By the end of next year (the deadline for exiting with church property) at least 3,000 and possibly 5,000 churches are expected to exit. United Methodism has 30,000 U.S. churches. Denominational agencies are preparing for a 38 percent drop in funding for 2025-2028, which implies an approximate expected membership loss of 2.3 million members from the nearly 6.3 million the denomination had in the United States in 2020. That is not a minor exodus.

Just days ago, 487 United Methodist churches were approved for disaffiliation from the denomination, bringing the total of ratified exits to 1,314. Hundreds more have already voted to exit and are awaiting final approval. Almost all of them are theologically conservative churches anticipating the denomination’s official and enthusiastic liberalization on LGBTQ issues when its governing General Conference meets in 2024.
By the end of next year (the deadline for exiting with church property) at least 3,000 and possibly 5,000 churches are expected to exit. United Methodism has 30,000 U.S. churches. Denominational agencies are preparing for a 38 percent drop in funding for 2025-2028, which implies an approximate expected membership loss of 2.3 million members from the nearly 6.3 million the denomination had in the United States in 2020. That is not a minor exodus.
Most exiting churches, perhaps 80-90 percent, are expected eventually to join the new Global Methodist Church. On the other hand, White’s Chapel United Methodist Church outside Dallas typically has nearly 6,000 worshippers weekly, making it one of the denomination’s largest. On Nov. 7, 93 percent of 2,505 voting church members resolved to exit United Methodism, surprising many observers, since the church is not known as particularly conservative.
White’s Chapel evidently does not want United Methodist progressivism nor Global Methodism’s conservatism. So the congregation is forming what it calls a “Methodist Collegiate College” “to create a new form of connectionalism — one of shared ministry, equal accountability, and practical governance.” The church wants to retain “Wesleyan Theology” and “Methodist traditions, rites & rituals” while escaping denominational ownership of property, payments to the denomination, appointment of clergy by bishops, and oversight of clergy ordination by the denomination. It hopes to put “people over polity.”
Read More
Related Posts:

The reasonable conclusion in the case of the SSA controversy is that the innovators are the schismatic and contentious ones, not those who question them. It would be an unloving and cowardly act for those who oppose dangerous innovation, encroachments of the modern sexual revolution, and flawed concepts of identity and personhood to quit the fight before every effort has been made to preserve the church. If anyone leaves the PCA over these issues, it ought to be those who would turn the church upside down with new doctrine, not those who seek to preserve her in faithfulness.

Narratives are funny things, but there’s a certain consistency to them from decade to decade, even from century to century. In the organizational world (including the visible church), those persons, departments, coalitions, or factions perceived as narrow, precise, and conservative are usually considered to be less than ideal—not good for flourishing, to put it in 21st-century speak. Organizations, especially those structured along modern lines, seek self-perpetuation and growth. The biological-business concept “If you’re not growing, you’re dying” is modern conventional wisdom. And the acceptance of this wisdom is not confined to secular organizations.
A religious organization’s immune system—especially one informed by revivalism—may learn to react strongly against anything deemed narrow, precise, and conservative. Good intentions (reaching the lost, transforming the city, keeping the church alive, not “losing the young people”) create an exigent impulse to change, adapt, and innovate. As for those who question the wisdom or intentions of innovators; those who wave the standard of, well, the standards a little too vigorously; those who point back to history and raise the red flag—such persons are placed within the narrative under the label of “divisive.”
Conservatives are presumed divisive. While their efforts to slow the advance of innovators or erect fortifications of defense are considered inconvenient or unpleasant, any offensive action to push back an assault is met with howls of foul play and harsh condemnation. Conservatives are, the narrative goes, the problem, the obstacle to peace and flourishing. Such a thing is happening even now in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), but there is ample evidence that the divisiveness is actually coming from the “progressive” or “beautifully orthodox” side, not from the conservative side.
For instance, in the PCA in 2022 a sizeable faction believe it is not just unenlightened but divisive to oppose the radically innovative “Side B” movement, which assumes homosexual attractions rarely change, accuses the church of horrific homophobia, and finds positive good in some aspects of homosexual culture and identity. This movement, personified by PCA minister Greg Johnson and embodied by the Revoice Conference, would be controversial enough if it involved only church members, but the Side B movement promotes full inclusion in church life, including all church offices and pastoral roles.
Promoting his new book (which promotes the idea that a number of famous 20th-century evangelicals would have warmly embraced Side B), Johnson has gone on the offensive against his conservative skeptics. And he does so not against evangelical Christians generally, but against a large majority of those commissioners to the last PCA General Assembly who voted for proposals (overtures) that would change the PCA constitution. These overtures (which may or may not receive the requisite two-thirds approval by PCA presbyteries—it’s very close) propose slight adjustment to passages about officer examinations and qualifications—changes that might make it easier for a conscientious presbytery or session to discern if a candidate holds views, maintains behaviors, or identifies in sinful ways. They are not radical, though Johnson worries that they will be used to “eliminate folks like [him].”
Read More

Jesus called people out for their sin and their lack of belief. He didn’t make excuses. He called on people to take responsibility. And then, Jesus took responsibility for our sin. Jesus took our sin and shame and punishment. No excuses. 

I am an expert excuse generator. It is part of my nature. Not my spiritual, redeemed nature. Excuse-making comes from my sinful, flesh nature.
We offer excuses because we do not want to take responsibility. Just consider the way that they are explained. You give an excuse. You take responsibility.
An excuse is that which you offer others to hide your sin, your shame, your insecurities, your weaknesses, your guilt. Responsibility is the mantle that you take upon yourself so that you can relieve others of the burden.
When we make excuses, we work to shift blame. We work to burden someone else. When we take responsibility, we own the blame. We carry our own burden.
Adam was the first excuse-maker. When God questioned Adam in the garden, “Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” Adam answered,
The woman you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree and I ate.
Adam, unwilling to own responsibility for his failure to protect his wife and for his failure to obey the Lord, seeks to shift blame. Who does Adam blame? God and his wife.
Since that time, we have all imitated our first father. We are not only sinners, we are excuse-makers and blame-shifters.
Like Adam, we look for someone else to blame. We avoid mirrors and point fingers.
Read More
Related Posts: