Neal Stephenson was brought onboard as a lay supply pastor at Vici (pronounced vai-sai) UMC in Oklahoma because the conference had been unable to find a suitable match for the congregation. Though he does seem to have struggled with some fundamental Methodist doctrines, he also seems to have loved and served that church faithfully. Yet his leadership drew the ire, not just of local #StayUMC types in his church setting, but also of his district superintendent, who made a special effort to scrutinize his role in the pulpit. After making remarks in frustration against the UMC's Book of Discipline in worship, he was summarily fired by the conference, locked out of the church, and his family was summarily removed from membership in the local church.
It was at that point a couple months ago that I contacted and interviewed him. I didn't release it until today because I was concerned about any impact the platforming of Mr. Stephenson would have on my own ability to serve my congregations prior to our disaffiliation. It is hard to say how much of this conflict was simply an interpersonal conflict between him and his DS, versus how much of it had to do with the church’s vocal and vociferous pursuit of disaffiliation. Stephenson and the numerous people he brought into membership in his short tenure were explicit in their desire to vote the church out of the conference when the provisions of Paragraph 2553 were enacted.
After he was dismissed by the conference, the bishop came to speak at the church and the conference reasserted control. While there, the bishop allegedly stated that he had no knowledge of Stephenson’s family being summarily stripped of their membership, raising questions about if others in the conference office are writing letters on his behalf, bearing his authority (watch interview for more details). Stephenson began leading worship offsite.
Last week, members of the Vici church who had been worshiping with Stephenson were informed in writing that they had been removed from the membership of the church (see letter above). Those to whom I spoke said that their fellowship was not intended as a replacement church, but as a temporary community for worship and devotion while they awaited the church vote. They also say that they did not receive personal contact from the current pastor to confirm that they were members of a ‘new church.’ It is hard to imagine what ‘diligent inquiry’ looks like if not a direct personal conversation. The only other way to substantiate such a change in covenant relationship is to confirm the membership with the new church, which I am assured did not happen.
It is worth saying that sometimes even Christians lie. And when I don’t know these people beyond the short contacts I have with them, it isn’t right to simply lay out what they have said as the gospel truth. Even so, their claims are worthy of consideration. It would be wise to continue watching small, rural churches that fight to disaffiliate. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for them to fight conference administration if it ever gets hostile. We would like to believe that conference leadership always behaves ethically. Yet it would be very difficult to deal fairly with an adversary if one is holding all the cards. Tensions are high, and these are adversarial relationships. Both sides have incentive to play victims, to say they had no other choice, to highlight the bad behaviors of the other side. Yet there is still this pesky thing called the truth, and sometimes the truth is that one side is generally wrong and one side is generally right. Conferences do abuse power. Small churches do step out of line and require correction. If the conference wants to add any texture to this story, I can be contacted at plainspokenpod@gmail.com. I can amend this article and conduct follow-up interviews.
After spending some more time on this, I find myself needing to validate some of the conference’s motivations in this. When there is someone leading a United Methodist church who does not confess a doctrine like pedobaptism, that probably cannot persist. Ethically, it is a complicated thing how to administer a church in a connectional system when it is exploring the possibility that it wants out. It surely can’t be the case that a conference is expected to back off and let anyone preach anything at a pulpit with the cross and flame out front once they say the word ‘disaffiliation,’ as though it is some warding charm. Especially if that preacher is adding new people who likewise do not conform to historic Methodist doctrine, and who are explicitly aiming to take over the church, the conference’s attention is probably warranted. In that event, it really does seem like a grab for real estate. As with many other things in life, the truth of the matter depends on one’s perspective. To his credit, Stephenson eagerly sees and acknowledges that. The problem comes when there is an objective judge and standard of truth, and when we have sincere disagreements about who/what that truth is. At that point, things get pretty messy, as we see here.
I guess I don’t think there is a perfect system or way to handle things. In the end, I think church leadership has to defer to Christ’s model of leadership: nonretaliation and noncoercion. When ecclesiastic authority reserves the right to summarily remove folks from membership, to remove someone from the pulpit who is effective and popular, then it hearkens to a time of Christendom, what I understand to be something akin to “dominionist” theology. Essentially, the notion in this is that not just the state, but the church, can and should use worldly force in order to advance its goals, even at the expense of individuals and/or local churches. I cannot really subscribe to that. I believe the church, and especially its leadership, has to very intentionally practice those two traits of Christ, especially when given authority by the world. That means things will be messy, but at least those at the top of the church structure can maintain their integrity. It is not a sin to be taken advantage of; it is indeed sin to misuse one’s authority.
To be clear: I don’t think the UMC should be keeping churches under their umbrella that do not profess historic Methodist doctrine. I think they should just sever ties with a church that falls out of its doctrinal heritage. But then it gets complicated if there is a majority who want to take the church building and assets in some sort of theological takeover while there is still a faithful remnant in the church building. Yeah, the more I think about this one, the less clear I am on what should have happened. It shouldn’t have gotten as far down the road as it did. Yet the reason it did get this far was because of the logistical realities of this region. There was probably nothing that could have been done to avoid this.
Functionally, these recent developments end the disaffiliation prospects of this church. The only members who will be able to vote, if the vote is even called, are those who continued to worship onsite during this time of division. One would think it fair for members who can no longer tolerate the leadership of The United Methodist Church to be able to maintain their membership, awaiting their chance to vote, while also allowing other communities to temporarily engage them on a spiritual level. However, the implication here seems to be that the conference expects for members who wish to depart to continue worshiping within a toxic body for a prolonged period of time, awaiting a vote that doesn’t ever seem to come, if they wish to leave. In order to leave a dysfunctional relationship, they must continue to participate in the dysfunction.
Stephenson is a colorful character and a joy to listen to. In this conversation, he and I were able to talk, not just about his church’s journey, but also about some good Methodist doctrine and practice in ways that could potentially be helpful for folks seeking to better understand Methodism. It is a worthy conversation that explores the practical implications of episcopal overreach and the intolerance of the establishment by those who haven't been well-versed in the unsaid rules of discourse and conduct within the UMC. If you would like to hear the conversation we had, it will air today, Wednesday, May 10, 2023 here:
There has been a good deal of engagement on Mr. Stephenson's theology of baptism (and, relatedly, ordination). A few folks seem to be a little frustrated that I didn't correct him more firmly or take more time to articulate a Wesleyan understanding of these things. My choice to have a light touch shouldn't be interpreted as an indifference toward or blessing of his doctrine. It's more that I just didn't consider it necessary to camp out on in this particular interview. If anyone wants to set up an interview with someone from the UMC who would like to talk about Methodist doctrine around ordination and baptism, I'll be happy to do it. It just wasn't the purpose of this particular conversation. I think we established pretty firmly that Mr. Stephenson just wasn't a Methodist, and it just wasn't a good fit. Anyone who thinks I was trying to make this emblematic of Oklahoma AC behaving badly--I need to correct that. I wish they would exercise the same discipline with respect to those who break our doctrines on the left, and I would have had them handle things somewhat differently in Vici, but I certainly don't fault them for feeling the need to step in.