With the formation of the Global Methodist Church, a reclaiming of the Methodist heritage is in order. Many voices are submitting ideas with respect to the particulars of Methodist identity. I have my own thoughts, which are being spelled out in a series of articles. This is the fifth of at least twelve. You might read my introduction to this series first in order to know how I have thought through this project and why I care about it.
Most if not all proper denominations have an accountability structure that is interconnected in nature. Methodists are not at all unique in their awareness that a functional covenant body needs to be interconnected and accountable. Yet the ways in which Methodists achieve these ends are indeed unique to us, and we would do well to reclaim them. But first, some stuff about me:
The Rickman Marriage Norms
My wife and I do not have privacy from one another outside of the bathroom. She has access to my phone, my email, our shared bank account, all of my files on my computer, my medical records, and everything else that many people choose to keep secret. I likewise have access to all of the same features of her life. If she asks for my phone, my immediate response is to hand it over. When I ask for the password for our bank account for the tenth time, she gives it to me. There is no managing the other’s access to our lives.
This seems extreme to many, but the thing is, I think this is the best way for a marriage to operate. For everyone. I have seen a lot of marriages fall apart. Secrecy is no friend to marriage. Distrust and resentment easily build and fester in dynamics of obfuscation and translucence. Sara Beth and I decided on our first date that if one has to say, “Don’t you trust me?” that the person asking definitely isn’t trustworthy. Trust is not something that people are entitled to. Trust is earned, and it can be rightly lost at any point.
Faith, Trust, and Denominations
To get theological for a minute—Jesus doesn’t trust us. We shouldn’t trust one another. We are told explicitly in scripture NOT to put our trust in men (Psalm 146:3). Taking for granted that everyone is doing right, trusting that everything is “on the level,” or that those in authority are doing the best they can…we should be smarter than to live this way. Living in such a way is a recipe for betrayal, injury, and fallout. We have seen this profoundly in The United Methodist Church. Millions took for granted that those in charge were benevolent in disposition and would never steal the assets of local churches, extort them for freedom, or coerce them into staying. The disappointment from this chapter in Methodist history has so badly damaged hundreds, if not thousands, of local churches that they are now unwilling to consider being vulnerable to a denomination ever again.
I believe that a large covenant body made up of local churches, bound together by a common budget, authority structure, and doctrine, is biblical. This seems to be pretty clearly what was designed by the apostles in the days and years after Pentecost. This notion is otherwise known as a denomination. The continued fracturing of denominations destroys social capital and healthy intimacy within the body of Christ. Anyone oriented by the bible, whether or not they are Methodist, should feel a strong compulsion towards mutually vulnerable relations with other local churches, bound together by resources, discipline, and doctrine. Jesus’ high priestly prayer in John should give every true believer a thirst for common identity with all believers across the world:
“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.”
- John 17:20-23
1 Corinthians 12 deals with the nature of the body of Christ, the church. It uses the metaphor of a body constructed of mutually-interdependent parts. Some parts are weaker than others. All are necessary and connected. Jesus also speaks of a similar concept in John 15, when he says that we can only have life when connected to the vine, which is him. I interpret these portions of scripture to be, not only about the local church, but to the church universal. The majority of Christians across time would find it very strange, and probably faithless, to imagine that a local church might be in faithful relationship with Christ without being in faithful covenant relationship with other local churches. Why would these biblical principles only apply to one level of life and not all others? Why have we been so willing to give up on the norm and dream of local churches bound together in shared covenant accountability?
Satan operates in myriad ways to undo the integrity of covenant bonds among believers. He desires nothing more than to isolate individual churches in little silos, depleted and divided over time, growing further apart from other believers around the world. It is no coincidence that our era of division is marked by a precipitous decline in Christianity across the West. United we stand, divided we fall. Satan wants us to be so damaged by the disappointments of the past that we cannot imagine true fellowship across geography with other believers. It is a great defeat for us when the evil one can convince us that biblical expectations are unrealistic or fantastical.
Matrimony is very similar to denominationalism, though there are some differences that do not allow for a 1:1 correspondence. One of the commonalities is the damage a divorce does to the social fabric and to those individuals integrated into its tapestry. The divorce of a married couple causes great damage to the children of the marriage, always. Moreover, the divorced persons are much more likely, statistically, to then divorce another future spouse again. Friends of the divorced couple are also much more likely to get a divorce, themselves. The evil spreads.
Similarly, denominational divide makes future divide and isolation much more likely for local churches affected by the divide. Look at what this division in the UMC has done and tell me you don’t think it is a big deal. Look at how gun-shy disaffiliated churches are, how self-oriented and self-justifying they are, and tell me they haven’t been scarred. I truly believe Christ calls us to insist upon biblical purity despite the ways in which the church has screwed the prospect up before. If the Holy Spirit is with us, then it should be possible to be part of biblically-representative covenant bodies made up of many local churches. Not only should it be possible, but it should be desired, sought after, desperately, by all scripture-oriented churches.
Accountability, Vulnerability, and Transparency
Yet, as I have already stated plainly, it is a fiction and a mistake to trust that those given authority in or over local churches are going to be trustworthy. The response of independent local churches that have been burned has been to simply eliminate a potential area of corruption or betrayal: anything beyond the local church. They haven’t at all limited the damage that can still be done within their bodies, though. Moreover, they have now limited how much oversight or accountability can be exercised by faithful people outside of the local church. As I have already said: this is not good or biblical.
So if we cannot trust one another, but we also cannot be separate from one another, then it becomes quite obvious that we must have accountability, vulnerability, and transparency. Without these, a corporate body is always bent towards corruption, abuse, and betrayal.
Those in favor of denominations regularly critique independent churches, saying they are prone to create insular, self-aggrandizing leadership that cannot be held accountable from the outside. The ready rejoinder is that the UMC has tons of outside structure that did not effectively guard against these things. Why pay all this money to a superstructure that doesn’t do what it is supposed to do? The clear answer is that these structures must operate in the way they were designed to. There must be regular oversight to identify and remove ineffective leadership. This can only be done in a culture of transparency, accountability, and vulnerability. If this culture is not in place, then the structure is irrelevant.
Benefits of Transparency
Given the level of access we have to one another, one might think that my wife and I are constantly snooping on one another, trying to catch one another in some betrayal. The opposite is the case. I never suspect her. It is wonderful. This is actually pretty rare, nowadays. I have had intimate conversations with so many men over the years: “Pastor, I can’t help but wonder if my wife is cheating on me.” “Jeffrey, I want to give more, but my wife got us in so much credit card debt.” “I would do what I need to do, but I’m afraid she will leave me and the kids, or she will take them from me.” My wife, for her part, has seen similar woes among her sisters in Christ.
Pride insists on privacy. Privacy morphs into secrecy and paranoia, distrust and resentment. Finally, there is either a lasting detente or an all-out war or breakdown. All of this can be avoided through transparency, clear lines of communication, and responsiveness to one another. When I am unclear on a detail, I can and do log into my wife’s email to read pertinent messages. If I happen to see something else that interests me, it is no breach of trust for me to read other content. Of course, this accessibility is given equally to my wife.
We Have to Grow Up
The hard part, though, is that a transparent organization requires people to be self-aware adults. They need to be humble enough to have others check their work, to have their decisions questioned, to repent when they did wrong. The reality today is that very few are actually mature enough to operate in an adult fashion. They insist on privacy and secrecy, not out of some principled stance, but out of a reactive fear that they will be exposed.
I remember when I first got married and Sara Beth saw everything I did. Instantly, I felt shame and guilt at how lazy and selfish I was. Her watchful eye made me work to actually be a man worth loving, worth honoring. Of course, I still fail, but not nearly so much as before I got married. Ideally, my fear of the Lord would have moved me to such self-scrutiny. What I believe is overwhelmingly common, however, is that people in our society do not fear the Lord. They do not fear his watchful eye; if anything, they resent it. They spurn it.
Think of Psalm 139:7-12:
Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.
If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,”
even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.
So many read these words and despair. Most learn to live as though this is not true, as though God only sees us when we want to be seen. Yet the only way to be in right relationship with the Lord is to understand that every moment matters, every thoughtless word counts against us (Matt. 12:36-37), and that God’s love for us in no way limits his access to us and our sins. And when our sins are laid bare to God, then those who understand these things are no longer interested in hiding from one another. Authentic churches are marked by people who have nothing to hide because they have already been exposed: we are sinners saved only by unmerited grace. We are honored to have others look upon us and see God’s redeeming work. We are glad to serve for little worldly pay, and to be watched by loving brothers and sisters along the way. This is the Methodist way.
Methodist Connexionalism
Methodists were once known for actually being Christians. Phonies and lukewarm nominal believers were guarded against, such that the average level of the quality of faith of Methodists far outstripped other traditions. The cultural waste of Great Britain at the time under the indolent spiritual leadership of the Anglican Church was the problem that Methodism was raised up to solve. John Wesley insisted throughout his life that Methodism was really nothing more than biblical Christianity. Over the course of decades, Mr. Wesley and his leadership structure were effectively able to convert and discipline thousands of people, making a significant difference in the disposition of Great Britain and America. Methodism converted people in significant ways that could be seen by others. When one became a Methodist, it was reasonable to expect, and people did, that the individual would be transformed.
The high standards of righteousness that Methodism came to be associated with could only be facilitated by a connexional structure that, I believe, mirrors the ethics and concerns of my analysis thus far.
Connexionalism is a pretty broad term. At times, it reflected a network of relations that John Wesley himself trusted and had spiritual intimacy with. Given that Methodism was not initially a denomination, the organization largely held together based on relational commitment, fidelity, and submission in relationship with John Wesley himself. As Methodism evolved into a formal denomination, the authority structure came to be associated with bishops and agency heads. Even so, Methodism in the mainline expression has ultimately been a democratic conciliar body. To be a faithful Methodist meant submitting to and participating in a covenant designed by the people of the movement.
Connexionalism has also denoted the actual structures of holy conferencing that are supposed to be normative throughout Methodism. Starting on the ground floor, all Methodists were, once upon a time, expected to be faithful members of a class meeting. One could not be a Methodist without a ticket with John Wesley’s signature, validating that the individual was indeed in good standing with the society through faithful participation in a small group. Methodist local churches were properly understood as bodies composed of smaller ecclesiolae in ecclesia, or churches within a church. Every church member was accountable, yes, to a pastor, but more directly to a class leader and one’s class members. Based on how a class leader and pastor reflected on the discipleship of an individual, that individual could be either endowed with more authority or removed from Methodism altogether. It was this fundamental level of accountability, watching over one another in love, that gave Methodism such impressive quality control.
Local churches were initially connected to one another on circuits, on which traveling preachers called circuit riders would travel, requiring cultural and doctrinal conformity of all Methodist churches. Eventually a system of districts, and superintendents over those districts, was designed to achieve the same end. Circuit riders and then district superintendents were in connexion with one another in submission to a bishop, or a general superintendent, who was tasked with defending the discipline of the movement. All the clergy at first, and then laity, as well, later on, would gather regularly to reinforce shared doctrinal and disciplinary standards in what was called the “annual conference.” The conferencing done on this level, as well as the jurisdictional and general church levels, was to mirror the culture of the grassroots class meeting. Initially, people who did not participate in class meetings could not conceivably participate in larger conference units. The principles of connexionalism required that individuals be faithful in little things before they could be considered for greater service.
Over the course of a couple centuries, the quality of Methodist connexion was degraded. It began with the end of the class meeting as a mandatory grassroots unit. From there, a general trend towards privacy and independence among members of Methodism meant that it eventually became unrealistic and inappropriate to expect for individuals in leadership to be laid bare before their peers. Eventually it became clear that, in The United Methodist Church, holding even bishops to basic disciplinary standards was no longer a realistic option. Because of the fall of connexionalism, the UMC made a mockery of the Christian faith, thus fulfilling the warning made by John Wesley himself:
“I am not afraid that the people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or America. But I am afraid lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out.”
Connexionalism is the particular strength of authentic Methodism. It is meant to ensure faithful accountable discipleship on every level of the denomination. Without it, Methodists will undoubtedly fall prey to the satanic devices that plague every other sect of the Christian faith. We should know better. We can and should do better.
It isn’t a question of the Spirit’s power. It is a question of our willingness to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Are we willing to submit to clear biblical instruction? Are we willing to practice what would be considered radical accountability by worldly standards? Are we willing to trust God rather than be governed by our trauma and fears?
A Prescription for Reclaiming Connexionalism in Methodism
If the Global Methodist Church is to seriously consider again spreading scriptural holiness across the land and reforming the nations by grassroots faithful living, then it would be fictitious to hope for such a thing without reclaiming connexionalism.
The very first step in doing this would be in reclaiming the class meeting as a mandatory part of our polity. For those who are not aware of what this would entail, I think the favorite resource to consult is this book. I will address the quality control element involved here in a later piece.
Connexionalism would further require more direct oversight of what is being preached in Methodist pulpits. Clergy should be watching over one another in love, learning from one another, warning those who preach doctrines outside of Methodist orthodoxy. Conference trainings would focus less on the latest corporate and marketing trends and a lot more on doctrine refreshers and getting to know one another.
On the general church level, reclaiming connexionalism requires that those in church leadership have active relationships with others in their areas of conferencing. Annual conference delegates should know one another before they show up to conference session to work together. The clergy should know and respect one another, as well. It should feel like a family reunion when we get together. People for whom church is just an extracurricular activity should not be active in leadership. Those whose social lives and calendars are not pretty radically impacted by their church and denomination should not be considered for service. Given the ways in which modern technology can help us to connect, we really have no excuse for continuing to be strangers to one another. It is only because of the alienation and isolation of churches and clergy that the UMC was so thoroughly compromised. Yes, renewed connexionalism will require that clergy and lay leadership to have time and energy spent outside of the local church. That is the point. When leadership gets too insular, it gets warped. The structure needs to require a broader mindset than a siloed local church among those in leadership.
Connexionalism would require that candidates for ordained ministry are known quantities before they are voted on by the clergy session at annual conference. It would require that bishops conform to the specifics of the covenant of the body, that they are responsive to critiques and concerns, that they are removed when deemed unworthy of the office. It would also require that any connexional ministries and all ministers be open to assessment from the outside, reporting not just their work, but also their finances.
Final Exhortations
None of this can be done effectively without the principles enumerated above: accountability, vulnerability, and transparency. Trust will not figure in because it won’t be needed; those in leadership would not have any secrets. All would continue to participate in classes and bands. All would disclose all financials, calendar commitments, and competing loyalties. Those who desire secrecy simply won’t be in leadership positions on any level. Methodist leadership as a whole on every level would again be marked by radical accountability. Once again, the world would see a people who have retained their salt (Matt. 5:13-16). Once again, there would be a covenant network of churches, this time spanning the world, effectively beating back the gates of hell.
I believe many other people want to see such things, but they have not yet counted the cost. The cost is learning to see the church as less of a social club and more of a family. There are many who are indeed hungering to reclaim such dynamics of intimacy, despite how countercultural and fictitious it seems today. I want to encourage those folks to more vocally agitate for reclaiming these high standards of discipleship and leadership within Methodism.
I also, out of love, want to push back as hard as I can against the notion that someone can claim the title ‘Methodist’ without practicing this sort of interconnected connexionalism. I truly love and appreciate so many within the Association of Independent Methodists, as well as many independent Methodist churches. Even so, I think their decision to remain independent completely undercuts the original strength of claiming such a status as a ‘Methodist’ church. To be Methodist should be understood to be synonymous with connexionalism in some way approximating what I have laid out here. Otherwise the word ‘Methodism’ loses, not just its meaning, but also its power. So I want to push those for whom the name ‘Methodist’ still means something: If your church is independent, you need to change that, and quickly.
We live in an age that is increasingly uncomfortable with words and labels. I get regular pushback from people who don’t like that I use the word ‘conservative’ when describing a disposition towards the Christian faith. I regularly interview people who say they “don’t like labels” and just want to be seen as Jesus-followers. This is, of course, a prerogative all have. Even so, words mean something. There is power in words. Words and labels help us to know where we stand in relations to others. There used to be power in the title ‘Methodist.’ There could be again, but it will require an intentional reclaiming. I, for one, am interested in such a project. I hope you are, too.
So subscribe, if you haven’t already. There is still a lot more ground to cover. I read every comment written, and all feedback gets worked into other content I produce. Be in prayer for the upcoming Convening Conference of the Global Methodist Church. I am praying that they begin in earnest the project of reclaiming authentic Methodism, including the notion of connexionalism. I would invite you not only to pray for the same, but to communicate your desires for this project to those that have been elected to represent you at this upcoming gathering.
Thanks for continuing to read my stuff, y’all. I hope it is a blessing to you personally, to your church, and to Methodism more broadly.
“Submit to each other in reverence to Christ” is an idea that has gone way out of style but is absolutely required to be in a Connectional polity.
Jeffrey, I strongly agree with much that you’ve said in this post, especially your Biblical references on the need for strong Christian unity within the Body of Christ. But I believe that you and I operate under a different meaning of the word, denomination. I understand that term to be synonymous with sect, or tribe. As such, this term, in my opinion would be in total contradiction to what Christ prayed for in John 17:20-23, or what Paul wrote about in Ephesians 4:1-6. What you have stated about all the GMC local churches being in a covenant relationship together, I would say that Biblically speaking, all the orthodox local churches within a town or city should be in that same type of relationship. For instance, the epistles were all addressed to THE church at ———, even though there would have been multiple house churches meeting in that same city or town. As to oversight, there were itinerant apostolic workers who performed that function, now bishop? As for “independent churches “, I can’t find any such animal in the NT. They were all interdependent, all connected to one another through their union into Christ. Full disclosure: Although I’m currently serving as the adult SS facilitator, and have for a decade, at a now local GMC congregation, I still identify as post-denominational. I also advocate for small group meetings to facilitate discipleship and accountability. I believe lacking that, successfully for those goals are next to impossible.