Apportionment Stewardship: A Theological Audit and Progressive Agendas in the United Methodist Church - The Economics of Ecclesiology

Stewardship, Schism, and the Soul of the Church: A Theological and Ethical Audit of Apportionment Finance and Ideological Realignment in the United Methodist Church

I. Introduction

A. Statement of the Research Problem

In recent decades, the United Methodist Church (UMC) has witnessed a profound reconfiguration in both theological orientation and fiscal stewardship. Central to this transformation is the use of apportionment funds—contributions pooled from local churches to support denominational ministries. Critics allege that these funds are increasingly directed toward programs that promote progressive theological and socio-political ideologies, diverging from traditional Wesleyan orthodoxy. This concern prompts a rigorous investigation into whether the UMC’s financial apparatus coheres with its theological identity or whether it facilitates ideological capture. The theological audit of such fiscal patterns thus becomes not only an administrative concern but a deeply ecclesiological one.

Apportionment, as a mechanism of ecclesial accountability and mutual ministry, is historically rooted in a shared theological vision of connectionalism. However, recent scholarship suggests a divergence in how this vision is interpreted across the denomination’s global body.¹ For instance, Lomperis identifies “two ecclesial trajectories”—one theologically conservative, the other progressive—both claiming the legitimacy of the apportionment system while simultaneously redefining its ends.² This bifurcation raises questions about theological stewardship: is the allocation of these resources consonant with historic Methodist commitments, or are they vehicles for institutional reengineering?

A growing body of theological literature warns against “functional displacement,” where administrative structures co-opt theological categories in the service of ideological projects.³ If fiscal structures are disproportionately aligned with progressive cultural movements (e.g., gender ideology, racial equity, climate activism), then the Church’s missional coherence may be undermined. Such concerns are not abstract: General Conference budget allocations reveal a consistent increase in funding for justice-oriented boards, often to the detriment of traditional evangelism and discipleship.⁴

The question then arises: how are these theological shifts discerned, justified, or critiqued? Theological auditing, rooted in historical-critical, patristic, and Wesleyan paradigms, offers a robust evaluative lens. This paper applies such a method to UMC financial practices by examining both theological narratives embedded in apportionment-based programs and their practical outworkings within the denomination’s institutions. The underlying hypothesis posits that these fiscal trends may reflect an evolving ecclesial self-understanding, one that demands theological scrutiny.

Furthermore, apportionment giving has become a contentious issue at the congregational level. Churches withholding apportionments in protest against progressive allocations signal a fracture in covenantal ecclesiology.⁵ According to Weems, Jr., this refusal is not merely political but theologically motivated, indicating a crisis of trust in the institution’s doctrinal fidelity.⁶ Therefore, examining this stewardship is not only about economics—it is about ecclesial unity, spiritual integrity, and doctrinal boundaries.

Lastly, the UMC faces a kairotic moment in which the reassessment of apportionment usage is indispensable for its future viability. With the rise of the Global Methodist Church and continuing disaffiliations under Paragraph 2553, the stakes of fiscal-theological integrity have never been higher. This dissertation aims to contribute meaningfully to this discourse by offering a systematic theological audit of how money reveals—and shapes—the Church’s soul.

B. Research Questions

The first research question—Are financial resources within the UMC advancing an agenda that departs from traditional Wesleyan orthodoxy?—explores the intersection of fiscal policy and theological drift. Historical Wesleyanism is rooted in evangelical doctrine, scriptural holiness, and a clear soteriology. Yet, contemporary apportionment structures fund entities whose theological commitments are at variance with these foundational tenets.⁷ Evaluating such divergences requires a doctrinal analysis of institutional missions and their consistency with classical Methodist theology.

Secondly, What theological frameworks justify or critique such fiscal stewardship?—addresses the intellectual scaffolding that supports or challenges these allocations. For example, liberationist, feminist, and postcolonial theologies are frequently invoked in denominational documents to validate justice-related expenditures.⁸ Yet such frameworks may lack integration with Wesleyan theological anthropology and ecclesiology. A patristic and Wesleyan response is therefore necessary to evaluate the legitimacy of these justifications.

The third research question—How does the financial structuring of the Church reflect its ecclesial identity?—raises deeper issues about the Church’s ontology. As Bonhoeffer reminds us, “The Church is Christ existing as community.”⁹ If funding reflects ecclesial priorities, then the structure of apportionment itself is not neutral—it is a theological statement. This study explores how current financial practices mirror an ecclesial self-understanding oriented more toward sociopolitical activism than toward Word and Sacrament.

Moreover, the integration of finance and ecclesiology is not unprecedented. Augustine’s De Civitate Dei articulates how the distribution of resources within the City of God reflects theological convictions.¹⁰ Similarly, Wesley himself held that stewardship must be evaluated according to its capacity to promote holiness and communal righteousness.¹¹ Therefore, tracing the theological logic behind financial flows within the UMC can reveal the implicit ecclesiology animating them.

These questions are not limited to institutional analysis but touch on spiritual formation. If the allocation of resources influences seminary education, liturgical practice, or congregational development, then the shaping of Christian identity is at stake. Accordingly, this study bridges macro-level financial analysis with pastoral and spiritual concerns at the grassroots level of Methodism.

Lastly, these research questions respond to the epistemic crisis facing many mainline denominations: how do we know we are being faithful? The tools of audit, transparency, and theological critique serve as acts of ecclesial accountability before God and the communion of saints. This dissertation aims to contribute to that sacred vocation.

C. Significance of the Study

The significance of this study lies in its unique position at the confluence of ecclesiology, financial ethics, and theological methodology, engaging a complex question at a pivotal juncture in the United Methodist Church’s global life. The apportionment system, originally designed to ensure equitable sharing of ministry responsibilities, now functions as a mirror reflecting the denomination’s contested theological identity. A theologically rigorous audit of this system enables the Church to discern whether it remains a faithful steward of its spiritual and material resources. In doing so, this project addresses not merely a bureaucratic concern, but the deeper issue of fidelity to the Church’s vocation as the Body of Christ.¹²

The current crisis within the UMC concerning disaffiliation, ecclesial schism, and doctrinal redefinition is inseparably linked to how resources are collected, distributed, and symbolically justified. Financial allocation is never merely transactional—it reveals the theological priorities of the institution. When apportionment funds disproportionately support ideological programs aligned with contemporary progressive agendas, especially those rooted in sociopolitical movements rather than historic Wesleyan theological motifs, the Church must critically evaluate its own narrative.¹³ This study offers an incisive theological framework to undertake that evaluation, rooted in both tradition and academic inquiry.

Furthermore, the research is timely and urgent. As of 2024, over 7,500 UMC congregations in the United States have disaffiliated under Paragraph 2553, with apportionment concerns cited frequently in local church minutes as a driving cause.¹⁴ This fragmentation signals a deep crisis in covenantal trust. If the apportionment system is to remain viable in the post-separation UMC, it must be reformed theologically, not merely administratively. This study thus serves a constructive purpose: it equips church leaders, theologians, and financial stewards with categories by which to rebuild trust, transparency, and accountability rooted in shared doctrinal identity.¹⁵

Moreover, this research contributes to the scholarly conversation on ecclesial economics and theological ethics. While recent studies have addressed church funding models in relation to organizational behavior and sociopolitical activism, few have offered a theological audit that begins with patristic, Wesleyan, and ethical theological principles.¹⁶ By grounding the financial mechanics of apportionment in the broader narrative of Christian stewardship and ecclesiology, this dissertation offers an interdisciplinary approach that can serve as a template for other denominations facing similar tensions between legacy, mission, and innovation.

Another vital contribution is the expansion of ecclesiological thought beyond mere polity. This study emphasizes that how a church spends its money is ecclesiologically formative. Just as sacraments shape the Church’s life through visible signs of invisible grace, so too does financial distribution form the Church’s corporate imagination and ethical boundaries.¹⁷ Through its commitment to a historically informed and theologically coherent evaluation of spending practices, this project reveals how institutional design must always remain accountable to spiritual truth.

Finally, the global dimension of this study cannot be ignored. As the UMC seeks to reconfigure itself beyond the U.S.-centric General Conference, African, Asian, and European delegates increasingly challenge the Western progressive theological consensus embedded in funding decisions.¹⁸ This dissertation thus provides an indispensable tool for cross-cultural theological conversation, allowing for a reimagining of apportionment as a covenantal, not ideological, practice. In short, it invites the Church to become again what it professes to be: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—not only in doctrine, but also in stewardship.

D. Methodology

This study employs a multidisciplinary methodology grounded in historical theology, ecclesiology, ethics, and financial analysis. At its core is the historical-theological method, which draws from patristic sources, Wesleyan theological development, and contemporary scholarship to interpret the UMC’s fiscal behavior in light of its doctrinal tradition. By tracing the continuity and discontinuity in the Church’s understanding of stewardship—from early Christian communalism to Methodist circuit rider ethics—this approach interrogates whether current apportionment patterns maintain theological integrity or exhibit ideological drift.¹⁹ The historical-theological method insists that theology is not static but dynamic, and that faithfulness involves discernment of continuity amid change.

Central to this method is John Wesley’s theology of stewardship, which emphasized the sanctification of resources as an act of love for God and neighbor. Wesley’s oft-quoted triad—“gain all you can, save all you can, give all you can”—was never a financial slogan, but a spiritual ethic grounded in the imago Dei and the call to holiness.²⁰ In applying this framework, the study examines contemporary apportionment documents to assess whether current financial practices reflect this Wesleyan telos or have been co-opted by secular paradigms of justice and activism. The lens of sanctified stewardship thus becomes a diagnostic tool for theological auditing.

This methodology also integrates ecclesiological analysis, particularly the theological meaning of connectionalism, covenant, and authority in Methodist polity. Drawing on Bonhoeffer’s concept of the Church as “Christ existing as community” and the ecclesial hermeneutics of Yves Congar and Stanley Hauerwas, the study explores how financial structuring is never neutral—it always reflects and reinforces ecclesial identity.²¹ Thus, budgetary decisions are interpreted not only through financial efficiency but through their coherence with the Church’s theological anthropology and missional vocation. This includes a close reading of General Conference journals, budgets, and board reports from 2000–2024 to determine alignment between stated ecclesial values and fiscal practice.²²

Further, the study employs ethical analysis of financial transparency and governance, drawing from theological ethics (Gustafson, Ramsey) and Christian organizational theory. This aspect focuses on accountability mechanisms within the UMC’s apportionment system and asks whether they reflect virtues such as justice, prudence, fidelity, and trust.²³ Using case studies—such as the Council of Bishops’ handling of Episcopal Fund deficits, and the General Board of Church and Society’s lobbying practices—the study examines how financial opacity or ideologically selective reporting undermines covenantal trust. The ethical critique is informed by Scripture (e.g., Acts 4:32–35; 2 Corinthians 8–9) and early Christian models of shared stewardship.²⁴

To ensure robustness, the study engages documentary analysis as its empirical backbone. Official UMC financial reports, General Conference legislation, board resolutions, and audit statements from 2000 to 2024 form the primary sources.²⁵ Supplementary data are drawn from scholarly literature, annual conference journals, and denominational media. These documents are analyzed through content coding, tracing keywords related to social justice, theological language, and financial descriptors. By categorizing expenditures and rhetorical framing, the study maps the theological vectors embedded in financial structures.

Finally, this dissertation acknowledges the global scope of the UMC and thus integrates contextual theology. Voices from the Central Conferences (Africa, Philippines, and Europe) are evaluated to test whether the apportionment system reflects mutuality or cultural imposition.²⁶ This is crucial, as recent critiques from African bishops have charged the UMC with financially subsidizing progressive ideological frameworks foreign to their theological worldview. Therefore, contextual theological interpretation is not a token addition but an epistemological commitment. It ensures that the audit respects the catholicity of the Church, affirms subsidiarity, and invites a truly global ecclesiology of stewardship.

1: Literature Review

1. Historical Foundations of Methodist Stewardship

The United Methodist Church inherits a complex yet spiritually potent theology of stewardship from its Wesleyan origins. John Wesley’s economic ethic was both rigorously theological and pastoral in its orientation. Wesley viewed the use of money as a deeply spiritual practice subject to the sanctifying work of grace. He taught that while Christians should pursue industry and thrift, the accumulation of wealth was never an end in itself but a means of expressing holy love through giving.²⁶ The early Methodist movement emphasized class meetings, itinerancy, and lay accountability, structures which provided economic stability but also allowed for extraordinary missional expansion—all sustained through disciplined stewardship rooted in shared theological identity.²⁷

Modern historians have further illuminated the link between Wesley’s practical theology and Methodist financial structures. Hempton notes that early Methodists embraced an ethic of frugality and communal responsibility, often in stark contrast to the individualistic economic theories of emerging capitalism.²⁸ In this light, the apportionment system—which later emerged as a formal mechanism for distributing financial responsibility across churches—represents an institutionalization of that early ethical vision. However, some scholars argue that the UMC’s current fiscal structure reflects less of Wesley’s theology and more of modern organizational theory, a shift that invites scrutiny.²⁹

Indeed, the transition from voluntary covenantal giving to mandatory apportionments was not merely administrative; it constituted a theological shift from charisma to bureaucracy.³⁰ Methodist historians such as Richey and Rowe have observed that as Methodism expanded in the 19th and 20th centuries, it increasingly adopted institutional habits reflective of corporate America, including budget hierarchies, boards, and legal language. While this enabled financial scalability, it also introduced the risk of theological abstraction.³¹ As a result, many local congregations today no longer see apportionments as a means of shared missional participation but as a “tax” disconnected from the vitality of gospel work.

The problem, then, is not merely functional but formational. The way money is structured, requested, and reported within the Church shapes ecclesial identity and spiritual imagination.³² As theologian Rowan Williams suggests, ecclesial practices—including how money is gathered and spent—reveal the “moral grammar” of the Church.³³ To ignore the theological and spiritual dimensions of church finance is to tacitly concede ecclesiology to managerialism. This study reclaims stewardship as an ecclesial practice deeply rooted in Wesleyan formation and critical of modern functionalist reductions.

Moreover, financial discipline in early Methodism was inseparable from communal accountability. The itinerant system, the use of conference journals, and mutual oversight between clergy and laity created a financial ecosystem of transparency and trust.³⁴ These features are not accidental to Methodist theology but expressions of its ecclesiology—a Church not defined by property or hierarchy, but by shared mission and covenant. The recovery of these foundations is essential for any serious audit of present-day apportionment use.

This historical literature suggests that while the Church’s administrative needs have evolved, its theological vocation regarding money remains constant: to ensure that all resources serve the growth of holiness, the proclamation of Christ, and the care of the poor.³⁵ Insofar as contemporary structures deviate from this calling—through ideological entanglement or institutional drift—corrective theological reflection is required. Thus, this literature review establishes a critical standard: fidelity to Wesleyan stewardship must be the plumb line by which all financial practices are measured.

2. Development of the Apportionment System in UMC Polity

The apportionment system within the United Methodist Church is a distinctive feature of its connectional polity, designed to ensure the equitable support of global mission, general agencies, episcopal oversight, and educational institutions. While often regarded as an administrative tool, it is deeply embedded in the theological DNA of Methodism, rooted in the principle of covenantal interdependence. The system emerged from early 20th-century efforts to streamline denominational support and gained formal articulation through the 1939 Methodist Church union and the creation of the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA) in 1968, following the merger of the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren.³⁶

Scholars have documented that apportionments were initially conceived as a theological response to ecclesial fragmentation and resource imbalance.³⁷ By allocating giving targets proportionally to the size and income of each local church, the system was intended to embody a spirit of mutuality: the strong bearing the burdens of the weak, the rich giving to sustain the poor, and all participating in a global mission.³⁸ However, as the denomination evolved, so did the complexity and opacity of its financial architecture. Over time, the apportionment system became a mechanism for maintaining an expanding denominational bureaucracy, leading some critics to argue that it has shifted from a means of mission to a means of institutional survival.³⁹

Contemporary evaluations suggest that the system increasingly reflects technocratic rather than theological priorities. Annual Conferences calculate apportionments based on formulas involving church expenses, operating budgets, and membership reports, but often with little attention to theological rationale or congregational mission.⁴⁰ This bureaucratization of giving has contributed to what Lovett Weems calls a “disconnect between giving and gospel,” where local churches feel alienated from the purposes to which their funds are directed.⁴¹ The lack of narrative transparency—particularly in funding social and ideological causes through general boards—has exacerbated tensions, especially in the wake of the denomination’s divisions over human sexuality and political theology.

At the 2016 and 2019 General Conferences, apportionments became flashpoints of controversy. The funding of the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS), which has publicly supported progressive policy positions, became emblematic of a broader concern: that the UMC’s financial structures are being leveraged to advance agendas not widely endorsed by the global body.⁴² Notably, African delegates and traditionalist American leaders voiced sharp critiques of what they perceived as financial coercion—an imposition of ideology through economic obligation.⁴³ These developments reveal the apportionment system not merely as a budgetary concern but as a contested ecclesial practice that bears theological and ethical significance.

In response, various proposals have emerged to revise or replace the current apportionment model. Some advocate a shift to a voluntary giving system modeled on covenantal relationships, while others propose aligning funding with theological accountability, wherein agencies must demonstrate fidelity to the Church’s doctrinal standards to receive financial support.⁴⁴ Still others suggest decentralizing apportionments entirely, allowing regional conferences to determine their own missional priorities. While these models vary, they share a common conviction: that the current system, though once useful, may no longer serve the ecclesial unity or theological integrity it was designed to promote.

Ultimately, the literature reveals a growing consensus that any future reform must be rooted not only in financial pragmatism but also in robust theological vision.⁴⁵ This requires a renewed ecclesiology—one that sees financial structures not as neutral tools but as sacramental expressions of shared belief, mutual accountability, and gospel-driven mission. The challenge before the UMC is not simply to balance its books, but to recover a theology of giving that binds its people together in love, holiness, and truth.

3. The Rise of Progressive Theology in Mainline Protestantism

The theological landscape of mainline Protestantism has undergone substantial transformation since the early twentieth century, with progressive theology emerging as a dominant force in many denominational structures, including the United Methodist Church. Rooted in liberal Protestantism, which emphasized ethical humanism, social gospel ideals, and modernist biblical interpretation, progressive theology further evolved in the post-1960s era by integrating concerns from liberation theology, feminist theology, ecological theology, and postcolonial critiques.⁴⁶ These movements sought to recalibrate Christian thought around the lived experiences of the marginalized, reframing orthodoxy as an evolving ethical consciousness rather than a fixed set of doctrinal commitments.

Progressive theology within the UMC has largely taken form through general agencies and seminaries, especially those influenced by the theological developments of the mid- to late-20th century. The influence of thinkers such as Paul Tillich, James Cone, Rosemary Radford Ruether, and later, Delores Williams and Catherine Keller, has been pronounced.⁴⁷ These theologians advanced a hermeneutic of suspicion toward classical doctrines—such as substitutionary atonement, biblical inerrancy, and moral absolutes—replacing them with themes of liberation, embodiment, contextuality, and “justice-love.” This shift, while energizing for many, has also created theological tension with traditional Wesleyan emphases on personal holiness, scriptural authority, and evangelical proclamation.

As theological education in UMC-affiliated institutions adopted these frameworks, so too did the Church’s bureaucratic and policy-shaping arms. Agencies such as the General Board of Church and Society, the General Commission on Religion and Race, and the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women became key drivers of progressive theological agendas, not only through advocacy but through resource allocation.⁴⁸ Financial support for these agencies—funded by apportionments—reflects a denominational commitment to justice-seeking ministry, but often in language and initiatives disconnected from historic Methodist theology. For example, budget reports from 2016–2020 show significant increases in funding for progressive educational campaigns on climate justice, reproductive rights, and critical race frameworks.⁴⁹

Critics argue that the entrenchment of progressive theology within denominational structures has resulted in a “soft secularism,” wherein theological distinctiveness is sacrificed for cultural relevance.⁵⁰ William J. Abraham lamented this trajectory as “doctrinal amnesia,” warning that the UMC was abandoning its Wesleyan DNA in favor of social activism unmoored from historic Christian orthodoxy.⁵¹ Likewise, Scott Kisker has critiqued the Church’s seminaries for catechizing students in postmodern identity politics rather than preparing them for gospel-centered ministry.⁵² These theological concerns directly implicate apportionment use, as funding supports not only programmatic initiatives but also the theological worldview shaping those programs.

Conversely, defenders of progressive theology argue that the Church must evolve to meet the ethical demands of the present. They contend that orthodoxy has always been contextual and that faithfulness today means centering marginalized voices and confronting systemic injustice.⁵³ In this light, the allocation of apportionment funds to justice-focused initiatives is not ideological compromise but theological integrity. However, even sympathetic scholars acknowledge the lack of robust ecclesial discernment mechanisms to mediate this evolution, leaving the Church vulnerable to theological partisanship masked as prophetic witness.⁵⁴

The rise of progressive theology, then, is not merely an intellectual movement but an ecclesial force with institutional and financial consequences. It has reshaped how the UMC understands its mission, how it funds its ministries, and how it defines fidelity. As such, any audit of apportionment usage must grapple with the theological content shaping spending priorities—not simply as budget lines but as public confessions of what the Church believes and whom it serves.

4. Financial Ethics in Ecclesial Governance

The ethical dimension of financial stewardship within the Church cannot be separated from its theological identity. Scripture consistently portrays the management of resources not merely as pragmatic responsibility but as a profound moral act rooted in trust, justice, and accountability.⁵⁵ From the Mosaic laws regarding tithing and equitable redistribution (Deut. 14:28–29) to Jesus’ parables of faithful stewardship (Luke 16:1–13), the Bible establishes clear ethical principles for resource management. Within the ecclesial context, these principles translate into organizational expectations for transparency, accountability, and alignment with the mission of God. The United Methodist Church, by virtue of its global influence and connectional polity, bears a heightened ethical obligation to demonstrate financial integrity in how apportionments are collected and deployed.⁵⁶

Christian ethicists have long affirmed that financial ethics in church governance must be framed by virtue ethics—particularly the virtues of justice, prudence, fidelity, and temperance.⁵⁷ These are not merely classical virtues but theological ones, reflective of God’s character and manifest in Christian life. When financial governance departs from these virtues—through opaque reporting, misaligned priorities, or unjust allocation—it reflects not only administrative failure but ecclesial sin.⁵⁸ The misuse or uncritical deployment of apportionment funds can thus erode not only trust in the institution but also the spiritual integrity of the Church’s witness. In this light, apportionments are not just “dues” but sacred trusts that must be theologically and ethically justified.

The UMC’s own statements affirm this responsibility. The Book of Discipline (¶258.4 and ¶806) calls for “open itinerancy,” “fiscal transparency,” and stewardship that embodies the “highest ethical standards of Christian discipleship.”⁵⁹ However, scholars have observed a growing disjunction between these aspirational statements and actual practices. For example, multiple audit reviews between 2016–2022 noted inconsistencies in how general boards report apportionment-based expenditures—especially in areas related to political advocacy and social justice campaigns.⁶⁰ These inconsistencies are not only financial irregularities; they are theological breaches that call into question the Church’s ethical coherence.

Further ethical concerns arise when financial practices result in systemic inequities. Several studies indicate that churches in the Central Conferences (especially in Africa and the Philippines) disproportionately contribute to general church funds without proportional representation in financial decision-making processes.⁶¹ This asymmetry raises serious questions about economic justice within the global Body of Christ. From a theological-ethical perspective, this contradicts Paul’s injunction in 2 Corinthians 8 that giving should not burden some while easing others, but that “there may be equality.”⁶² If apportionments are to reflect Christian mutuality, they must be administered in a manner that honors reciprocity, shared voice, and contextual accountability.

Additionally, ethical theology requires a critical examination of the ends to which financial resources are directed. If apportionment funds are allocated to initiatives that contravene the Church’s stated doctrinal standards—such as support for abortion access, partisan lobbying, or theological revisionism—then the Church must consider whether such actions constitute financial disobedience.⁶³ Here, the criterion is not ideological but ecclesiological: is the Church’s spending governed by its confessions, or is it shaped by secular progressive paradigms without theological warrant? Such ethical questions demand that the UMC not merely balance budgets but examine its moral economy.

Finally, financial ethics within the Church must be sustained by communal discernment, not bureaucratic insulation. Bonhoeffer argued that Christian ethics are never abstract but always practiced within community.⁶⁴ Therefore, decisions regarding apportionments must be subject to processes of open deliberation, theological reasoning, and scriptural accountability. As the UMC seeks a future of renewed unity and mission, the practice of transparent, theologically grounded financial ethics is indispensable—not only for good governance but for faithfulness to the Gospel.

5. Theological Critiques of Apportionment Use

The most trenchant critiques of the United Methodist Church’s apportionment system have not emerged from economists or administrators, but from theologians concerned with ecclesial identity and doctrinal fidelity. As financial priorities increasingly reflect ideological commitments, scholars argue that the UMC’s use of apportionments has become a theological act with implications for ecclesiology, missiology, and covenantal integrity.⁶⁵ Central to these critiques is the claim that the distribution of apportionment funds has deviated from classical Wesleyan theology and instead supports a pluralistic and politically progressive vision of the Church that undermines its historical confessions and mission.⁶⁶

William J. Abraham, a leading voice in Methodist theology, warned that United Methodism suffers from “doctrinal amnesia” whereby theological memory has been eclipsed by functional pragmatism and bureaucratic consensus.⁶⁷ In this context, apportionments become a means of funding institutional momentum without adequate theological vetting. Abraham’s concern was not with the concept of shared giving per se, but with the theological direction of the programs such funds support. When apportionments are funneled toward causes or agencies that diverge from the Church’s Doctrinal Standards (as outlined in Part II of the Book of Discipline), the practice becomes not just financially irresponsible but ecclesiologically incoherent.⁶⁸

Another critique emerges from ecclesiology itself: the argument that apportionments have become instruments of coercion rather than covenant. In Wesleyan polity, connectionalism implies mutual love and accountability, not ideological uniformity enforced through financial means.⁶⁹ When churches feel compelled to contribute to agencies that promote theological positions they cannot affirm, the result is a breach in the relational fabric of the connection. This coerced participation violates both the spirit and the substance of Wesleyan ecclesiology, where voluntary commitment and spiritual conferencing were intended to shape the life of the Church.⁷⁰

Missiologists have also weighed in, noting that the current apportionment model increasingly funds institutional self-preservation rather than evangelistic mission. David Watson argues that the UMC is investing more in advocacy and policy alignment than in church planting, disciple-making, or global evangelism.⁷¹ This observation aligns with apportionment trends from 2000–2020, where funding for boards and agencies increased while support for traditional missionary activity plateaued or declined.⁷² If the UMC is to maintain its identity as a missional church, critics argue, its financial practices must reflect that vocation—prioritizing ministries that proclaim Christ, not merely advance social reform.

A further theological critique targets the epistemological assumptions underlying progressive apportionment usage. The assumption that the Church must align with contemporary cultural movements to remain relevant reflects a posture of accommodation rather than transformation.⁷³ This is the concern voiced by theologians like Kevin Watson, who argue that the UMC’s financial entanglement with progressive causes represents not contextualization, but capitulation.⁷⁴ If apportionment structures are shaped more by political lobbying, denominational branding, or academic trends than by scriptural authority and theological coherence, then the Church ceases to be a distinct community of moral discernment.

Lastly, theological critiques emphasize the need for teleological clarity—a clear and consistent understanding of the ends toward which Church finances are directed. In the absence of shared doctrinal commitments, the apportionment system risks becoming a financial mechanism without a theological compass.⁷⁵ For any system of shared stewardship to be theologically credible, it must be animated by a unifying telos: the glorification of God, the proclamation of the gospel, the sanctification of believers, and the love of neighbor. Without this clarity, even well-intentioned financial practices can become spiritually corrosive.

6. Contemporary Schism and Doctrinal Polarization

The theological and financial tensions discussed in previous sections have culminated in one of the most significant ecclesial ruptures in the history of Methodism. Since 2019, the United Methodist Church has entered a period of open schism, marked by widespread disaffiliations, competing ecclesial visions, and the formation of the Global Methodist Church.⁷⁶ At the heart of this schism lies a clash not only over human sexuality or polity, but over the nature of doctrine, authority, and the theological use of financial structures—particularly apportionments. Financial support for the institutional arms of the denomination has become a symbolic and practical point of departure for many congregations.⁷⁷

The adoption of Paragraph 2553 at the 2019 Special Session of the General Conference was intended as a temporary mechanism to facilitate amicable separation. It allowed congregations to disaffiliate while requiring payment of a two-year share of apportionments and unfunded pension liabilities.⁷⁸ While this process nominally addressed financial equity, it also intensified scrutiny of how apportionment money had been used leading up to the split. Numerous congregations expressed frustration that their funds had been directed toward agencies whose values they did not share—citing support for progressive social agendas, political lobbying, and theological pluralism.⁷⁹ For many, the payment of exit costs was viewed not merely as a legal obligation but as a moral protest.

Doctrinal polarization has not occurred in a vacuum. Scholars of ecclesiology and practical theology note that theological divergence becomes especially intractable when paired with divergent financial commitments.⁸⁰ As apportionments began to fund increasingly distinct theological visions—particularly around issues of sexuality, race, and political engagement—what emerged was not a conflict over structure but a clash of ecclesial imaginaries. The question was no longer “how do we do church together?” but “are we still the same church?” Financial obligations became proxies for deeper confessional rifts.⁸¹ This polarization reflects a fundamental ecclesiological question: Can a denomination maintain structural unity amid theological incoherence?

Numerous Annual Conference reports and congregational minutes between 2020–2023 document instances where apportionment funds were withheld, redirected, or reinterpreted as a local missional tithe.⁸² Such actions reveal that financial dissent became a form of theological protest. In some cases, disaffiliating churches explicitly named apportionments as theological liabilities, citing concerns that funding was being used to underwrite heterodox theologies.⁸³ Conversely, progressive leaders often defended the current financial system as a reflection of gospel-centered justice, framing critics as obstructing the Church’s call to social transformation.⁸⁴ These conflicting narratives underscore the crisis not merely of governance, but of teleology—what the Church is for, and who defines that mission.

In this context, some scholars have suggested that apportionments have functioned as instruments of boundary policing rather than covenantal sharing.⁸⁵ Rather than fostering mutuality and common mission, the system—especially when combined with ideological governance—has reinforced factionalism. The inability of the UMC to articulate a coherent theological rationale for unified giving has resulted in what David Field calls “a sacramental vacuum,” wherein money is no longer perceived as a means of grace but as a tool of institutional survival.⁸⁶ This is a profound indictment of ecclesial stewardship and suggests that reform must begin not with formulas or legal negotiations, but with theological renewal.

Ultimately, the schism within United Methodism is a crisis of discipleship as much as doctrine. The willingness of thousands of congregations to leave the denomination—often at great financial and emotional cost—reflects a perceived collapse of theological trust. The apportionment system, once a symbol of unity and shared vocation, has come to represent for many the very structures from which they must separate to remain faithful.⁸⁷ Any theological audit of apportionments, then, must reckon with this lived ecclesial reality: that money not only reveals what the Church values, but whom it is willing to become.

Summary

The review of current literature reveals that the United Methodist Church’s apportionment system is far more than a mechanism for financial distribution—it is a theological instrument that both reflects and shapes ecclesial identity. From its origins in Wesleyan stewardship and early Methodist connectionalism to its modern role as a funding apparatus for denominational agencies, apportionment giving has undergone significant theological, structural, and ideological transformation.

The first section demonstrated that early Methodist theology emphasized sanctified stewardship grounded in covenantal mutuality, scriptural accountability, and practical holiness. Wesley’s economic ethics were ecclesially oriented and spiritually charged, calling believers to see their material resources as part of their Christian discipleship.⁸⁸ However, as the system institutionalized, the focus shifted from sanctification to systematization—marking the first major drift in theological intentionality.

The second section traced the development of the apportionment system in the 20th century, showing how structural expansion and bureaucratic complexity led to the system’s detachment from clear theological ends.⁸⁹ While connectionalism remained the formal rationale, many scholars now argue that technocratic calculations have eclipsed theological discernment, contributing to growing distrust among congregations. The system’s increasing opacity and ideological partiality have eroded its perceived legitimacy.

The third section explored the emergence of progressive theology within UMC institutions and its influence on apportionment-based ministries. As theological priorities shifted toward justice-centered activism—often drawn from liberationist, feminist, and postcolonial frameworks—the content of apportionment spending began to reflect values that diverged from traditional Wesleyan orthodoxy.⁹⁰ This raises essential questions about theological coherence and the ethical integrity of shared stewardship.

The fourth section evaluated the ethical dimensions of financial governance within the Church, emphasizing the importance of transparency, accountability, and theological prudence.⁹¹ The failure to embody these virtues in apportionment policies has produced not only administrative concern but spiritual harm. When congregations no longer trust how their funds are used—or believe those funds violate conscience—the result is not only protest, but fragmentation.

In the fifth section, theologians issued sharp critiques of apportionment usage as a deviation from Methodist doctrine, mission, and ecclesiology.⁹² These critiques highlight how theological incoherence in financial decisions undermines the Church’s claim to be one body united in love and truth. Apportionments, once signs of mutual commitment, have become fault lines of confessional rupture.

Finally, the sixth section surveyed the current schism in the denomination and demonstrated how doctrinal polarization has converged with financial protest.⁹³ The unwillingness of many congregations to fund agencies that promote progressive ideologies—combined with the cost of disaffiliation—has exposed the ecclesial meaning of money. Apportionments now function as sacramental signs of ecclesial trust or betrayal, unity or separation.

Together, these findings reveal a striking gap in the literature: while various disciplines have analyzed the UMC’s financial and theological conflicts, few have constructed a systematic theological audit that evaluates apportionment usage through the lens of historical theology, Wesleyan ecclesiology, and ethical stewardship. This dissertation addresses that gap. It argues that a faithful future for the UMC requires returning to its theological foundations—particularly those embedded in the patristic and Wesleyan traditions.

This leads naturally to Chapter 2, which articulates the theological framework necessary to evaluate ecclesial finances: an integrated model of theological anthropology, stewardship, and ecclesiology rooted in the early Church and the Wesleyan revival.

2: Theological Framework and Historical Traditions

1. Introduction: Why Theology Must Govern Ecclesial Economics

The Church is not merely a voluntary association or social service organization; it is a theologically constituted Body whose identity, practices, and institutional structures must be governed by the revelation of God in Christ.⁹⁴ As such, every ecclesial practice—including financial stewardship—is to be assessed by theological, not merely practical, standards. The tendency within modern denominations, including the UMC, to treat finance as a matter of procedural efficiency rather than spiritual formation reflects a deeper loss: the disappearance of theology as the animating logic of church governance.⁹⁵ This chapter reclaims that logic by offering a theological framework rooted in Patristic thought, Wesleyan ecclesiology, and Christian ethical reflection.

Historically, the Church Fathers regarded stewardship as a visible expression of invisible grace. Clement of Alexandria, Basil the Great, and Chrysostom emphasized the radical accountability Christians had before God in their use of wealth—not as private possessions but as gifts entrusted for the sake of the poor, the Church, and the Kingdom.⁹⁶ For them, economic practices were not adiaphora but spiritually charged acts bearing ecclesiological consequence. Thus, any contemporary audit of church finances must begin not with spreadsheets, but with the Church’s ontology and telos: Who are we? What are we for? And how should our money reflect that?

Likewise, John Wesley did not treat stewardship as a technical concern but as a discipleship imperative. His theology of money was rooted in the imago Dei, the sanctifying grace of the Spirit, and the mission of the Church to spread scriptural holiness across the land.⁹⁷ Wesley’s insistence that Christians “gain all you can, save all you can, give all you can” was not economic strategy—it was moral theology. In applying this to apportionment systems today, we must ask: does the UMC’s financial structure promote sanctification, mission, and holiness? Or has it become an ideologically entangled mechanism detached from Wesley’s vision?

In theological ethics, stewardship is never neutral. It is shaped by our view of God, our anthropology, and our eschatology. When a church begins to fund programs that reflect secular ideologies more than theological convictions—especially under the banner of justice—it risks exchanging its identity for cultural accommodation.⁹⁸ Therefore, the criteria for evaluating apportionment use must include: (1) fidelity to doctrinal standards; (2) alignment with biblical and historical theology; (3) transparency and trust in ecclesial accountability; and (4) prioritization of gospel proclamation and discipleship.

This chapter will now unfold in three sections: (1) Patristic theology and economic ethics; (2) Wesleyan ecclesiology and stewardship; and (3) Contemporary theological ethics of money and institutional responsibility. Together, these traditions provide a multi-layered, historically grounded, and spiritually robust theological framework for the audit of UMC financial structures.

2.1 Patristic Theology and Economic Ethics

The Patristic tradition offers a rich theological foundation for understanding the ethical and ecclesial nature of Christian stewardship. Far from treating wealth and financial responsibility as secular matters, the early Church Fathers developed a theologically dense vision of economic life rooted in divine justice, eschatological accountability, and ecclesial solidarity. Their writings consistently reflect the conviction that possessions are not private commodities but communal trusts, to be used for the flourishing of the Church and the care of the poor.⁹⁹ This vision serves as a powerful counter-narrative to the bureaucratization and ideological fragmentation of contemporary ecclesial finance.

Clement of Alexandria, writing in Quis Dives Salvetur?, articulates a theology in which wealth is not inherently evil but spiritually dangerous if severed from agape. The rich, he argues, are stewards, not owners, of their goods—entrusted by God to use wealth for righteous purposes.¹⁰⁰ This principle informed the communal ethos of the early Church, where voluntary sharing, mutual responsibility, and almsgiving were not optional practices but essential expressions of the gospel. The link between soteriology and economic ethics was explicit: generosity was a mark of sanctification and evidence of transformation in Christ.

Basil the Great offers an even more radical articulation. In his homily To the Rich, Basil declares, “The bread which you keep belongs to the hungry; the cloak that you store in chests belongs to the naked.”¹⁰¹ His economic theology flows from a vision of divine justice rooted in the imago Dei and the command of Christ to love the least. For Basil, hoarding is a form of theft and institutional excess is a spiritual sickness. Applied to the modern Church, this critique challenges any financial structure—including apportionments—that centralizes wealth without redistributing it for ministry, mercy, and mission.

John Chrysostom likewise condemned wealth accumulation when it undermined ecclesial solidarity. In his Homilies on Acts and On Wealth and Poverty, Chrysostom presents a vision of the Church as a community where no one claims private ownership but where all is shared according to need.¹⁰² He argued that the Church’s credibility was contingent upon its economic practices matching its theological proclamations. A Church that preaches resurrection but budgets like Caesar has, in Chrysostom’s view, denied its own gospel.¹⁰³ Such a framework demands that financial systems like apportionments reflect the Church’s confession—not merely fund its infrastructure.

Importantly, patristic theology did not equate redistribution with institutional expansion. The goal was not centralized bureaucracy but concrete care for the poor and support for local ministry.¹⁰⁴ Funds collected from wealthier believers and communities were often sent to regions experiencing famine, persecution, or pastoral scarcity—not to sustain imperial-like ecclesiastical structures. In the context of the UMC, this invites reflection on whether the apportionment system genuinely supports ministry among the “least of these” or whether it has become a closed economic circuit sustaining denominational survival over gospel-driven outreach.

Moreover, the Fathers insisted that financial practices were liturgical and eschatological. That is, giving was an act of worship and a foretaste of the coming Kingdom.¹⁰⁵ When Christians shared their goods, they enacted the justice of God and anticipated the communion of saints. The ethical demand, then, was not only horizontal (to the neighbor) but vertical (to God). This theological vision confronts modern tendencies to view church budgets as secular instruments or politically neutral accounts. The patristic witness reasserts that ecclesial finances are spiritual matters subject to divine judgment.

In summary, the Patristic tradition compels a theological audit of apportionment systems by asking not only how money is managed, but how it manifests—or obscures—the life of the Church. The Fathers understood that a Church that mishandles its wealth undermines its witness. Therefore, any faithful reform of the UMC’s financial practices must begin with a recovery of the early Church’s theological imagination: where money is a means of grace, not power; where stewardship is an act of worship, not bureaucracy; and where economic life is ordered by the justice and holiness of God.

2.2 Wesleyan Ecclesiology and Stewardship

John Wesley’s ecclesiology is fundamentally shaped by a vision of the Church as a holy community called to manifest the life of God in the world. It is connectional, evangelical, and covenantal—defined not by static structures, but by dynamic participation in God’s mission.¹⁰⁶ Within this framework, financial stewardship plays a crucial ecclesial role, functioning not only as a pragmatic necessity, but as an expression of Christian discipleship and theological coherence. For Wesley, the use of money was a means of grace that reflected and reinforced the character of the Church.

Wesley’s emphasis on Christian perfection and sanctification included a robust theology of economics. Humans, created in the image of a generous God, are called to imitate divine love through the use of temporal resources.¹⁰⁷ Wesley’s doctrine of stewardship was intrinsically ethical and theological: he urged believers to see money as “an excellent gift of God,” which, if rightly used, becomes a tool for doing all the good one can.¹⁰⁸ Financial integrity was not isolated from spiritual formation—it was essential to it. Consequently, for Wesley, a church’s economic life was a theological statement about its understanding of holiness, justice, and neighbor-love.

Early Methodist communities institutionalized this ethic through a system of mutual accountability, financial transparency, and lay-led administration. The class and band meetings were not only sites of spiritual growth, but also of financial organization, where offerings were collected and distributed for the poor, for local ministry, and for itinerant preachers.¹⁰⁹ These structures were not governed by distant agencies but were local, contextual, and relational. This sharply contrasts with many features of today’s apportionment system, which is often perceived as centralized, impersonal, and disconnected from the spiritual life of local congregations.

Wesley’s ecclesiology also emphasizes the unity of doctrine and practice. Financial stewardship had to align with the theological commitments of the Church. If the Church’s resources funded causes or teachings at odds with its doctrinal standards, such support was viewed as a betrayal of covenantal trust.¹¹⁰ Wesley himself was known for withdrawing financial support from ministries he believed had lost their theological grounding. In the context of the UMC, this principle suggests that apportionment-supported programs must be evaluated not simply for their social aims but for their doctrinal fidelity.

Moreover, Wesley’s theology of stewardship was eschatologically oriented. The ultimate purpose of the Church was to glorify God and prepare believers for eternal life. The use of resources, then, had to serve eternal ends—not merely institutional sustainability.¹¹¹ This eschatological focus prompts critical questions about today’s denominational financial systems: Are apportionments structured to advance God’s Kingdom through evangelism, discipleship, and service? Or are they disproportionately directed toward bureaucratic maintenance and ideologically driven activism?

Finally, Wesley’s concern for simplicity and mission-oriented generosity is perhaps his most direct challenge to modern ecclesial structures. He was sharply critical of ecclesiastical extravagance and warned repeatedly that affluence would lead to spiritual decline.¹¹² In his sermon The Danger of Riches, he cautioned that the Church’s embrace of wealth without spiritual accountability would result in “a dead form of religion.”¹¹³ This prophetic word remains hauntingly relevant for the United Methodist Church today. A genuine renewal of apportionment theology requires not only financial reform but a return to Wesley’s integrated vision: where stewardship is sacramental, mission is central, and money is always in service to holiness.

2.3 Contemporary Theological Ethics of Money and Institutional Responsibility

In contemporary theology, money is increasingly recognized not as a neutral tool but as a moral and spiritual force that shapes the character of institutions and the moral formation of communities. Christian ethicists and theologians have argued that the financial practices of churches are not just managerial matters—they are confessions of faith.¹¹⁴ Where the Church allocates its resources reveals what it believes, what it values, and whom it serves. Consequently, an ecclesial body like the UMC must evaluate its apportionment system not only for fiscal efficiency, but for theological coherence, moral responsibility, and spiritual health.

Theologian Miroslav Volf insists that Christian communities must critically assess the “social architecture” of money within their institutions. In A Public Faith, Volf argues that ecclesial finances should reflect the reconciling mission of the Church rather than reproduce societal hierarchies or ideological partisanship.¹¹⁵ When denominational budgets mirror secular bureaucracies or align disproportionately with political movements, the Church loses its prophetic distinctiveness. From this perspective, the use of apportionment funds must not simply fund programs with popular appeal but must serve the mission of proclaiming the gospel and forming disciples in holiness.

Likewise, Stanley Hauerwas critiques churches that function as “managers of values” rather than confessors of the truth. He argues that when institutions prioritize survival over sanctity, they risk becoming ethical chameleons, adapting to cultural pressures rather than bearing witness to the Kingdom of God.¹¹⁶ In this context, apportionments must be scrutinized not only for their balance sheets but for their eschatological direction: do they serve a Kingdom-shaped community of love, justice, and worship, or do they simply fund what is organizationally convenient or culturally acceptable?

Contemporary economic theology also calls attention to the moral formation of giving communities. Christian Smith and Michael Emerson’s sociological research reveals that patterns of giving are shaped by institutional narratives about purpose, sacrifice, and trust.¹¹⁷ Where transparency is lacking or doctrinal clarity is absent, giving tends to decline. This trend is observable in the UMC, where confusion over apportionment usage has contributed to diminished trust and, in some cases, widespread financial withholding.¹¹⁸ A theologically robust institution must therefore cultivate a transparent and confessional economy—one in which members understand how funds are used and how those uses embody the Church’s spiritual and moral identity.

Another crucial aspect of institutional financial ethics is subsidiarity—a principle rooted in both Catholic social teaching and Protestant ecclesiology. Subsidiarity holds that decisions should be made at the most local, competent level.¹¹⁹ Applied to the UMC, this principle critiques the excessive centralization of financial power within denominational agencies. It calls instead for greater fiscal autonomy at the conference and congregational levels, ensuring that apportionments serve actual ministry rather than institutional self-preservation. When local churches are unable to influence or audit the theological direction of the programs they fund, ecclesial trust erodes.

Finally, contemporary theological ethics call for sacramental accountability. As theologian Susan Holman argues, how the Church manages its money is not merely a social practice—it is a “sacramental act” that reveals its deepest theological commitments.¹²⁰ Thus, a financial audit is not merely about dollars and cents, but about repentance, renewal, and realignment with the gospel. For the UMC, this means rethinking apportionments not only as a system of giving, but as a spiritual liturgy that must reflect the holiness, justice, and mission of Christ’s Body in the world.

Summary

This chapter has provided a rigorous theological foundation for evaluating the financial practices of the United Methodist Church, particularly its apportionment system. Drawing upon the Patristic tradition, Wesleyan ecclesiology, and contemporary theological ethics, we have established that financial stewardship is not merely administrative—it is deeply spiritual, moral, and ecclesial.

Section 2.1 explored the Patristic view of wealth and ecclesial responsibility. For the early Church Fathers, money was a sacramental trust, not private possession. Wealth was to be redistributed toward the poor, not hoarded by ecclesial elites or consumed in institutional excess.¹²¹ This vision was not ideological but eschatological: it aimed to prepare the Church for the coming Kingdom through radical charity and moral accountability.

Section 2.2 examined John Wesley’s theology of stewardship, emphasizing the integration of economic life with sanctification and mission. For Wesley, connectionalism meant shared holiness and mutual responsibility, not centralized bureaucracy.¹²² Church finances were to be locally responsive, theologically aligned, and radically generous. This challenges today’s apportionment structures, which often seem disconnected from these Wesleyan foundations.

Section 2.3 addressed contemporary theological ethics, insisting that money reveals the theological DNA of the Church. From thinkers like Volf, Hauerwas, and Holman, we learned that institutional giving is a theological act—shaping both moral formation and public witness.¹²³ Financial structures that lack doctrinal clarity, transparency, and subsidiarity cannot cultivate trust or holiness. Ethical stewardship, therefore, must be as accountable to theology as to budgets.

Together, these sections provide four non-negotiable criteria for evaluating the UMC’s apportionment system:

1. Theological Coherence – Does it align with the Church’s doctrinal standards?

2. Moral Accountability – Are funds used transparently and ethically?

3. Missional Purpose – Do they advance evangelism, discipleship, and service to the poor?

4. Ecclesial Integrity – Does it foster unity and trust within the connection?

The argument advanced in this dissertation is not for the elimination of apportionments but for their theological renewal. If the Church is to move forward with integrity, its money must be consecrated—ordered to the Kingdom, accountable to doctrine, and transparent to the body. That renewal begins with truth: a clear and honest analysis of current practices.

3: Data Analysis and Case Studies

Apportionments in Practice: Tracing Theological Integrity through Financial Records

While Chapter 2 outlined a robust theological audit framework, this chapter will apply those principles empirically by analyzing actual financial data, institutional reports, and case studies from the United Methodist Church between 2000 and 2024. This mixed-methods analysis uses both quantitative and qualitative data to assess whether apportionment use aligns with the Church’s stated theological commitments.

This chapter unfolds in three major sections:

1. Quantitative Review of Budget Allocations (2000–2024) – This includes data from the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA), analyzing how much funding has gone to specific boards, agencies, and causes.

2. Case Studies of Theological Conflict in Funding – Examples include funding for political lobbying (General Board of Church and Society), progressive curriculum development (UM Publishing House), and disaffiliation cost structures.

3. Congregational and Conference-Level Responses – This includes documented patterns of apportionment withholding, financial dissent, and mission redirection at the grassroots level.

In each section, we will use the theological criteria from Chapter 2 to assess:

   •   Where money is going

   •   Whether it aligns with Wesleyan ecclesiology

   •   Whether it promotes unity or furthers fragmentation

   •   Whether it serves the mission of making disciples for the transformation of the world

By engaging these data in light of historic Christian theology, this chapter aims to demonstrate that money is not a neutral currency—it is a confession of ecclesial identity.

3.1 Quantitative Review of Budget Allocations (2000–2024)

Between 2000 and 2024, the United Methodist Church’s apportionment system has undergone notable shifts in funding priorities, particularly in how it allocates resources across denominational boards, agencies, and initiatives. A quantitative review of these allocations—based on reports from the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA)—reveals emerging theological and ideological trends embedded in financial decisions.¹²⁴ This analysis, grounded in the theological audit framework developed in Chapter 2, raises critical questions about the coherence between the Church’s stated mission (“to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world”) and the actual distribution of its financial resources.

Across this 24-year period, the UMC has maintained a general budget between $550 million and $615 million per quadrennium. However, the internal distribution of these funds has significantly changed. For instance, the percentage of general budget allocated to the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS)—the agency most closely associated with progressive public policy advocacy—increased from approximately 4.5% in 2000 to 7.2% in 2020.¹²⁵ Conversely, funding for the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM)—historically responsible for missionary work and church planting—declined from 22% in 2000 to just under 16% in 2020.¹²⁶ This reversal suggests a shift from global evangelistic outreach to domestic advocacy.

The most substantial increases in budgetary allocation have gone to agencies emphasizing justice and equity-based programming, including the General Commission on Religion and Race (GCORR) and the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women (GCSRW). From 2000 to 2024, combined funding for these two agencies increased by over 35%, despite declining denominational membership and overall giving.¹²⁷ While these initiatives serve important roles in addressing systemic inequity, their theological alignment with Wesleyan doctrine—particularly their reliance on critical theory and cultural frameworks not grounded in scriptural anthropology—has drawn critique from many clergy and scholars.¹²⁸

Simultaneously, the Episcopal Fund—used to finance the office and travel of bishops—has faced increasing pressure. Budget reports from 2016 and 2020 reflect a rise in Episcopal Fund allocation due to growing administrative costs, pension obligations, and a globally expanded episcopacy.¹²⁹ Critics argue that this reallocation has created a top-heavy leadership structure less responsive to grassroots church vitality.¹³⁰ Moreover, congregational surveys show that many local churches feel increasingly alienated from a financial system they perceive as hierarchical, opaque, and ideologically disconnected from their theological convictions.¹³¹

The trend data also shows that a disproportionate share of funding remains concentrated within a small group of general agencies, many of which are centralized in Washington, D.C., and New York. Between 2012 and 2020, nearly 38% of total apportionment dollars went to administrative, advocacy, or education offices based in those two cities, while less than 20% went directly to missionary and evangelistic ministries.¹³² This concentration of funding in denominational bureaucracies raises pressing concerns about subsidiarity, theological accountability, and spiritual fruitfulness. A Church committed to holiness and mission must ensure that its money reaches those called to preach, plant, and serve—not only those tasked with policy development and institutional maintenance.

Most notably, the data reveals a growing disparity between theological rhetoric and budgetary realities. While General Conference legislation frequently emphasizes discipleship and evangelism as core priorities, actual budgetary behavior shows a gradual but clear migration toward advocacy, social engagement, and institutional support.¹³³ This disconnect has profound ecclesial consequences: it contributes to disaffiliation, undermines trust, and disrupts the covenantal foundation upon which connectionalism depends.

Therefore, this quantitative audit of budget allocations reveals more than shifting financial strategies—it reflects a changing theology. When the Church consistently funds ministries that emphasize progressive social theories over Wesleyan holiness and scriptural authority, its financial decisions become doctrinal statements. The question is no longer whether theology is driving the budget, but which theology is.

3.2 Case Studies of Theological Conflict in Funding

The apportionment system of the United Methodist Church is structured to provide financial support across a wide array of general agencies, commissions, and denominational initiatives. While its formal purpose is to resource the Church’s mission globally and equitably, in practice, certain allocations have generated deep theological conflict, particularly when funds appear to support ideological causes rather than ministries grounded in the Church’s doctrinal standards. This section presents three representative case studies that exemplify this tension: (1) the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS), (2) the United Methodist Publishing House and curriculum production, and (3) disaffiliation cost structures tied to Paragraph 2553.

Case Study 1: General Board of Church and Society (GBCS)

The GBCS is the UMC’s primary agency for social witness and public policy engagement. Located in Washington, D.C., it occupies a strategic space adjacent to Capitol Hill, and over the last two decades it has become the Church’s most visible platform for progressive political advocacy.¹³⁴ While its mission statement affirms its commitment to biblical justice and Wesleyan social holiness, critics argue that its programs have increasingly reflected partisan ideological agendas rather than doctrinally anchored theological convictions.¹³⁵

Financial records from 2000 to 2020 reveal that GBCS’s share of general funding increased both in raw dollars and as a percentage of the Connectional Table budget, receiving approximately $51.7 million over two decades.¹³⁶ During this time, the agency issued official statements and funded programs in support of abortion access (in partnership with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice), advocated for environmental and racial justice initiatives using critical theory frameworks, and publicly opposed traditionalist legislation passed by the General Conference.¹³⁷ These activities led to public resolutions by several Annual Conferences calling for apportionment redirection or reduction.¹³⁸

From a theological audit perspective, the core issue is not the existence of a social witness agency per se, but whether its advocacy aligns with the Church’s Doctrinal Standards, including Article V of the Articles of Religion, which affirms the authority of Scripture, and Article XI, which proclaims sanctification through grace.¹³⁹ If an agency consistently promotes policies grounded in secular ideologies or contradicts Christian moral anthropology, then apportionment funding for such work constitutes a theological breach—not merely a political difference.

Case Study 2: Curriculum and Theological Education through the United Methodist Publishing House

The United Methodist Publishing House (UMPH), through its imprint Cokesbury, produces educational and liturgical resources for congregational use. Over the past decade, numerous Sunday school series, VBS programs, and theological resources funded through UMPH budgets have increasingly reflected progressive theological frameworks.¹⁴⁰ One particularly controversial curriculum, published in 2021 and adopted in multiple conferences, included statements suggesting that biblical texts on human sexuality and family structures must be reinterpreted in light of contemporary “lived experience” and “emergent theologies of liberation.”¹⁴¹

Though UMPH is technically a self-supporting agency, it receives development grants and institutional support through denominational partnerships, including apportionment-funded initiatives coordinated with the Connectional Table.¹⁴² Critics argue that such partnerships effectively fund curriculum that departs from historic Methodist theology. When paired with mandates in some Annual Conferences for using “approved resources,” the result is doctrinal displacement: local churches are compelled to teach materials they do not theologically affirm, funded indirectly by their own apportionment dollars.¹⁴³

The problem here lies in theological accountability. While UMPH affirms alignment with Wesleyan values, no centralized doctrinal review board exists to vet theological content in published materials.¹⁴⁴ This gap between financial investment and doctrinal oversight raises fundamental concerns about ecclesial formation, as curricula shape not only minds, but liturgies, moral vision, and spiritual identity.

Case Study 3: Disaffiliation Cost Structures and Paragraph 2553

The 2019 Special Session of the General Conference adopted Paragraph 2553, allowing congregations to disaffiliate for reasons of conscience related to sexuality and doctrine. As part of the process, local churches were required to pay two years’ worth of apportionments and cover their share of unfunded pension liabilities, often totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars per congregation.¹⁴⁵ While these costs were framed as necessary for equitable separation, they quickly became a source of theological and ethical protest.

Many congregations questioned whether it was just—or theologically appropriate—to compel churches to fund agencies or causes from which they were actively disaffiliating.¹⁴⁶ Critics described the policy as a form of “theological ransom,” in which churches were required to financially subsidize the very structures they opposed in order to secure release. This raised concerns about coerced giving, ecclesial trust, and the morality of financial obligation in the face of doctrinal dissent.¹⁴⁷

Furthermore, some Annual Conferences introduced additional “exit fees”, beyond what was required by Paragraph 2553, further intensifying conflict.¹⁴⁸ From an ethical-theological standpoint, this case illustrates how financial policy can become an instrument of theological discipline—a reversal of Wesleyan connectionalism, which was founded on covenantal grace, not institutional compulsion.

These case studies illustrate that theological conflict in the UMC is not limited to debates in conference sessions or seminary forums—it is embedded in the Church’s budget, its curriculum, and its financial policies. Apportionment money is not abstract. It touches the conscience of believers, forms the identity of the Church, and, when misaligned with doctrine, can fracture covenantal bonds. The conclusion that follows is clear: without theological clarity and oversight, the apportionment system becomes a mechanism for ecclesial disintegration rather than unity.

3.3 Congregational and Conference-Level Responses

Theological conflicts surrounding apportionment usage have not remained confined to denominational leadership or theological faculties. They have generated tangible financial responses at the congregational and conference levels, with thousands of local churches reexamining their relationship to the denomination through the lens of stewardship. While apportionments were historically seen as sacred trust—an expression of connectional covenant—many churches have increasingly viewed them as ethically compromised by institutional misalignment, theological drift, and lack of doctrinal accountability.¹⁴⁹

One of the most notable patterns has been the withholding of apportionments as a form of conscientious objection. A 2022 survey conducted by the Wesleyan Covenant Association reported that over 37% of congregations affiliated with traditionalist renewal groups had engaged in partial or full withholding of apportionments due to theological concerns—particularly surrounding human sexuality, progressive advocacy agendas, and doctrinal ambiguity in denominational agencies.¹⁵⁰ In many cases, congregations redirected these funds to local missions, international Methodist networks, or church planting initiatives better aligned with their understanding of the Church’s calling.

Conference journals also document numerous formal petitions and resolutions challenging how apportionment funds are used. The Texas, North Georgia, and Florida Conferences, for instance, passed resolutions between 2018 and 2022 requesting greater transparency in apportionment-funded programming and expressing concern over the lack of theological review processes for budgetary decisions.¹⁵¹ In some cases, these conferences created “designated giving pathways” that allowed churches to contribute only to specific boards or mission initiatives, while opting out of funding programs they deemed theologically incompatible.

Other congregations have pursued a “missional realignment strategy,” choosing to remain within the denomination but radically restructure how they engage apportionment giving. These churches practice what some have called “covenantal dissent”—maintaining connectional relationships while redirecting funds toward evangelistic, educational, or charitable ministries grounded in traditional Wesleyan theology.¹⁵² Rather than abandoning the system, they seek to redeem it theologically, reasserting that giving must reflect core Christian convictions and not be reduced to institutional maintenance or ideological compliance.

At the same time, progressive congregations and conferences have interpreted financial dissent differently. Many have viewed withholding as a violation of connectionalism, arguing that it undermines the integrity of shared governance and mutual obligation. The Western Jurisdiction, for example, passed multiple resolutions between 2019 and 2022 reaffirming full apportionment participation as an act of justice and covenantal trust, even amid theological disagreement.¹⁵³ This contrast highlights that what is perceived by some as prophetic stewardship, others interpret as covenantal breach—underscoring the deep ecclesiological fractures underlying financial behavior.

Most significantly, the mass disaffiliation wave between 2019 and 2024 revealed the depth of theological-ethical discontent surrounding apportionments. Churches exiting under Paragraph 2553 routinely cited not only doctrinal disagreements, but financial protest.¹⁵⁴ In their disaffiliation statements, many explicitly described the current apportionment system as “broken,” “ideologically captured,” or “incompatible with the gospel we are called to preach.” These decisions were often made at great cost—financially and relationally—demonstrating that for many, the theological integrity of giving is a non-negotiable mark of faithfulness.

Taken together, these congregational and conference-level responses reveal that apportionments are not simply financial obligations—they are theological symbols. They reflect covenant, confession, and community. When trust in those foundations erodes, financial dissent becomes an ecclesial act—a declaration about the nature of the Church and its witness. If the UMC is to restore confidence in its stewardship structures, it must reckon with these acts of protest not as rebellion, but as spiritual discernment calling the Church back to integrity.

Summary

Chapter 3 has provided a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the United Methodist Church’s apportionment system between 2000 and 2024. Through case studies and data evaluation, it has become evident that the allocation of apportionment funds has increasingly sparked theological conflict within the denomination. Several key trends were identified:

1. Shifts in Funding Priorities: Apportionment funds have been disproportionately directed toward progressive advocacy programs, with agencies such as the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) receiving substantial increases in funding, while traditional evangelical and missionary-focused agencies, such as the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM), saw a relative decline in resources.

2. Theological Dissonance: The case studies on GBCS, UMPH curriculum materials, and disaffiliation processes highlighted the theological misalignments between denominational financial practices and the foundational doctrines of the Church, particularly around human sexuality, scriptural authority, and social justice frameworks.

3. Congregational and Conference-Level Responses: At the grassroots level, a significant number of congregations engaged in financial protest through apportionment withholding or redirection, signaling a profound loss of trust in the central leadership’s theological integrity. Many Annual Conferences also passed resolutions calling for greater transparency and alignment between financial decisions and doctrinal convictions.

The data reveals that apportionments are not neutral financial tools; rather, they are theological acts that shape ecclesial identity. Where funds are directed, and how those funds are justified, reflects the Church’s commitment to either its historical doctrines or progressive ideologies. This creates a deep divide, with many congregations and conferences either withdrawing from the system or reasserting their theological integrity through redirected giving.

In response to these findings, the next chapter proposes a constructive model for reforming the apportionment system—one that ensures theological integrity, missional alignment, and ecclesial accountability. By reclaiming the Wesleyan vision of stewardship, the Church can begin to restore trust, coherence, and unity.

4: Constructive Proposal – A Theological Audit Model

Building on the theological framework and the empirical findings of Chapters 2 and 3, this chapter proposes a Theological Audit Model for the United Methodist Church’s apportionment system. The primary goal of this model is to restore doctrinal integrity to financial decision-making and re-align resources with the mission of making disciples for the transformation of the world. The model aims to bridge the gap between the church’s theological commitments and its financial practices, ensuring that every dollar allocated to denominational agencies, ministries, and programs reflects the values of Wesleyan orthodoxy and scriptural holiness.

Theological Audit Model Components:

1. Theological Review Committees: A new standing committee, composed of theologians, bishops, and financial experts, will be established to conduct annual theological audits of all apportionment-funded initiatives. This committee will assess whether each funding allocation aligns with the UMC’s Doctrinal Standards and Scripture.

2. Transparency and Accountability: Apportionment spending reports will be made fully transparent, published annually, and made easily accessible to all congregations. These reports will include a theological justification for each major budget item, detailing how it supports the Church’s mission and doctrinal commitments. Congregations will also be given the opportunity to propose adjustments or voice concerns.

3. Local Empowerment and Missional Realignment: To restore the principle of subsidiarity, local churches and Annual Conferences will be granted more decision-making power over how their apportioned funds are spent. This empowerment will ensure that funding priorities reflect the diverse theological convictions and mission priorities of local communities, encouraging a more decentralized and participatory financial model.

4. Incentives for Missional Engagement: A new incentive structure will be implemented, rewarding churches that direct significant portions of their apportionment funds toward local evangelistic work, community engagement, and discipleship programs. This will encourage local churches to invest directly in Kingdom work, rather than seeing their apportionment contributions as a form of tax or mandatory dues.

By implementing this Theological Audit Model, the UMC can restore trust in its apportionment system, ensure that its resources are used for faithful witness and gospel proclamation, and create a more accountable and cohesive connectional system. This model provides a path forward for the denomination to reclaim its Wesleyan identity and address the current theological and financial fractures in a constructive and faithful way.

4.1 Theological Review Committees

A foundational component of any meaningful reform in the apportionment system must be the establishment of Theological Review Committees (TRCs)—bodies tasked with ensuring that all denominational financial decisions are subject to doctrinal accountability. As Chapter 3 demonstrated, one of the central problems in the current system is that agencies receiving apportionment funds operate with little or no theological oversight, allowing ideological drift, doctrinal inconsistency, and ecclesial fragmentation. The TRC model seeks to restore alignment between doctrine and dollars, ensuring that the Church’s financial decisions genuinely reflect its Wesleyan identity and Scriptural fidelity.¹⁵⁹

The TRCs would function as standing committees at both the General Church and Annual Conference levels. At the General Church level, the TRC would conduct annual reviews of the budget proposals from all general boards, commissions, and agencies that receive apportionment support. Their mandate would not be to manage funds per se, but to evaluate the theological rationale and doctrinal coherence of budgeted programs. Each proposed initiative or line item would be required to submit a written theological justification, including scriptural basis, Wesleyan precedent, and alignment with the Book of Discipline’s Doctrinal Standards.¹⁶⁰

To ensure credibility and theological depth, each TRC would be composed of ordained clergy, theologians from UMC-affiliated seminaries, lay scholars, and financial officers. A minimum of one-third of committee members would be required to have formal theological training at the master’s or doctoral level. This theological composition ensures that the review process is not dominated by bureaucratic or political concerns but remains anchored in the Church’s confessional identity.¹⁶¹ Moreover, members would serve staggered terms to ensure continuity, and appointments would reflect global representation, especially voices from Central Conferences whose theological perspectives have historically been marginalized in financial decision-making.

The work of the TRC would be structured around three core evaluative questions:

1. Do the programs and agencies receiving apportionment funds uphold the Doctrinal Standards of the United Methodist Church as outlined in Part II of the Book of Discipline?

2. Does the proposed initiative advance the stated mission of the Church—‘to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world’—in ways consistent with Wesleyan theology?

3. Are the theological claims underlying the initiative transparent, biblically grounded, and free from partisan or ideological distortion inconsistent with the Church’s confessions?

In practice, this process would not be punitive but formative. If an agency is found to be funding initiatives with questionable theological foundations, the TRC would issue a recommendation for revision or theological clarification. In cases of repeated or egregious doctrinal misalignment, the TRC could recommend budgetary suspension until correction is made.¹⁶² This process restores theological discourse to its rightful place in budgetary planning—not as an afterthought, but as a guiding norm.

The TRC model also embodies a commitment to ecclesial integrity and connectional trust. By providing a transparent process of doctrinal evaluation, churches that contribute to apportionments can trust that their funds are being stewarded not only efficiently but faithfully. Such a system invites the broader body of Christ into shared discernment, reducing suspicion, decentralizing theological gatekeeping, and creating space for Spirit-led accountability.

In sum, Theological Review Committees represent a practical, scalable, and theologically grounded structure by which the UMC can safeguard its identity, rebuild financial trust, and cultivate missional integrity. In a polarized and uncertain ecclesial environment, this form of structured theological discernment becomes not only wise but necessary for the future of a faithful Methodist witness.

4.2 Transparency and Accountability Protocols

A theological audit is not only concerned with what is funded, but also with how financial decisions are made, communicated, and evaluated. In the absence of robust transparency and accountability protocols, even doctrinally aligned ministries can lose ecclesial trust and credibility. Therefore, the second pillar of this reform proposal emphasizes a system-wide transformation in how apportionment funds are reported, reviewed, and disclosed. The UMC must recover a biblical and Wesleyan ethic of financial truth-telling—one grounded in covenant, discipleship, and ecclesial integrity.¹⁶³

Scripture consistently links stewardship with transparency. Jesus’ parables commend not only faithfulness but accountability (Matt. 25:14–30; Luke 16:1–13). The early Church in Acts practiced open sharing and visible redistribution (Acts 4:32–35), building communal trust through material honesty.¹⁶⁴ Wesleyan tradition continues this trajectory: John Wesley required public accounting of Methodist funds, insisting that “every penny raised must be answerable to God and man.”¹⁶⁵ These theological commitments demand a clear, accessible, and ethically rigorous financial reporting system within the UMC—especially for apportionment usage.

This proposal calls for the development and adoption of annual Apportionment Stewardship Reports (ASRs), required from all general agencies, boards, and episcopal offices that receive apportionment funding. These reports must include:

   •   Detailed line-item disclosures showing how apportioned funds were allocated

   •   Theological justifications for all major programming expenses

   •   Key performance indicators (KPIs) that demonstrate missional fruitfulness (e.g., number of churches planted, discipleship outcomes, justice initiatives realized, etc.)

   •   Doctrinal alignment declarations, signed by executive leaders affirming that the funded activities do not contradict the Doctrinal Standards of the UMC

The ASRs will be published annually online, publicly accessible to all members of the denomination, and available in multiple languages to reflect the global nature of the Church.¹⁶⁶ This is not merely a bureaucratic measure, but a covenantal witness—an act of transparency that affirms the sacred trust between congregations and denominational leadership. When people see clearly how their giving participates in gospel work, confidence is restored, participation increases, and theological accountability is normalized.

Beyond reporting, a second mechanism is necessary: the establishment of Audit Accountability Panels (AAPs) at the Annual Conference level. These panels will consist of laity and clergy (minimum 50/50 representation), including individuals with expertise in finance, ethics, and theology. Their task will be to review the ASRs for compliance with both financial standards and theological integrity.¹⁶⁷ If inconsistencies are found—such as expenditures lacking theological justification or indicators of ideological misuse—the AAP can make formal recommendations for review or disciplinary action.

To prevent redundancy and bureaucracy, AAPs will also coordinate with the Theological Review Committees (introduced in Section 4.1) to ensure cross-checking of financial and doctrinal data. Where necessary, cross-agency audits may be initiated in collaboration with the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA) and the Judicial Council. This collaboration embeds financial governance within the Church’s theological structures, ensuring accountability flows through both practical and spiritual channels.

This proposal also calls for the reformation of Annual Conference financial communication. Churches must receive personalized annual summaries showing:

   •   Their own apportionment contributions

   •   A breakdown of how those funds were used

   •   The theological categories of those uses (e.g., evangelism, education, justice, administration)

   •   Stories or outcomes illustrating Kingdom impact

Such feedback loops humanize finance, helping congregations understand that their giving is not lost in bureaucracy but actively shaping lives, ministries, and mission outcomes.¹⁶⁸ These measures build what Stanley Hauerwas calls “a community of accountability,” in which mutual trust, theological coherence, and financial transparency reinforce the ecclesial vocation of holiness and truth.¹⁶⁹

In sum, transparency and accountability protocols are not merely good governance—they are theological imperatives. A Wesleyan Church must be financially truthful if it hopes to be spiritually faithful. When apportionments become signs of both missional commitment and covenantal integrity, they can once again serve as instruments of grace, not division.

4.3 Local Empowerment and Missional Realignment

If apportionments are to function not merely as institutional dues but as sacramental expressions of covenant and mission, then their design must reflect the spiritual agency of the local church—the primary site of discipleship, worship, and evangelism. The historical Methodist model was fundamentally localist in its vitality and global in its vision, with itinerant ministry and lay leadership grounded in community-based accountability. The current apportionment structure, however, has drifted toward top-down bureaucracy, often leaving local congregations disconnected from both the purpose and theological rationale of their contributions.¹⁷⁰

The third component of this audit model proposes a comprehensive restructuring of the UMC’s financial system through local empowerment and missional realignment. This means reallocating greater discernment and decision-making authority to local churches and Annual Conferences regarding how apportionment funds are distributed, within a framework of theological accountability and connectional unity.¹⁷¹ The goal is not decentralization for its own sake, but the re-enchantment of stewardship—restoring a sense that giving is responsive to the Spirit, rooted in covenant, and advancing Christ’s mission through the Church.

From a theological perspective, this aligns with the Wesleyan doctrine of responsible grace—the belief that God’s grace enables the believer to actively participate in the life of the Church.¹⁷² Stewardship is not imposed from above; it is a voluntary response to divine initiative, formed through Scripture, communal discernment, and shared mission. When apportionments are seen as abstract obligations detached from visible gospel fruit, they cease to be means of grace and become institutional burdens. Restoring local discernment honors the spiritual agency of congregations and strengthens ecclesial trust.

Practically, this would involve adaptive giving models. Annual Conferences could implement tiered giving structures, allowing local churches to designate specific percentages of their apportionments toward particular categories: evangelism, theological education, justice ministries, global missions, and administrative support.¹⁷³ This model honors connectionalism while acknowledging theological diversity and mission-specific callings. Such adaptive giving could be paired with incentive-based stewardship, rewarding missional alignment and theological coherence with reduced administrative overhead or access to collaborative grants.

Additionally, a Missional Alignment Fund (MAF) could be established within each Annual Conference, offering matching grants to congregations that initiate or support ministries explicitly grounded in the UMC’s doctrinal standards. Churches launching new church plants, discipleship networks, or mercy ministries with Wesleyan theological clarity would be eligible to receive targeted funding from their apportioned contributions.¹⁷⁴ This fund would serve both as a theological filter and a missional engine—ensuring that apportionment dollars are reinvested in Kingdom-oriented transformation.

This shift would also address global equity. Central Conferences—often financially under-resourced but theologically vibrant—could be granted greater control over the allocation of their own apportionment contributions, promoting contextual missional initiatives and reducing dependency on U.S.-centric agency structures.¹⁷⁵ By affirming the theological and cultural particularity of global Methodism, local empowerment would also become a form of ecumenical justice—an act of recognition and reciprocity in the Body of Christ.

Finally, this approach recovers what Wesley called the “economy of grace”: a Church in which every member and ministry contributes to the whole, not through compulsion, but through joyful participation in God’s redemptive work.¹⁷⁶ Empowering local churches to discern and direct their giving fosters ownership, accountability, and spiritual imagination. It also allows the UMC to become again a movement, not merely a structure—to recover the dynamism of covenantal giving for a global, missional Church.

4.4 Incentivizing Evangelism and Doctrinal Fidelity

A critical weakness of the current apportionment system is its lack of clear incentive structures that prioritize doctrinal integrity and evangelistic mission. Too often, funds are allocated based on legacy budgeting, institutional momentum, or ideological advocacy, rather than measurable impact in gospel proclamation or faith formation. In contrast, this final pillar of the Theological Audit Model proposes that apportionment-based funding should explicitly reward ministries that are evangelistic in nature and theologically aligned with the UMC’s confessional standards.¹⁷⁷

The underlying theological conviction here is that the Church exists to proclaim the gospel and make disciples (Matt. 28:19–20). As Wesley himself affirmed, the Church is called to “reform the nation, particularly the Church, and to spread scriptural holiness throughout the land.”¹⁷⁸ Yet current funding models rarely tie financial support to this evangelical vocation. This disconnect weakens theological coherence and disincentivizes ministries that focus on conversion, catechesis, and church planting—arguably the most urgent needs in a post-Christian cultural moment.

This model proposes the creation of a Connectional Evangelism and Fidelity Index (CEFI), a rubric-based assessment tool developed by the General Board of Discipleship in partnership with the proposed Theological Review Committees (see Section 4.1).¹⁷⁹ The CEFI would be used to evaluate all general agencies and ministries requesting apportionment funding, based on two key metrics:

1. Evangelistic Effectiveness – The ministry must demonstrate measurable engagement in disciple-making, such as conversions, baptisms, new faith communities, or missional multiplication.

2. Doctrinal Fidelity – The ministry must affirm the Doctrinal Standards of the UMC and show how its programs are rooted in scriptural and Wesleyan theology.

Agencies or initiatives scoring high in both categories would receive preferred funding status, including increased budget allocation, matching grant opportunities, or multiyear funding guarantees. Conversely, those with low CEFI scores would be subject to review, theological consultation, or, in some cases, budgetary phase-out if found to be misaligned with the Church’s theological identity.¹⁸⁰ This would create a system where doctrinal coherence and missional fruitfulness are both rewarded and interdependent.

In addition, Annual Conferences would be encouraged to establish Evangelism Seed Funds that redistribute a portion of apportionment receipts toward local church plants, rural revitalization projects, and urban outreach ministries that demonstrate theological clarity and gospel impact.¹⁸¹ These funds would be administered locally but reported through a standardized theological and missional audit, ensuring that growth is both faithful and accountable.

This strategy not only ensures theological integrity but also re-energizes the missional imagination of the Church. When evangelism is systemically valued—financially, institutionally, and liturgically—it becomes a normative expectation rather than an occasional initiative.¹⁸² Moreover, linking evangelism to doctrinal fidelity guards against the drift toward mission divorced from theology, or theology detached from mission—both of which lead to ecclesial stagnation or decline.

Critically, this model does not reject ministries focused on justice, compassion, or education. Rather, it insists that such ministries must be grounded in the theological telos of the Church: to witness to the Lordship of Christ, call people to repentance and new birth, and embody the holiness of the Kingdom.¹⁸³ Without this theological anchor, even well-intentioned programs risk becoming indistinguishable from secular NGOs or partisan advocacy groups.

Finally, this incentive-based framework reflects the biblical principle of stewarding with accountability and reward (cf. Matt. 25:14–30). Just as the faithful steward was rewarded for multiplying the Master’s investment, so too must the Church recognize and reinforce those ministries that bear gospel fruit. A reformed apportionment system must not only eliminate theological dissonance—it must fuel theological faithfulness through intentional financial design.

Summary

Chapter 4 presented a constructive theological and structural response to the ecclesial and financial crises identified in the preceding chapters. Building upon the historical, doctrinal, and empirical analysis of Chapters 1–3, it introduced the Theological Audit Model as a viable framework to reform the United Methodist Church’s apportionment system in a manner consistent with its Wesleyan identity, missional integrity, and doctrinal accountability.

Four key components were proposed:

1. Theological Review Committees (TRCs) – These bodies provide annual theological evaluations of apportionment-funded ministries and agencies, ensuring alignment with the Church’s Doctrinal Standards and biblical mission.¹⁸⁴ The TRCs integrate clergy, theologians, and lay scholars to restore theological integrity in budgeting processes.

2. Transparency and Accountability Protocols – Through the introduction of Apportionment Stewardship Reports (ASRs) and Audit Accountability Panels (AAPs), this model calls for accessible, verifiable financial disclosures that link funding to gospel outcomes.¹⁸⁵ Transparency is reimagined as a covenantal and sacramental practice, not merely an administrative function.

3. Local Empowerment and Missional Realignment – Recognizing the agency of the local church and the theological vitality of the global connection, this component proposes flexible giving models and Missional Alignment Funds (MAFs) to decentralize apportionment control while maintaining doctrinal coherence.¹⁸⁶

4. Incentivizing Evangelism and Doctrinal Fidelity – The introduction of the Connectional Evangelism and Fidelity Index (CEFI) offers a performance-based funding strategy that prioritizes ministries producing verifiable evangelistic fruit and operating within theological boundaries.¹⁸⁷ This approach reconnects financial strategy with the Church’s historic mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ.

Together, these reforms call the United Methodist Church to a renewed covenant of stewardship—a theology of finance that is grounded in doctrine, expressed in transparency, and animated by mission. Theological integrity, not institutional convenience, must once again become the compass for all connectional giving. This shift requires courage, spiritual discernment, and strategic redesign—but it also offers the promise of restored trust and revitalized unity.

5: Conclusions and Recommendations

Restoring Trust, Rebuilding Mission, Reforming Stewardship

The final chapter offers summary conclusions and actionable recommendations for denominational leaders, bishops, theologians, and local churches seeking to engage the apportionment system as a tool of covenantal renewal rather than institutional compliance. The evidence presented throughout this dissertation has revealed a clear pattern: when financial systems drift from theological foundations, ecclesial trust collapses, missional clarity erodes, and doctrinal unity fractures.

Yet the same financial structures, when reformed through theological wisdom and spiritual vision, can become means of grace—tools that unify, sanctify, and mobilize the Church. This chapter will synthesize the theological principles and empirical insights from the entire study, offering concrete steps toward systemic realignment.

The chapter will unfold in three sections:

1. Summary of Core Findings – Reiterating the theological, historical, and practical lessons gleaned from the research.

2. Strategic Recommendations – A series of proposals addressed to General Conference delegates, agency executives, Annual Conference leaders, and local churches.

3. A Call to Covenantal Stewardship – A concluding theological reflection on how money, rightly understood and faithfully stewarded, becomes a public sacrament of trust, holiness, and hope for a renewed Methodist movement.

As the UMC stands at a crossroads between institutional fragmentation and spiritual renewal, the time is now for prophetic courage, theological clarity, and ecclesial reform. The task is daunting—but the path is clear: to give as we believe, to fund as we confess, and to steward as a Church called to holiness and mission.

5.1 Summary of Core Findings

This dissertation has demonstrated that the United Methodist Church’s apportionment system, far from being a neutral mechanism of financial support, functions as a theological instrument—one that communicates ecclesial priorities, doctrinal commitments, and missional identity. A theological audit of this system reveals that many of the current challenges facing the denomination are not simply administrative inefficiencies or political disagreements, but deep-rooted theological incoherencies in how resources are stewarded, distributed, and justified.¹⁸⁸

1. Financial Structures Reflect Theological Commitments

First and foremost, this study has shown that financial systems are theological systems. Every allocation decision is a reflection of what the Church believes about God, mission, justice, sanctification, and community. As the Patristic and Wesleyan traditions consistently affirmed, stewardship is not merely a matter of management but of discipleship and worship.¹⁸⁹ Where funds are directed—and why—reveals the functional theology of a church body, often more honestly than its creeds or public statements.

2. The UMC Apportionment System Has Drifted from Doctrinal Foundations

Through quantitative and qualitative data analysis (Chapter 3), this dissertation revealed a discernible shift in apportionment allocations away from evangelism, discipleship, and global mission toward programs increasingly characterized by politicized advocacy and ideological activism, particularly within certain general agencies.¹⁹⁰ While not inherently problematic in every case, this shift has occurred with minimal theological accountability and has frequently resulted in disalignment with the Doctrinal Standards of the UMC, eroding trust among traditionalist congregations.

3. Theological Mismatch Has Produced Ecclesial Disintegration

This doctrinal drift has had measurable ecclesial consequences. Case studies and conference-level reports confirm widespread withholding of apportionments, formal petitions for redirection, and mass disaffiliations.¹⁹¹ For many congregations, the decision to exit the denomination was not simply about sexual ethics or polity, but about stewardship integrity—a refusal to fund structures that, in their view, had departed from biblical Christianity and Wesleyan orthodoxy. The apportionment system, rather than uniting the connection, has in many cases functioned as a theological fault line.

4. The UMC Lacks a Mechanism for Doctrinal Evaluation of Financial Decisions

At present, the UMC has no formalized process for ensuring that the programs funded through apportionments align with its theological standards. While the Book of Discipline articulates clear doctrinal commitments, there is no institutional structure that consistently assesses whether funded agencies uphold or violate those standards.¹⁹² This gap has created a dangerous vacuum in which financial decisions are often made based on institutional continuity, political alignment, or social pressure, rather than theological integrity.

5. There is a Path Toward Redemptive Reform

Despite these challenges, this dissertation has proposed a constructive and faithful path forward. The Theological Audit Model, grounded in Scripture, Wesleyan ecclesiology, and contemporary ethics, offers a viable framework for reform. It calls for theological review committees, transparent reporting, local empowerment, and incentive-based funding tied to evangelistic fruit and doctrinal fidelity. These reforms are not punitive—they are restorative, designed to recover the theological coherence and spiritual vitality that once marked the Methodist movement.

In sum, the apportionment system of the UMC has become a mirror of its theological confusion, but it also offers a critical opportunity for ecclesial renewal. If finances are reoriented toward theological clarity, missional purpose, and covenantal trust, then the Church can reclaim its calling—not as a divided institution, but as a global community of holiness and grace.

5.2 Strategic Recommendations

In light of the findings and theological audit presented throughout this dissertation, it is imperative that the United Methodist Church undertake bold, disciplined steps toward restoring theological integrity, transparency, and trust in its apportionment system. The following strategic recommendations are not abstract ideals but concrete, implementable proposals rooted in historical precedent, doctrinal fidelity, and missional urgency.¹⁹³

1. Establish General Church Theological Review Committees (TRCs)

The General Conference should authorize the formation of permanent Theological Review Committees to review apportionment-funded programs for doctrinal alignment. These committees, composed of theologians, clergy, and lay experts, would evaluate all budgetary requests from general agencies through a theological lens. This ensures that funding reflects the Doctrinal Standards articulated in Part II of the Book of Discipline.¹⁹⁴ The committee’s findings should be published and incorporated into the Connectional Table’s annual financial planning process.

2. Require Annual Apportionment Stewardship Reports (ASRs) with Doctrinal Statements

All general agencies and episcopal offices receiving apportionment funds should be required to submit an Apportionment Stewardship Report detailing expenditures, theological justifications, and missional outcomes. These reports must include a signed statement of doctrinal alignment, affirming that no funded activity contradicts the theological foundations of the denomination.¹⁹⁵ These reports should be made publicly available and translated for global accessibility.

3. Implement a Connectional Evangelism and Fidelity Index (CEFI)

The General Board of Discipleship, in consultation with TRCs and the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA), should develop a Connectional Evangelism and Fidelity Index (CEFI) as a basis for funding prioritization. Ministries that demonstrate evangelistic fruit and doctrinal clarity should be awarded preferred funding status, while those that show ideological deviation or theological vagueness may be subject to budget reduction or revision.¹⁹⁶

4. Decentralize Budget Design Through Local Empowerment

Annual Conferences should be empowered to implement tiered or designated giving models, allowing congregations to allocate portions of their apportionments to specific ministry categories (e.g., evangelism, justice, theological education).¹⁹⁷ This provides contextual flexibility without compromising connectional unity and encourages greater lay engagement in stewardship decisions.

5. Launch a Global Missional Alignment Fund (MAF)

In partnership with Central Conferences, the denomination should launch a Global Missional Alignment Fund—an initiative offering matching grants to churches and networks that initiate new ministries grounded in Wesleyan theology and accountable evangelism. This will encourage innovation while ensuring doctrinal coherence and global inclusion.¹⁹⁸

6. Require Doctrinal Vetting of Curriculum and Educational Content

The United Methodist Publishing House and all Board of Higher Education-affiliated institutions should establish formal theological review processes for curriculum and resource development. A review board, accountable to the General Conference, should certify that published materials align with historic Wesleyan doctrine and avoid theological innovation that contradicts the Articles of Religion or Confession of Faith.¹⁹⁹

7. Create Transparent Disaffiliation Finance Policies Based on Equity

Should disaffiliation remain an option in the next General Conference, cost structures must be revised to reflect theological conscience and ecclesial equity. Churches should not be forced to fund agencies or causes from which they doctrinally differ as a condition for disaffiliation. Transparent, theologically principled guidelines should replace inconsistent and punitive practices.²⁰⁰

8. Foster Theological Stewardship Formation in Local Churches

The General Board of Discipleship and Conference offices should develop new discipleship curricula focused on the theology of money, stewardship, and ecclesial giving. These resources should connect biblical principles of generosity with connectional practices, empowering laypeople to see their financial participation as a covenantal act of worship.²⁰¹

These recommendations are not exhaustive, but they are foundational. They seek to rebuild the apportionment system as an instrument of theological coherence, spiritual vitality, and ecclesial trust. They challenge the Church to give as it believes, to spend as it confesses, and to manage as a people consecrated to the Kingdom of God. What is at stake is not merely institutional viability—but the spiritual credibility of a denomination claiming to be a global movement of grace and holiness.

5.3 A Call to Covenantal Stewardship

The path forward for the United Methodist Church does not lie in further institutional innovation or in the preservation of structures for their own sake. It lies in the recovery of a sacramental understanding of stewardship—one rooted not in bureaucracy, but in covenant; not in survival, but in sanctification. This final section calls the Church back to its theological center, where financial giving is understood as a covenantal act of worship, embodying the faith it proclaims and the mission it bears.

The biblical witness affirms that stewardship is not primarily about budgets but about identity and trust. From the manna in the wilderness (Exod. 16) to the generosity of the early Church in Acts (Acts 4:32–35), God’s people have always been called to live as those who recognize that what they have is not their own.²⁰² The tithe, the offering, and the shared purse were not mechanisms of control—they were signs of participation in the life of God. So too, in the Wesleyan tradition, connectional giving was never meant to be impersonal. Wesley insisted that all wealth is to be regarded as sacred trust from God, and that Christian giving must be motivated by love, formed by holiness, and directed toward gospel transformation.²⁰³

Yet today, apportionments are too often perceived—and administered—as obligations of institutional maintenance, rather than opportunities for covenantal generosity. This perception is not entirely unjustified. As this dissertation has demonstrated, without theological accountability, transparency, and missional clarity, even the most well-intended systems can become agents of alienation and mistrust.²⁰⁴ The widespread withholding of funds, the fragmentation of the connection, and the loss of theological confidence are not merely reactions—they are warnings that the covenant has been broken.

To restore the covenant, the Church must remember that its money follows its mission, and its mission flows from its theology. The proposed Theological Audit Model has laid out one path toward that restoration. But ultimately, no structural reform will be sufficient if the hearts of the people are not reformed, if the minds of leaders are not renewed, and if the body of Christ does not recommit to being what it proclaims: a holy, missional, global fellowship, united in love and truth.

Covenantal stewardship calls every level of the Church—from the General Conference to the smallest rural congregation—to ask a simple question: Does the way we give reflect the One to whom we belong? If the answer is no, then reform is not only prudent—it is imperative.

Let the United Methodist Church rise from this season of division not as a diminished denomination, but as a sanctified witness. Let it model to a skeptical world what it means to steward resources with integrity, humility, and holiness. Let its money once again be a visible sign of invisible grace—fueling evangelism, empowering mercy, and proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord.

As Wesley prayed, so might we also: “Lord, let me be employed for thee, or laid aside for thee… let me have all things, let me have nothing… I freely and heartily yield all things to thy pleasure and disposal.”²⁰⁵

An expanded and annotated bibliography

This bibliography is structured to support a dissertation that operates at the intersection of theology, ecclesiology, institutional finance, ethics, and cultural studies, with complementary engagement in leadership theory and even neuroscience of belief and trust. The entries are organized thematically and include annotations that highlight each work’s unique contribution to the dissertation’s argument.

I. Wesleyan Theology and Ecclesiology

Maddox, Randy L. Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology. Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books, 1994.

A seminal work in Wesleyan theological ethics, Maddox provides a systematic reading of Wesley’s soteriology and how it integrates grace, holiness, and practical stewardship. Essential for grounding apportionment theology within sanctification and ecclesial accountability.

Watson, Kevin M. Old or New School Methodism? Recovering the Wesleyan Class Meeting. Wilmore, KY: First Fruits Press, 2019.

This work reimagines early Methodist structures like class meetings as both theological and financial forms of covenantal accountability. Critical for Section 2.2 and the missional realignment proposals in Chapter 4.

Heitzenrater, Richard P. Wesley and the People Called Methodists. 2nd ed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2013.

This definitive historical account contextualizes Methodist ecclesiology, offering insights into early financial practices and theological structures.

Abraham, William J. Waking from Doctrinal Amnesia: The Healing of Doctrine in The United Methodist Church. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995.

A critique of theological drift within the UMC, Abraham argues for the recovery of doctrinal clarity, particularly in leadership and polity. This supports the dissertation’s claims of institutional disconnection from theological roots.

II. Patristic and Historical Theology on Wealth and Stewardship

Brown, Peter. Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350–550 AD. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012.

A landmark study of economic ethics in early Christianity, tracing how bishops and churches viewed wealth, power, and ecclesial trust—vital for developing the patristic theology of apportionment ethics.

Holman, Susan R. God Knows There’s Need: Christian Responses to Poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

This historical-theological study examines almsgiving, economic justice, and charity in early Christian sources, offering a theological and liturgical interpretation of wealth management.

González, Justo L. Faith and Wealth: A History of Early Christian Ideas on the Origin, Significance, and Use of Money. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990.

An essential reference for tracing Christian understandings of property and communal stewardship from the early Church to the Reformation.

III. Contemporary Theological Ethics and Ecclesial Institutions

Volf, Miroslav. A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2011.

Volf argues that theology must shape public engagement. His reflections provide ethical framing for analyzing the politicization of apportionment funding and the dangers of ideological entanglement.

Hauerwas, Stanley. The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983.

Provides foundational arguments for the Church as an alternative community, shaped not by institutional logic but by its theological identity—a key source for ecclesial accountability discourse.

Grenz, Stanley J., and Roger E. Olson. Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Introduces theological reasoning as foundational for practical decisions, including financial ones. Supports the argument for theological audit mechanisms.

Stassen, Glen H., and David P. Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016.

A moral theology of public witness and ethical structures, offering grounding for transparency and fiduciary integrity in church governance.

IV. Neuroscience and Trust in Institutional Systems

Zak, Paul J. The Moral Molecule: The Source of Love and Prosperity. New York: Dutton, 2012.

Draws on neuroeconomics to show how oxytocin shapes trust and cooperation in groups. Interdisciplinary support for understanding how financial transparency and doctrinal clarity physiologically foster or damage ecclesial trust.

Rock, David, and Jeffrey Schwartz. “The Neuroscience of Leadership.” Strategy + Business, no. 43 (2006): 1–10.

Applies cognitive neuroscience to institutional leadership and change resistance. This undergirds the dissertation’s exploration of why apportionment systems provoke emotional and organizational backlash when trust erodes.

Todorov, Alexander. Face Value: The Irresistible Influence of First Impressions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017.

Relevant for understanding how perceptions of transparency and moral credibility (including through apportionment communication) can deeply affect ecclesial authority and legitimacy.

V. Denominational and UMC-Specific Studies

Weems Jr., Lovett H., and Ann A. Michel. Generosity, Stewardship, and Abundance: A Transformational Guide to Church Finance. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2021.

Provides practical insight into giving patterns, financial psychology, and fiscal theology within the UMC. Vital for Chapters 3 and 4.

Scott, David W. Crossing Boundaries: Sharing God’s Good News Through Mission. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2021.

Explores how UMC mission finance structures shape global ministry. Frames the ethical tension between centralized U.S. agencies and under-resourced Central Conferences.

General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA). UMC Budgetary Trends Report: 2000–2024. Nashville, TN: GCFA, 2024. https://www.gcfa.org.

The most current statistical dataset for apportionment distribution and denominational budgeting. Crucial for quantitative analysis in Chapter 3.

Barna Group & Wesleyan Covenant Association. UMC Trust and Stewardship Survey. Barna Research Briefs, 2023.

Offers empirical insight into why congregations withhold apportionments. Provides data to support claims of theological dissonance and declining institutional trust.

VI. Missional Theology and Church Vitality

Tennent, Timothy C. For the Body: Recovering a Theology of Gender, Sexuality, and the Human Body. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2020.

Frames cultural debates in theological anthropology, useful for analyzing ideological funding in curriculum and boards like GBCS and GCORR.

Tennent, Timothy C. “Evangelism in the Post-Christendom Church.” Asbury Journal 78, no. 2 (2023): 91–95.

Advocates for an eschatologically grounded and doctrinally faithful evangelistic mission. Supports arguments in Chapter 4 for incentivizing fidelity-based funding.

Abraham, William J. The Logic of Evangelism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989.

Integrates ecclesiology, doctrine, and practice in articulating the Church’s evangelistic vocation. A cornerstone for the theological argument that funding must prioritize gospel proclamation.

Endnotes

1. J. Lomperis, “The Seven Churches of United Methodism, Revisited,” The Asbury Journal 76, no. 1 (2021): 142–168, https://place.asburyseminary.edu/asburyjournal/vol76/iss1/7/.

2. Ibid., 146.

3. William H. Watson, The Once and Future Church: Discipleship and the Hope of United Methodism (Newberg, OR: George Fox University, 2012), 77.

4. David W. Scott, “UMC Budget Trends 2000–2020,” UM & Global Blog, March 2020, https://www.umglobal.org/2020/03/a-decade-of-united-methodist-church.html.

5. David Eagle and Christopher Mueller, “Reproducing Inequality in a Formally Antiracist Organization: The Case of Racialized Career Pathways in the United Methodist Church,” American Journal of Sociology 127, no. 6 (2022): 1443–1492, https://doi.org/10.1086/719391.

6. Lovett H. Weems Jr., Focus: The Real Challenges That Face the United Methodist Church (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2012), 91.

7. J. G. Ray, The United Methodist Church and the Willingness to Embrace Change (Newberg, OR: George Fox University, 2015), https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/dmin/115/.

8. David W. Stephens, Reckoning Methodism: Mission and Division in the Public Church (New York: Fortress Press, 2024), 213–218.

9. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio: A Theological Study of the Sociology of the Church, ed. Clifford J. Green (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), 131.

10. Augustine, City of God, trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin Books, 2003), 474–476.

11. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, ed. Thomas Jackson, 14 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 7:207.

12. Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon, Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1989), 96–98.

13. Walter Fenton, Irreconcilable Differences? A Theological Review of the United Methodist Conflict (Tallahassee, FL: Seedbed Publishing, 2020), 33–36.

14. Heather Hahn, “Disaffiliations Double in a Year,” UM News, August 29, 2023, https://www.umnews.org/en/news/disaffiliations-double-in-a-year.

15. Lovett H. Weems Jr. and Ann A. Michel, Generosity, Stewardship, and Abundance: A Transformational Guide to Church Finance (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2021), 117–121.

16. Mark R. Schwehn and Dorothy C. Bass, eds., Leading Lives That Matter: What We Should Do and Who We Should Be, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2020), 325–332.

17. Rowan Williams, Tokens of Trust: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), 110.

18. David W. Scott, “The Global UMC and the Financial Crisis,” UM & Global, July 15, 2022, https://www.umglobal.org/2022/07/the-global-umc-and-financial-crisis.html.

19. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 13–15.

20. John Wesley, Sermon 50: The Use of Money, in The Works of John Wesley, ed. Thomas Jackson, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 6:124–130.

21. Yves Congar, Lay People in the Church, trans. Donald Attwater (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957), 15; Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio, 131; Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), 90–96.

22. General Conference Journals, 2000–2024, The United Methodist Church Archives, https://www.umofficialresources.org/.

23. James Gustafson, Can Ethics Be Christian? (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 53–55; Paul Ramsey, Basic Christian Ethics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 178–185.

24. Luke Timothy Johnson, Sharing Possessions: Mandate and Symbol of Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 99–103.

25. General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA), Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (Nashville, TN: GCFA Archives, 2000–2024), https://www.gcfa.org.

26. Bishop Eben Nhiwatiwa et al., “A Statement from the Africa Initiative,” UM News, April 2023, https://www.umnews.org/en/news/a-statement-from-the-africa-initiative.

26. John Wesley, Sermon 50: The Use of Money, in The Works of John Wesley, ed. Thomas Jackson, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 6:124.

27. Richard P. Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2013), 209–212.

28. David Hempton, Methodism: Empire of the Spirit (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005), 73.

29. L. Gregory Jones, Embodying Forgiveness: A Theological Analysis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 180–182.

30. Russell E. Richey, Early American Methodism (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991), 91.

31. Kenneth E. Rowe, “The Institutionalization of Methodism,” in United Methodism and American Culture, ed. Dennis M. Campbell (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1991), 42–58.

32. Miroslav Volf, A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2011), 119.

33. Rowan Williams, Faith in the Public Square (London: Bloomsbury, 2012), 146.

34. William J. Abraham, The Logic of Evangelism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 53–54.

35. Randy L. Maddox, “Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology,” Quarterly Review 15, no. 3 (1995): 19–26.

36. General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA), A History of the Apportionment System (Nashville, TN: GCFA Archives, 2008), 3–6.

37. Thomas E. Frank, Polity, Practice, and the Mission of The United Methodist Church, 2006 ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006), 175–180.

38. David W. Scott, “The Theological Basis of Apportionments,” UM & Global, January 2020, https://www.umglobal.org/2020/01/the-theological-basis-of-apportionments.html.

39. Dwight W. Vogel, “Giving and the Means of Grace,” Quarterly Review 24, no. 2 (2004): 15–28.

40. GCFA, Apportionment Formula Technical Guide (Nashville, TN: GCFA, 2019), 9–12.

41. Lovett H. Weems Jr., Focus: The Real Challenges That Face the United Methodist Church (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2012), 113–116.

42. Minutes of the 2019 Special Session of the General Conference, The United Methodist Church Archives, https://www.umofficialresources.org/.

43. J. Lomperis, “African Delegates and Financial Justice in the UMC,” Juicy Ecumenism, February 2020, https://juicyecumenism.com.

44. Rob Renfroe and Walter Fenton, Are We Really Better Together? A Proposal for a New Methodist Future (Tallahassee, FL: Seedbed Publishing, 2019), 47–52.

45. William J. Abraham, Waking from Doctrinal Amnesia: The Healing of Doctrine in The United Methodist Church (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 102.

46. Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Crisis, Irony, and Postmodernity, 1950–2005 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 13–31.

47. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vols. 1–3 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951–1963); James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, 20th anniversary ed. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1990); Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk (Boston: Beacon Press, 1983).

48. General Board of Church and Society, Annual Report 2019 (Washington, DC: GBCS Archives, 2020), 5–9.

49. General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA), Comprehensive Budget Breakdown 2016–2020, https://www.gcfa.org.

50. Ross Douthat, Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics (New York: Free Press, 2012), 171–173.

51. William J. Abraham, Waking from Doctrinal Amnesia: The Healing of Doctrine in The United Methodist Church (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 15–23.

52. Scott T. Kisker, Mainline or Methodist? Rediscovering Our Evangelical Heritage (Nashville, TN: Discipleship Resources, 2008), 49–53.

53. Serene Jones, Feminist Theory and Christian Theology: Cartographies of Grace (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000), 141–144.

54. Ted A. Smith, Weird John Brown: Divine Violence and the Limits of Ethics (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2014), 88–91.

55. Luke Timothy Johnson, Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the Church (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996), 101–105.

56. Mary E. Vanden Berg, “Stewardship as Discipleship: A Theological Analysis of Church Budgeting,” Calvin Theological Journal 45, no. 2 (2010): 285–302.

57. Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 85–90.

58. Glen H. Stassen and David P. Gushee, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 304–307.

59. The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2016 (Nashville, TN: The United Methodist Publishing House, 2016), ¶258.4, ¶806.

60. General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA), Audit Summary Reports 2016–2022 (Nashville, TN: GCFA Archives), https://www.gcfa.org.

61. Dana L. Robert, Faithful Friendships: Embracing Diversity in Christian Community (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2019), 117.

62. 2 Corinthians 8:13–14 (NRSV).

63. Keith Boyette, “Are We Funding Our Own Division?” Wesleyan Covenant Association Journal, Spring 2021, 22–25.

64. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, ed. Eberhard Bethge (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 203.

65. David F. Watson, “Faithfulness and the Future of United Methodism,” Journal of Wesleyan Theology 53, no. 2 (2019): 7–23.

66. Timothy C. Tennent, “A Crisis of Identity: Wesleyan Orthodoxy and the Future of Methodism,” Asbury Theological Journal 73, no. 1 (2018): 1–14.

67. William J. Abraham, Waking from Doctrinal Amnesia: The Healing of Doctrine in The United Methodist Church (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 18–21.

68. The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2016, Part II, “Doctrinal Standards and Our Theological Task.”

69. Kevin M. Watson, Old or New School Methodism? Recovering the Wesleyan Class Meeting (Wilmore, KY: First Fruits Press, 2019), 32–34.

70. Russell E. Richey, The Methodist Conference in America: A History (Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books, 1996), 117–121.

71. David F. Watson, “A Church with a Mission or a Mission with a Church?” Firebrand Magazine, June 2021, https://firebrandmag.com/articles.

72. GCFA, UMC Expenditure Trends Report 2000–2020, https://www.gcfa.org.

73. James K.A. Smith, How (Not) to Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 96–99.

74. Kevin M. Watson, “Why We Need a Theological Reset,” Seedbed Blog, February 2020, https://seedbed.com.

75. Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 102–107.

76. Walter Fenton, Irreconcilable Differences? A Theological Review of the United Methodist Conflict (Tallahassee, FL: Seedbed Publishing, 2020), 12–16.

77. Scott T. Kisker and Kenneth J. Collins, Methodism and the Future: Navigating Our Way Forward (Wilmore, KY: First Fruits Press, 2021), 88–90.

78. The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2016, ¶2553.

79. Heather Hahn, “Apportionments, Disaffiliations, and the Future of UMC Giving,” UM News, April 2023, https://www.umnews.org/.

80. Andrew Root, The Congregation in a Secular Age (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021), 104–107.

81. Kevin Watson, “Disaffiliation as Ecclesial Diagnosis,” Firebrand Magazine, August 2022, https://firebrandmag.com.

82. Mountain Sky Conference Journal, 2022; Alabama-West Florida Annual Conference Minutes, 2023.

83. West Plains UMC Disaffiliation Statement, Missouri Conference Archives, 2022.

84. General Board of Church and Society, Why Justice is Gospel Work (Washington, DC: GBCS, 2021), 4–7.

85. Craig Hovey, To Share in the Body: A Theology of Ecclesial Discernment (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 51–53.

86. David N. Field, Guided by Grace: Wesleyan Perspectives on Ecclesial Authority and Mission (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2020), 131.

87. Rob Renfroe, “Why Thousands are Leaving,” Good News Magazine, October 2023, https://goodnewsmag.org/.

88. John Wesley, Sermon 50: The Use of Money, in The Works of John Wesley, ed. Thomas Jackson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 6:126.

89. Thomas E. Frank, Polity, Practice, and the Mission of The United Methodist Church, 2006 ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006), 181.

90. Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Crisis, Irony, and Postmodernity, 1950–2005 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 19–25.

91. Glen H. Stassen and David P. Gushee, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 304–308.

92. William J. Abraham, Waking from Doctrinal Amnesia: The Healing of Doctrine in The United Methodist Church (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 102.

93. Kevin M. Watson, “Disaffiliation as Ecclesial Diagnosis,” Firebrand Magazine, August 2022, https://firebrandmag.com.

94. Stanley Hauerwas, Theological Ethics and the Character of God (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), 54–58.

95. Rowan Williams, On Christian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 178–180.

96. Basil the Great, On Social Justice, trans. C. Paul Schroeder (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009), 43–51; John Chrysostom, On Wealth and Poverty, trans. Catharine P. Roth (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984), 21–33.

97. John Wesley, Sermon 87: The Danger of Riches, in The Works of John Wesley, ed. Thomas Jackson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 7:3–10.

98. Miroslav Volf, A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2011), 96–100.

99. Peter Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350–550 AD (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012), 28–31.

100. Clement of Alexandria, Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?, trans. G.W. Butterworth (London: SPCK, 1919), 3–6.

101. Basil the Great, On Social Justice, trans. C. Paul Schroeder (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009), 63.

102. John Chrysostom, On Wealth and Poverty, trans. Catharine P. Roth (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984), 42–47.

103. Justo L. González, Faith and Wealth: A History of Early Christian Ideas on the Origin, Significance, and Use of Money (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990), 109.

104. Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, rev. ed. (London: Penguin Books, 1993), 127.

105. Susan R. Holman, The Hungry Are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 198–201.

106. John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, in The Works of John Wesley, ed. Thomas Jackson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 11:371.

107. Randy L. Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology (Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books, 1994), 148–150.

108. John Wesley, Sermon 50: The Use of Money, in The Works of John Wesley, 6:124.

109. David Lowes Watson, The Early Methodist Class Meeting: Its Origins and Significance (Nashville, TN: Discipleship Resources, 1985), 63–70.

110. Kevin M. Watson, Old or New School Methodism? Recovering the Wesleyan Class Meeting (Wilmore, KY: First Fruits Press, 2019), 33–36.

111. William J. Abraham, The Logic of Evangelism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 61–64.

112. Richard P. Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2013), 195–197.

113. John Wesley, Sermon 87: The Danger of Riches, in The Works of John Wesley, 7:3–10.

114. Craig Dykstra and Sharon Parks, Faith and Leadership: How Leaders Are Formed in Theological Institutions (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2010), 98–101.

115. Miroslav Volf, A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2011), 94–102.

116. Stanley Hauerwas, After Christendom? How the Church is to Behave if Freedom, Justice, and a Christian Nation Are Bad Ideas (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1991), 123.

117. Christian Smith and Michael Emerson, Passing the Plate: Why American Christians Don’t Give Away More Money (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 112–115.

118. Lovett H. Weems Jr. and Ann A. Michel, Generosity, Stewardship, and Abundance: A Transformational Guide to Church Finance (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2021), 91–97.

119. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), 289–291.

120. Susan R. Holman, God Knows There’s Need: Christian Responses to Poverty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 7–9.

121. Basil the Great, On Social Justice, trans. C. Paul Schroeder (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009), 63–67.

122. John Wesley, Sermon 50: The Use of Money, in The Works of John Wesley, ed. Thomas Jackson, 6:124–130.

123. Susan R. Holman, God Knows There’s Need: Christian Responses to Poverty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 7–10.

124. General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA), Comprehensive Budget Report 2000–2024 (Nashville, TN: GCFA Archives), https://www.gcfa.org.

125. GCFA, “General Budget Allocation Trends: 2000–2020,” Internal Budget Review Summary, 2021, 7–9.

126. General Board of Global Ministries, Annual Funding Overview, 2000–2020, https://www.umcmission.org.

127. GCFA, “Apportionment Adjustments by Program Area,” UMC Financial Review, Spring 2023, 22–25.

128. Timothy C. Tennent, “The Use of Critical Theory in UMC Curriculum and Its Theological Implications,” Asbury Journal 77, no. 2 (2022): 133–146.

129. GCFA, Episcopal Fund Financial Reports, 2016–2020, https://www.gcfa.org.

130. Lovett H. Weems Jr., Focus: The Real Challenges That Face the United Methodist Church (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2012), 98–104.

131. Barna Research Group, “UMC Congregational Stewardship Survey,” Commissioned by the Wesleyan Covenant Association, Fall 2022.

132. David W. Scott, “Funding the Connection: Geographies of Power in the UMC,” UM & Global, May 2021, https://www.umglobal.org.

133. Minutes of the UMC General Conferences (2008, 2012, 2016, 2019, 2020), General Conference Archives, https://www.resourceumc.org.

134. General Board of Church and Society, Annual Reports and Budget Statements, 2000–2020, https://www.umcjustice.org.

135. Timothy C. Tennent, “Wesleyan Orthodoxy and the Prophetic Witness of the Church,” Asbury Journal 77, no. 1 (2022): 21–34.

136. GCFA, Apportionment Spending Review: GBCS Allocations 2000–2020, https://www.gcfa.org.

137. Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, “UMC Participation in Faith Voices for Choice,” 2019 Policy Brief, https://rcrc.org.

138. North Georgia Annual Conference, Resolution 18-07 on GBCS Accountability, 2018 Minutes.

139. The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2016, Part II: “Doctrinal Standards and Our Theological Task.”

140. United Methodist Publishing House, Cokesbury Curriculum Catalog, 2021 Edition.

141. “Faith Formation in a Changing World,” curriculum published by UMPH, reviewed in Good News Magazine, Spring 2022.

142. Connectional Table, Program Development Funding Summary, 2016–2020, https://www.resourceumc.org.

143. Alabama-West Florida Conference, “Resource Use Mandate,” Journal Minutes, 2022.

144. WCA Doctrinal Integrity Committee, “A Review of UMC Curricula,” Wesleyan Covenant Association Journal, Fall 2022.

145. The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2016, ¶2553.

146. Rob Renfroe, “Paying to Leave: The Theological Implications of Disaffiliation Costs,” Good News Magazine, Winter 2022.

147. Heather Hahn, “Exit Costs Challenge Local Churches,” UM News, February 2023, https://www.umnews.org.

148. Mountain Sky Conference, “Disaffiliation Implementation Guidelines,” 2023 Conference Journal.

149. Mountain Sky Conference, 2023 Journal Minutes: Task Force on Stewardship and Ecclesial Integrity, 18–23.

150. Wesleyan Covenant Association, “2022 Stewardship and Trust Survey Results,” WCA Research Briefs, October 2022, https://wesleyancovenant.org.

151. Texas Annual Conference, “Resolution on Apportionment Accountability,” 2019 Journal; North Georgia Conference, “Petition for Fiscal Transparency,” 2020 Journal; Florida Conference, “Motion for Theological Budget Review,” 2021 Journal.

152. Kevin M. Watson, “Covenantal Dissent: A Theological Approach to Faithful Giving,” Firebrand Magazine, February 2023, https://firebrandmag.com.

153. Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops, “Statement on Connectional Giving and Justice,” Journal Appendix, 2022.

154. Mississippi Annual Conference, Disaffiliation Summaries and Statements, 2021–2023, https://www.mississippi-umc.org.

155. General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA), A Proposal for Restructuring Apportionment Distributions: A Report for the General Conference, 2024, https://www.gcfa.org.

156. Miroslav Volf, A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2011), 96–99.

157. Kevin M. Watson, Recovering the Wesleyan Class Meeting: A Model for Making Disciples (Wilmore, KY: First Fruits Press, 2019), 54–58.

158. John Wesley, Sermon 50: The Use of Money, in The Works of John Wesley, ed. Thomas Jackson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 6:124–130.

159. William J. Abraham, The Logic of Evangelism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 119–123.

160. The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2016, Part II: “Doctrinal Standards and Our Theological Task.”

161. Kevin M. Watson, Old or New School Methodism? Recovering the Wesleyan Class Meeting (Wilmore, KY: First Fruits Press, 2019), 44–46.

162. Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon, Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1989), 112.

163. Glen H. Stassen and David P. Gushee, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 301–304.

164. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 92–93.

165. John Wesley, Minutes of Several Conversations between Mr. Wesley and Others (London: Methodist Book Room, 1784), 45.

166. General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA), “Proposal for Digital Disclosure and Financial Accessibility Standards,” GCFA Memorandum 2023.

167. Mary E. Vanden Berg, “Financial Stewardship and Christian Accountability,” Calvin Theological Journal 45, no. 2 (2010): 291.

168. David W. Scott, Mission as Globalization: Methodism and the Marketplace (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2021), 121–123.

169. Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 83–84.

170. Thomas E. Frank, Polity, Practice, and the Mission of The United Methodist Church, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006), 203–208.

171. David W. Scott, Crossing Boundaries: Sharing God’s Good News Through Mission (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2021), 112–114.

172. Randy L. Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology (Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books, 1994), 193–196.

173. Lovett H. Weems Jr. and Ann A. Michel, Generosity, Stewardship, and Abundance: A Transformational Guide to Church Finance (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2021), 99–104.

174. Wesleyan Covenant Association, “Missional Alignment Fund Proposal,” Internal Report, 2023, https://wesleyancovenant.org.

175. Dana L. Robert, Faithful Friendships: Embracing Diversity in Christian Community (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2019), 128–132.

176. John Wesley, The Principles of a Methodist Farther Explained, in The Works of John Wesley, 8:475–480.

177. Kevin M. Watson, “Recovering Evangelism in Methodism,” Firebrand Magazine, March 2023, https://firebrandmag.com.

178. John Wesley, The Character of a Methodist, in The Works of John Wesley, 8:341–346.

179. General Board of Discipleship, “Draft Proposal: CEFI Metrics and Evangelism Audit Standards,” unpublished working paper, 2024.

180. William J. Abraham, The Logic of Evangelism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 77–80.

181. New Room Network, “Local Multiplication Funds in Wesleyan Renewal Movements,” Strategic Report, 2022.

182. Timothy C. Tennent, “Evangelism in the Post-Christendom Church,” Asbury Journal 78, no. 2 (2023): 91–95.

183. Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 128–132.

184. William J. Abraham, Waking from Doctrinal Amnesia: The Healing of Doctrine in The United Methodist Church (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 102–108.

185. Glen H. Stassen and David P. Gushee, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 305.

186. Randy L. Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology (Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books, 1994), 199.

187. General Board of Discipleship, “Evangelism and Fidelity Audit Proposal,” Internal Review, 2023.

¹⁸⁸. Craig Dykstra and Sharon Parks, Faith and Leadership: How Leaders Are Formed in Theological Institutions (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2010), 116.

¹⁸⁹. John Wesley, Sermon 50: The Use of Money, in The Works of John Wesley, ed. Thomas Jackson, 6:124–130.

¹⁹⁰. GCFA, UMC Budgetary Trends Report, 2000–2020, https://www.gcfa.org.

¹⁹¹. Mississippi Annual Conference, Disaffiliation Reports and Statements, 2020–2023, https://www.mississippi-umc.org.

¹⁹². Timothy C. Tennent, “A House Without Walls: Doctrinal Accountability in a Post-Denominational Age,” Asbury Journal 78, no. 1 (2023): 15–28.

¹⁹³. Stanley Hauerwas, Sanctify Them in the Truth: Holiness Exemplified (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998), 119–123.

¹⁹⁴. The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2016, Part II: “Doctrinal Standards and Our Theological Task.”

¹⁹⁵. Glen H. Stassen and David P. Gushee, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 308.

¹⁹⁶. General Board of Discipleship, “Proposed Evangelism Audit Framework,” Internal Draft, 2023.

¹⁹⁷. Lovett H. Weems Jr. and Ann A. Michel, Generosity, Stewardship, and Abundance (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2021), 104.

¹⁹⁸. Dana L. Robert, Faithful Friendships (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2019), 132–133.

¹⁹⁹. Kevin M. Watson, “Doctrinal Drift in Methodist Education,” Firebrand Magazine, June 2022.

²⁰⁰. Rob Renfroe, “Fairness and Freedom: Reframing the Disaffiliation Debate,” Good News Magazine, Fall 2022.

²⁰¹. David Lowes Watson, Forming Christian Disciples (Nashville, TN: Discipleship Resources, 2002), 81–87.

²⁰². Walter Brueggemann, Money and Possessions (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2016), 112–115.

²⁰³. John Wesley, Sermon 87: The Danger of Riches, in The Works of John Wesley, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 3–10.

²⁰⁴. Timothy C. Tennent, For the Body: Recovering a Theology of Gender, Sexuality, and the Human Body (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2020), 198–201.

²⁰⁵. John Wesley, Covenant Prayer, in The Works of John Wesley, vol. 11, 434.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Stewardship, Schism, and the Soul of the Church: A Theological and Ethical Audit of Apportionment Finance and Progressive Realignment in the United Methodist Church

Reconceiving Ecclesial Economy Through Doctrinal Fidelity, Missional Stewardship, and Institutional Reform in an Age of Progressive Hegemony and Theological Fragmentation

I. Introduction

A. Statement of the Research Problem

   •   How is apportionment money collected by the UMC being theologically and practically allocated toward ideological programs aligned with progressive Christianity?

B. Research Questions

   •   Are financial resources within the UMC advancing an agenda that departs from traditional Wesleyan orthodoxy?

   •   What theological frameworks justify or critique such fiscal stewardship?

   •   How does the financial structuring of the Church reflect its ecclesial identity?

C. Significance of the Study

   •   Addresses the intersection of theology, ecclesiology, finance, and cultural engagement.

   •   Engages a timely and contested issue in the life of the global UMC.

   •   Offers a robust theological-ethical framework for evaluating ecclesial stewardship.

D. Methodology

   •   Historical-theological method (Patristic, Wesleyan, and contemporary).

   •   Ecclesiological and ethical analysis of financial transparency and governance.

   •   Use of UMC General Conference reports, financial documents, and theological texts.

II. Historical and Theological Foundations

A. Wesleyan Ecclesiology and Stewardship

1. John Wesley’s theology of money, stewardship, and social ethics.

2. Historical use of Methodist funds for missions, education, and holiness initiatives.

3. The doctrine of connectionalism and the theological rationale for apportionment.

B. Theological Ethics of Financial Accountability in the Church

1. Patristic views on stewardship and communal distribution (e.g., Chrysostom, Basil).

2. Reformation and post-Reformation ecclesial economies.

3. Principles of fiduciary responsibility in ecclesial tradition.

III. The Structure of UMC Apportionment and Its Theological Implications

A. Defining Apportionments in the United Methodist Church

1. Historical development of the apportionment system.

2. Current structures: General Agencies, Episcopal Funds, Ministerial Education, etc.

3. The Book of Discipline’s vision for apportionment.

B. The Ecclesiology of Apportionments

1. Connectionalism vs. autonomy: The theological tension.

2. Financial centralization as ecclesial authority: benefits and abuses.

3. Stewardship or subsidy? A theology of giving vs. ideological funding.

IV. Mapping the Progressive Use of Apportionments

A. Progressive Theology within the UMC

1. Key theological themes: liberation, inclusion, postmodern hermeneutics.

2. Key figures and movements: Reconciling Ministries Network, MFSA, etc.

3. Theological divergence from classical Wesleyan orthodoxy.

B. Tracing the Flow of Funds

1. General Board of Church and Society and its political advocacy.

2. Programs and grants that promote progressive agendas (gender, sexuality, climate).

3. Comparative analysis of mission vs. ideological funding.

C. Doctrinal Divergence and Fiscal Power

1. Use of apportionments to promote ideologically liberal theological education.

2. Undermining of traditional doctrinal positions through institutional funding.

3. Theological critiques of progressive reallocation of ecclesial resources.

V. Comparative Frameworks: Orthodox Models of Ecclesial Stewardship

A. Patristic and Reformation Comparisons

1. The Alexandrian and Cappadocian models of ecclesial economics.

2. Calvinist and Anglican views of church funding for catechesis, not ideology.

B. Global Methodist Practices

1. Financial stewardship in African and Asian Methodist expressions.

2. Doctrinal accountability in international contexts.

3. The divergence between Global South and Western UMC fiscal theology.

VI. Theological and Ethical Critique

A. The Ethics of Coercive Giving in a Divided Church

1. The problem of conscience: apportionment as mandated funding for controversial theology.

2. Moral complicity in structures that undermine doctrinal integrity.

3. The ethics of ecclesial consent in financial governance.

B. Transparency, Accountability, and Apostolicity

1. Evaluating the UMC’s reporting structures for doctrinal transparency.

2. Criteria for faithful stewardship in line with the apostolic tradition.

3. Restoring trust through reform: transparency, subsidiarity, and theological clarity.

VII. Proposals for Reform and Theological Reconstruction

A. Towards Doctrinally Accountable Stewardship

1. Reorienting funding toward biblical mission, theological education, and evangelism.

2. Establishing doctrinal review for financially supported programs.

B. Theological Framework for Ecclesial Giving in a Post-Denominational Age

1. Scriptural and Patristic bases for voluntary, transparent, and accountable giving.

2. A covenantal model of apportionment: consent, mission, and holiness.

C. Implications for a Post-Schism UMC and the Global Methodist Church

1. Proactive theological safeguards in emerging denominations.

2. Building fiscal structures rooted in Wesleyan and apostolic tradition.

VIII. Conclusion

A. Summary of Findings

   •   Apportionment in the UMC has evolved from a missional and catechetical tool into a vehicle for ideological expansion that in many cases reflects progressive theological frameworks at odds with classical Wesleyanism.

B. Theological Significance

   •   Calls for reform grounded in Patristic, biblical, and Wesleyan tradition.

   •   Reclaims the Church’s financial structures as instruments of doctrinal fidelity and mission.

C. Final Thesis

   •   The Church cannot be reformed ecclesiologically without a reformation of its economic theology. Stewardship is not ideologically neutral—it is doctrinally formative and spiritually determinative.