means hundreds, if not thousands more churches in the US, were simply unable to disaffiliate from their faithless covenant partners. Local churches outside of the US were categorically denied the same right to disaffiliate as individual churches. The injustice of this chapter will continue to cause ripples of harm for years to come.

When many of us finally did get free from the UMC, the notion of entering into another covenant body with this form of coercion was a nonstarter. As much as I yearn to be in a covenant body, I would not have joined the Global Methodist Church if it had reserved the right to strip me and my church of our assets. The Free Methodist Church and Wesleyan Church, while both impressive and faithful in their own ways, weren’t serious options for me for this very reason.

While I understand the reason why the trust clause was seen as necessary, and I do admire the hard power of authoritarian leadership like that of Wesley and Asbury, I am also quite clear that it hasn’t worked right for some time. Ideological/Theological drift into worldliness is just too real and inevitable a phenomenon. We have seen it consistently throughout history, ruining the potential of many covenant bodies. If constituent members cannot leave, then it is only a matter of time before leadership again corrupts and then uses what power they have to compel submission. A historically-informed position does not allow for the naivety required to believe that we’ll get it right where every other Christian body has gone wrong.

Rather, we chose to allow for a different set of incentives. This different incentive structure changes everything. Whereas, before, leadership could use the hard power of the purse to coerce cooperation, such hard power is now absent. GMC leadership, as explicitly laid out in our new Book of Doctrines & Discipline, has no authority to take local churches to court and sue for the property or intangible assets of the body. No local church communities are in any danger of losing buildings, funds, or trusts. They can leave at any time.

How does this change things?

For starters, bishops cannot throw their weight around. In other Methodist bodies, bishops can show up and bully churches into toeing the line. They can appoint unfavored pastors to undesirable charges. They can give ineffective or hostile clergy to local churches that have fallen out of favor. These things are often seen, especially under the leadership of capricious pontiffs. They have been the only norm known for a long time in many Methodist tribes.

Because of the guaranteed appointment system, clergy service became a sort of professionalized entitlement rather than a spiritual and organic calling. Local churches came to sort of “ride the brand,” having been conditioned to believe the propaganda, and even enjoy it in some measure. Being a Methodist for many was not really an active participation in a set of doctrines so much as participating in a sort of polity and mainline culture.

Now that the guaranteed appointment and trust clause have been removed, a lot of structure is suddenly gone. Ineffective clergy can simply not be appointed anywhere. Power hungry or abusive bishops can simply be ignored. Disobedient local churches can be disfellowshipped (I think), with buildings and assets in tow.

What does this mean?

I think this means that the Global Methodist Church is going to be the first Methodist body that cannot be imagined to be held together by authoritarian or financial forces. If it is to hold together, then it will have to provide something for its constituent members.

In the previous era of mainline denominationalism, for a time, being a United Methodist local church endowed communities with a sort of base level respectability, resulting in an automatic involvement of a certain percentage of certain demographics. Hanging the cross and flame outside of a church building meant a degree of class and prestige, as well as those who value such things, would be present.

This all began to shift a couple of decades ago, such that the name brand actually tends to hurt more than help. Nondenom/Independent churches seem to fulfill the longings of an increasingly alienated and idiosyncratic populace. Nowadays, in many parts of my country, openly belonging to a denomination is a form of unpopular rebellion against the zeitgeist. I gladly do so.

Even so, if the Global Methodist Church is hoping to hold onto the thousands of churches that have entrusted themselves to this new effort, it is going to have to offer something different from those previous bodies. It cannot be the hard power of the purse. It will not be the allure of respectability and class. What will it be?

Acknowledging Other Tribes

The Methodist family tree is actually a rather small one among the larger Christian family. While this end of the trust clause is a new one in our clan, we are not the first denomination to try this. Actually, the Southern Baptist Convention is probably the largest Christian body already operating this way, at least in the US. Also, nondenominational/independent churches are increasingly normative. We don’t really have to wonder what it looks like when one goes very far in the direction of congregationalism.

The GMC has been designed to occupy a middle ground between the extremes of congregationalist chaos and episcopal autocracy. While we can learn from other bodies that are less controlling, the unique balance of GMC polity and theology is likely to render different results than those seen in other more congregationalist bodies.

Different Directions

We can already see one clear bid being made for a certain attractional vision: We are the ones with the power of the Holy Spirit! You can see it coming from a lot of different directions, from the top-down and bottom-up. There is a lot of energy at annual conferences and other denominational gatherings. There is a lot of effort on podcasts and other media to get Methodists inspired and encouraged about the person and work of the Holy Spirit.

I’m not mocking. If one reads John Wesley’s sermons, or the accounts of early Methodism from firsthand observers, it becomes very clear that a robust relationship with the Holy Spirit was nonnegotiable. Whether or not it needs to bear the hallmarks of modern charismatic Christianity is another question altogether, but we need to be clear that there is no salvation outside of an intimate relationship with and knowledge of the Spirit.

Even so, we are not the only ones who have the Spirit. I believe, and I think most others do, too, that Holy Spirit people and churches exist in great numbers outside of the Global Methodist Church, and they will continue to do so. It isn’t that the Holy Spirit abandoned all flesh, requiring a new birth of the church in the form of the GMC. Rather, the GMC was born out of a need to reclaim a culture in the life of the church catholic when we were most faithful: those dual times of the Methodist Revival and the days after Pentecost.

As I referenced above, I have already put in a lot of work to explicate what these hallmarks were and are. I hope people agree with me about them and shoot in the same direction.

The Unique New GMC Balance

I am generally sympathetic to libertarian understandings of the free market and an educated populace. It seems to me that the GMC has made itself amenable to such dynamics:

Rather than strong centralized bureaucratic or autocratic control, the GMC has been designed in a streamlined way. We have paid leadership beyond other congregational models like the Congregational Methodist Church, but we have limited it so as to necessitate the involvement and investment of laity and clergy. For instance, in my annual conference, we cannot afford to gather frequently in conference-funded events. Yet we are expected to know and love one another. So in front of God and all my district leaders, my conference superintendent, Rev. Jordan McFall, said plainly that he trusts us to do what needs to be done, and that he had no intention of telling us how to do it.

Friends, this is awesome. A leadership structure that empowers and entrusts people: This will test what the people of the GMC are made of. Some regions will falter, but others will find that God gives them the motivation and ingenuity to thrive under such circumstances. The GMC will not be a testament to the prowess of a large institutional structure. Rather, it will be a legitimate expression of the grassroots, insofar as the grassroots actually steps up to lead.

Moreover, the fact that churches can leave anytime means that GMC ministry will have to be responsive to people on the ground. Right now, with many more churches that disaffiliated from the UMC trickling in, and with other denominations and/or their leadership joining up with us in various capacities, there is strong sense of reinforcement that we are doing things right.

Yet, if it turns out that the GMC is doing anything wrong, then churches can simply leave. If they begin to elect to depart in any numbers, then GMC leadership has to consider reasons why. The United Methodist Church is tone deaf and unresponsive because it only understands hard power and money (the only terms NeoMarxism understands). The Global Methodist Church is a coalition of the willing. Its bishops and other leaders can only influence, not control.

Such a dynamic will naturally reward leadership that is 1) transparent, 2) responsive, and 3) productive. If folks at the grassroots see a leadership that is opaque, bullheaded, and doesn’t seem to produce much, well, they will depart.

Transparent, Responsive, and Productive

With respect to transparency, it will be key for every level of leadership to publish a list of all paid and unpaid positions, all committees and groups, and line item budgets and expenditures. Those entrusted with authority can and should make themselves available to the people, sharing aspirations and frustrations, owning up to failures and asking for buy-in on shared initiatives. Assuming we get the right folks in leadership, this new culture can accomplish nothing but good things.

Responsiveness is a little more difficult, I think. Nobody wants leadership that is too concerned with the fickle feelings of the masses. And often those who are most prone to speak are the ones who really shouldn’t. Even so, there are people who represent the sentiments of average folks in the pews. Traditionally we have understood these to be the lay leaders and conference delegates, but that hasn’t turned out to be as accurate as we would like. Rather, I expect our new connection will foster ways of other average folk to speak. I think Friends of the GMC (the Facebook group) could be one of those means. Omnia Methodist, City Lights Leadership Podcast, and Storm the Gates are all efforts at this. I hope our leaders seek out conversations with folks in online spaces, while also going to churches and visiting with the people there for prolonged periods of time. Y’all know how fond I am of the long-form interactions. Then, as they continue to be impacted by other people in this way, I hope they augment our course forward, and that they can communicate how they have been impacted by the people of the GMC. I think that would do nothing but build trust.

The productivity component is pretty key. The leadership of the UMC didn’t have much to show for themselves. We saw what they got paid. We did not see a whole lot of what they produced beyond blithe marketing slogans and feel-good motivational speeches. I think it will be important for bishops, conference superintendents, and really everyone who collects a paycheck from local churches to regularly be able to tell them what they are producing with the trust and resources given them. It would be great for each major leader to have a Substack, or at least an updated social media presence, chronicling where they have traveled, to whom they have spoken, what initiatives they have joined, and what they are working towards.

Practical Concerns

On a more practical level, for churches to feel good about belonging to the Global Methodist tribe, the denomination needs to do things for us that we cannot easily do ourselves. Collecting statistical information that is actually relevant to us, and then metabolizing it in ways that are accessible and beneficial, will be a good first step. Facilitation of indoctrination, catechesis, and discipleship that is relatively uniform across our connection will be key. Also, the street cred thing is real. If the GMC becomes known for a bunch of substandard, well-intentioned-feely sorts of churches, well, that’s the sort of churches it’ll have. But if we become known for being rigorous, faithful, fervent, and of general high quality, then that will require our leadership to help a lot of churches to discern that they either need to step up or step out. If the GMC practices quality control, then it will be a desirable thing to belong to the GMC.

The GMC can take a beggarly position towards churches, anxiously asking everyone to join us, mourning whenever churches discern they don’t like us. Or we can take a triumphant posture, trusting in God, with indifference towards those who do not want to abide by our doctrines, discipline, and spirit. I hope our orientation will be so oriented by fear and love of the Lord that there isn’t much room for concern for fulfilling the desires of consumer churches and their people. Hopefully we can and will establish a dynamic in which churches that desire to serve and be spent for the gospel will be falling over themselves to join up and stay in good standing. That will only happen, though, if we establish and maintain high standards for participation in our connection.

I like to imagine a future GMC that effectively collects and administers funds for high quality seminary educations, rendering world class clergy to engage the culture around us transformitively. Despite our smaller size, I still like to think that we will be able to faithfully collect and administer funds that do big things.

I actually think a lot of what the UMC was aiming at was pretty good, but they were very poor at the execution. They collected the information, but they didn’t metabolize it. They had curricula and programs aimed at educating the laity, but it was coopted and defanged long ago. They had somewhat effective means of equipping clergy and lay leadership to do social media and public engagement well, but there was so much fluff around it that it was hard to stomach. And while they had the means to exercise discipline in the body, they instead used it to target the only faithful churches and leadership they had. I think we can do far better than the UMC with far less, like we just saw at the Convening Conference.

I don’t want a church structure small enough to easily avoid or kill. I want a streamlined and efficient structure and works alongside laity and clergy to meet shared goals. If GMC leadership feels like it has to do everything on its own, then we will all be frustrated. But if they learn to share the joy and the burden with capable unofficial leadership, then I think we could be quite dynamic. It seems to me that this was originally one of the strengths of our movement.

Final Thoughts

I don’t think an autocratic or bureaucratic form of governance can do what needs to be done right now. I rather think this synergy between employees, nominees, and people on the ground can and should render more responsive dynamism than has been seen for a long time. And I think modern technology can be capably employed to magnify the work.

It’ll just be key that we 1) have the conversations we need to have in earnest, in public, for all to see and understand, and 2) find effective ways to relatively painlessly remove people and churches that serve to hurt our connection.

There is a thing some pastors have called “addition by subtraction.” Sometimes a person or group of people leave the church, and despite the loss, there is actually a growth in quality or passion. Sometimes a person takes away more than they add. If the GMC can have the discernment to determine who these parties are and swiftly deal with them, then I think we have a chance at galvanizing those left into a coherent movement that will turn this world upside down.

I do not think any other denomination can do what the GMC is positioned to do right now. We just need for it to be faithfully administered right now. Yes, that involves bishops, conference superintendents, the connectional council, and the rest of the higher ranking folks. But it also means that local churches need to stop passing the buck, looking above, and blaming others when things go wrong. We need to create what we need to see. By God’s guiding hand, despite our many faults and failures, God will redeem our work and prosper our collaboration.

May God bless our efforts!