This Sunday, a biologically male pastor at a United Methodist Church in upstate New York announced that he no longer considers himself to be a man and that he is embracing a new identity as a woman. “The best way to put this,” the Rev. Phil Phaneuf told his North Chili United Methodist Church congregation, “is that I’m not becoming a woman. I’m giving up pretending to be a man.” Phaneuf clarified that he believes God supports his “transition,” as he has felt the Holy Spirit surrounding him during this process. “If you felt God’s Holy Spirit surrounding you in ways that you haven’t felt in years,” he said, “would you have a sense that that might be something that God’s okay with?” Phaneuf was met with joyful cheers from his congregation and with total acceptance from the U.S. leadership of the United Methodist Church. His bishop, Bishop Héctor A. Burgos-Núñez, put out a statement commending Phaneuf’s courage and affirming that Phaneuf’s identity as a woman is recognized by God. “I give thanks for Rev. Dr. Phil Phaneuf’s courage and honesty in embracing the fullness of who God created her to be,” said the bishop. “Her gifts in preaching, pastoral care, and service continue to enrich our connection. We stand together in love and prayer as she walks this path.” Only a few years ago, Phaneuf’s announcement may have been met with unofficial support from his own congregation, but his bishop probably would not have been able to hail his transgender identity as “the fullness of who God created her to be.” That is because it has only been in very recent years that the United Methodist Church has capitulated on its longstanding positions that homosexual relations are not acceptable in God’s eyes and that people who identify as transgender should not be pastors. (RELATED: Conservative Methodist Exit Nears End Point) In 2024, in a move delayed by COVID, delegates of the United Methodist Church voted to strike language in the denomination’s Book of Discipline that described homosexuality as “incompatible with Christian teaching.” In addition, the denomination removed the ban on the ordination of LGBTQ clergy. It also reformulated its definition of marriage to simply be a sacred covenant between “two adult persons of consenting age.” Ministers in the United States would be able to decide for themselves whether to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, while United Methodist conferences outside of the United States — including in Africa, the Philippines, and Eastern Europe — would be free to continue not ordaining LGBTQ clergy or celebrating same-sex weddings. In anticipation of and immediately following this change, a quarter of United Methodist churches in the United States left the denomination. They were joined in leaving by many conferences of the global church. Many of these churches became members of the newfound, more conservative Global United Methodist Church. Among those who left were the Côte d’Ivoire Annual Conference, which is said to have just short of 700,000 members. Its members specifically objected to the United Methodist Church’s change in stance on homosexuality and its altered definition of marriage. They voted to leave the church last year. In speaking for the Côte d’Ivoire Conference on their decision, the Rev. Isaac Bodjé said, “The change of language related to sanctions in the 2016 Book of Discipline is a serious departure from the Wesleyan principle that bases the Methodist Church on two key pillars: doctrine on the one hand and discipline on the other.” The United Methodist Church’s continual insistence that the church in Côte d’Ivoire could continue to avoid ordaining LGBTQ clergy or celebrating same-sex wedding ceremonies was apparently not enough to overcome the conference’s discomfort with belonging to a church that now claimed that what it upheld to be sinful and contrary to God’s law was, in fact, a holy, covenantal marriage. The vote in Côte d’Ivoire was not even close. It was a unanimous vote to leave. Presumably, had the Côte d’Ivoire Conference stayed on, they would have been horrified to belong to a church in which a fellow bishop upheld a biologically male pastor’s “transition” as blessed by God. In his message affirming Phaneuf’s transgender identity, Bishop Burgos-Núñez noted that Methodists worldwide may exercise freedom of conscience when it comes to LGBTQ issues. “The reforms,” explained Burgos-Núñez, “preserve freedom of conscience: clergy retain the discretion to decide whether to officiate same-sex marriages, and congregations may discern how best to embody these changes considering their own context and convictions.” Evidently, however, for many former Methodists, leaving such matters up for individual conscience was not a compromise they were willing to accept. In fact, many United Methodists globally feared that the allowance for them to follow their conscience regionally was simply a step toward later forcing them to accept LGBTQ clergy and gay marriage. In fact, many United Methodists globally feared that the allowance for them to follow their conscience regionally was simply a step toward later forcing them to accept LGBTQ clergy and gay marriage. After all, it did seem as though United Methodists in the United States were motivated to accept homosexual relations as a matter of moral necessity. In fact, the welcome video on the United Methodist Church’s website puts this emphasis on acceptance of homosexuality front and center. It says, “We’ve begun to be vulnerable with our past, admit our shortcomings, tell whole stories, and repent for our past social sins of racism, sexism, colonialism, and homophobia — all so that we can be God’s grace shining in and through the world.” Many United Methodists outside of the United States would presumably read a declaration of repentance for homophobia as acceptance of homosexuality. At the same time, many United Methodists in the United States feared that the allowance for LGBTQ clergy and same-sex weddings that they had just obtained would soon be overturned because of the growth of the United Methodist Church globally and the shrinkage of the church in the United States. Those fears were only added to when large numbers of United Methodist churches in the U.S. split off from the denomination because of the change in teaching on marriage. Their numbers had been large enough to garner acceptance of homosexual relations, but they worried over whether that number would hold. The two sides, the United Methodist church in and outside of the United States, reached an agreement to resolve these fears last month when they voted for “worldwide regionalization,” meaning that the church in the United States is no longer in charge of the whole denomination. Instead, the denomination is made up of nine equal regions that can make their own decisions on critical matters. In this setup, the allowance of freedom of conscience on matters of homosexuality is no longer granted by the U.S. church but inherently flows from the divided structure of the church. Under the new structure, which radically changed the denomination’s constitution, the U.S. and the eight church regions in Africa, Europe, and the Philippines all have legislative authority and can adapt the Book of Discipline, publish books of worship, set their own standards of character, change requirements for ordination, develop practices for marriages, and change offenses under church law. Essentially, they can do almost everything but deny the Trinity and the most basic teachings of Christianity. Keeping the denomination united under such an extreme devolution of decision-making appears practically impossible. If the church in Africa and the church in the U.S., after all, can have different moral and practical standards on everything, in what sense are they a united church? What even is the point of proclaiming to be one? But many progressives in the United States have long supported this plan of regionalization under the explanation that they believe it brings about “decolonization.” The Reconciling Ministries Network, which calls for “the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ people in The United Methodist Church,” celebrated the regionalization vote in the first place because it “Decolonizes our polity and relationships across regions.” Presumably, the organization also supports the fact that the new structure ensures that United Methodists outside of the United States cannot compel the U.S. on LGBTQ issues. All of this division over LGBTQ issues has not left the United Methodist Church in a good place. Apart from bleeding members both internationally and in the American context, the denomination has been left in dire financial straits. Last month, the president of the United Methodist Church’s finance agency said, quite simply, “The church’s financial house is on fire.” The denomination’s budget for 2025–2028 was cut a full 40 percent, but already, cash flows are not high enough to meet even that goal. As of the end of October, the denomination had only collected 51.8 percent of needed funds from the United States and 40.7 percent of needed funds in Africa, Europe, and the Philippines. The denomination says the 40 percent budget cut is due to disaffiliations from the United Methodist Church, but the church is also facing the prospect of falling church membership even outside of those disaffiliations. In 2023 alone, the United Methodist Church lost 1.2 million members. And, between 1968 and 2022, the church’s population in the U.S. more than halved. Things don’t look good for the United Methodist Church. And the declaration by the Rev. Phil Phaneuf that he now wants to go by Phillippa — coupled with the bishop’s overwhelming support for his “transition” — is unlikely to reassure United Methodists who have for now been comforted with talk of respect for freedom of conscience. The United Methodist Church has chosen to go full woke, and, like the rest of the denominations that have decided to do so, it is facing the consequences: a falling population and a financial situation that is “on fire.” READ MORE from Ellie Gardey Holmes: Sacramento Power Brokers Rally Behind Dana Williamson Is Gretchen Whitmer Backing Down From 2028? Temple Shows DEI’s Ongoing Hold on Medical Schools