Still Methodist?: Connectionalism and Potential Deficits of Independent Methodism
Image from Unsplash
I have lived most of my life in West Texas, where the air is usually so hot and arid that if I need a shower in the morning and evening, my towel will have completely dried during the day. I also lived for two years in Guatemala, where the air was so humid that I was once amazed when I went to put on my boots and found—only as a result of them sitting in my closet—mold growing on them. Sure, Guatemala felt more humid than West Texas, but in the midst of daily tasks, I did not think much about what was or was not in the air—until something made it evident.
––––––––––
When I voted for my congregation to disaffiliate from the United Methodist Church (UMC), a large part of my motive rested on overlapping loyalties: to my local church and to the tradition from which we came. I wanted my congregation to remain aligned with our Wesleyan heritage, in contrast to what I saw as the denomination’s apparent irretrievable departure from it. Now, four years after our vote to disaffiliate, I see more clearly something that I did not fully understand then: leaving one Methodist body without a plan to join another put these loyalties to congregation and tradition in growing tension with one another. Specifically, I have come to wonder about the declining levels of connectionalism in the air we breathe as independent Methodists—and what its absence could eventually make evident.
I have often heard the decisions of my church and others to disaffiliate without a plan to join another denomination described as “you don’t get divorced and remarried in the same day.” I do not love the analogy, but I understand its reasoning. I wish now, however, that we would have wrestled more thoroughly with the counterpoint stated by David F. Watson in the years leading up to disaffiliations: “If you decide that your future as a church is as a freestanding, independent congregation, you may still be a very fine church, but you will not be Methodist. To be Methodist is to be connectional.” He and others have argued that connectionalism is essential to Methodism, so I will not try to establish that again here. Instead, my goal is to highlight three elements of connectionalism that independent Methodist churches like mine either need to grapple with and creatively restore, or acknowledge they are leaving behind, thereby becoming a new variant of historical Methodism rather than its continuation.
First (and most difficult among these three), independent Methodists need to foster connectional accountability for clergy. Many who chose to disaffiliate from the UMC believed that its systems of accountability had become nonfunctional. Whereas those who are now contributing to the formation of a new denomination are attempting to restore this aspect of Methodist life, independent Methodists are, in practice, withdrawing from it. The rationale for this withdrawal echoes the view of free church models of polity—that accountability for clergy should come from the local church. Few would disagree that pastors should be accountable to their congregations. However, to draw an analogy to other classic professions: yes, doctors should be accountable to their patients, and lawyers should be accountable to their clients, but I would be very hesitant to entrust myself to doctors or lawyers who have withdrawn from all structures of accountability to their professional colleagues. Even if the systems function imperfectly, I want my pastors to be professionally accountable to other pastors.
I recently saw a job posting from a church that had disaffiliated from the UMC, remained independent, and was searching for a new pastor. The posting included language that was far less reflective of Methodism than of other evangelical Christian traditions, and it made me wonder about the future of that church. For example, perhaps the church’s congregants would not be any more aware if their next pastor teaches a non-Wesleyan understanding of salvation than I would be if I unknowingly hire a lawyer who advises me according to the laws of a different state. As with other classic professions, clergy need to be accountable to other clergy not only regarding their personal and vocational conduct, but to ensure that the beliefs and practices of the tradition are upheld and promoted. Ironically, even though mass departures from the UMC were motivated by complaints that leaders had departed from Methodist tradition and were not being held accountable, independent Methodism removes rather than strengthens any obstacles to future departures from that tradition in their churches.
Second, independent Methodist churches need to foster a sense of connectional participation for their people. Before disaffiliation, I used to enjoy being on a road trip, passing another UMC, and feeling like I was passing a family member’s house. Even if I did not know anyone in the church I passed, I knew that we were each part of the larger whole. From a broader perspective, I recently had the opportunity to teach a class for students preparing for ministry in the Global Methodist Church, and I was amazed that the class included students across seven time zones, ranging from the Philippines in the East to Texas in the West. It is remarkable that I will never pass relatives’ houses on road trips in as many places around the world as the new denomination already has connections.
Not only does connectional participation allow individuals and congregations to be part of something bigger than themselves, but it also naturally cultivates closer reflection of the realities of the global church. Christianity’s transition from centralization in North America and Europe toward its large majority being in Africa, Asia, and Latin America has long been underway. Scholars of world Christianity have been stating this for decades, exemplified in the April 2005 statement from Stephen Bevans and Roger Schroeder that “the ‘average Christian’ today is female, black, and lives in a Brazilian favela or an African village” (“Missiology After Bosch,” International Bulletin of Mission Research, 70). Independent Methodists’ separation effectively insulates them from this shift. I have come to believe that my personal spiritual maturity will be limited if I am not in relationship with Christians from other cultures––particularly from the Global South. If that is true for individuals, it is also true for us collectively. While independent Methodist churches can partner with churches in other parts of the world, it will take tremendous intentionality, resources, experience, and wisdom to cultivate the level of global participation inherent in a worldwide denomination.
Third, independent Methodists need to foster connectional generativity, which is the inverse of one of the primary reasons given for churches remaining independent. The reason is often presented by churches that are relatively strong, even thriving, and is expressed in varying forms of statements such as, “the denomination would not be able to do anything for us that we cannot do for ourselves,” or “it makes sense for small churches to join, but the denomination has nothing to offer to large churches.”
The premise underlying these statements is worth challenging. There is a stark contrast between asking, from one perspective, “What could joining another Wesleyan denomination do for us that we can’t do for ourselves?” and, from the other, “If we don’t join a denomination, is Methodism in our part of the world—and across the world—likely to be stronger or weaker fifty years from now because of our decision?” While it is perhaps easier to imagine the generative opportunities for large churches with substantial resources, contributions to the whole do not come only from the largest congregations. Methodism in each part of the world, and around the world, will be stronger because small churches and large churches, churches in growing communities and declining communities, seek opportunities to give life beyond themselves.
––––––––––
Life in a denomination does not make any of these ideals of Methodist connectionalism automatic. Structures of accountability can be inefficient and ineffective. Global participation can be fraught with unforeseen obstacles. And since the decline of denominational life in North America is drastic and longstanding, the risk of making generative investments in other ministries that will not exist in fifty years (or possibly even ten) is a legitimate concern. But even if the ideals are not guaranteed within a denomination, the question remains whether they are even possible in independent churches. Locating themselves in one of the following categories helps clarify what independent Methodists should do about the place of connectionalism in their futures.
The first category is the simplest: Transitionally Independent Methodists should be actively seeking a new denominational home. Churches in this group likely have clarity that their disaffiliations were about a decision to leave one particular denomination rather than any and every denomination. They may have had valid reasons to take their time choosing a new denominational home, but they recognize that the longer they remain in a transitional, independent state, the lower the level of connectionalism becomes in their air. They know life in any denomination is going to be imperfect, but they balance this with their desire to be part of another connection before the effects of a lack of accountability, participation, and generativity become evident. Having been part of a denomination before, they know that denominational life is not a utopia, and that Wesley’s warning that Methodists could continue to exist as a “dead sect” remains real even after they find a new home. For these churches, however, connectionalism and Methodism are inseparable.
The second category is the most radical: Deliberately Independent Methodists need to explain why they see the institutional connectionalism they chose to discard as nonessential to Methodism. Some may go further and base their conviction toward independence on the view that denominational life was not neutral but hindered their ability to fulfill their Methodist mission. Some churches in this category may admirably seek to recover early Methodist distinctives, such as class and band meetings and Wesley’s doctrinal emphases. However, even with the perceived advantages of church life as independent Methodists, it may be too difficult to return to their connectional roots if they choose to do so when deficits in accountability, participation, or generativity become evident and problematic.
The third category is the easiest to get into but also the most muddled to navigate: Inadvertently Independent Methodists need to determine whose example and influence they are following. Their disaffiliation process likely centered on whether to leave and paid little attention to where to go. They may never have intentionally chosen long-term independence, nor noticed the elements of connectionalism embedded in this choice. They may see the apparent successes of churches from other traditions around them, leading to the incremental adoption of ways of being church that are distinct from their Methodist heritage. When this happens, the drift from one theological tradition toward another will likely occur over time, generally without any specific decision to go in the direction they will eventually find themselves. This category of church needs some urgency to decide in which of the prior two categories it wants to belong.
––––––––––
Four years after my church’s vote to disaffiliate, I realize that our choice not only separated us institutionally but subtly altered how we go about being church––often in ways as latent as the particles in the air around us. Whether my church and other independent Methodists eventually join another denomination or remain on our own, we must be intentional about cultivating connectional accountability, participation, and generativity, lest we drift from the tradition that we sought to preserve.
Daniel Ethan Harris lives in Midland, Texas, and teaches Spiritual Formation courses as an adjunct instructor in two seminaries. He is the author of Shaping the Journey: Wesley, Merton, Mulholland, and the Spiritual Formation Movement.