Long before the late Russell E. Richey (1941-2025) gathered thirteen of his previously published essays in Methodist Connectionalism: Historical Perspectives (Nashville: GBHEM, 2009), he had made his mark on Methodist history by transforming the way we study it and expanding the horizons of whose voices were welcome. For this session, in honor of his legacy, both seasoned and emerging scholars provide their own innovative perspectives on what keeps Methodists connected, not only in America but worldwide.
At least five factors kept British Methodists connected in the century after the death of John Wesley. Four were intentional: doctrine, discipline, polity, and praxis. Methodist preachers, itinerant and local, were expected to believe and preach ‘our doctrines’, uphold ‘our discipline’, endorse and engage with the polity of Methodism, and follow the rhythms and norms of Methodist spirituality. A fifth factor was severely practical: the provision of a station, a stipend, and a house. The effectiveness of these factors and their evolution over time will be explored, giving particular attention to those who did not remain within the Connexion, to see how the five marks did, or did not, help to keep British Methodists connected.
Russ Richey produced a distinctively US American understanding of connectionalism that focused on the “machinery” of Methodism: conferences, doctrines, discipline (especially the Book of Discipline), the episcopacy, and clergy. Richey’s understanding of connectionalism was deeply rooted in the experiences of US American United Methodists and their predecessors and shaped by distinctively US American discourses on denominations and Methodism’s place in national theology and historiography. Scholars should expand on Richey’s insights to build a broader understanding of connectionalism by widening our geographic and denominational focus to incorporate more data from Methodist traditions around the world and beyond The United Methodist Church and by diversifying our tools of analysis beyond primarily structural ones, especially incorporating relational and spiritual understandings of connectionalism. Taking these steps can help us not only broaden but deepen our understanding of connectionalism and present a fuller Methodist ecclesiology.
Russell E. Richey’s work on Methodist connectionalism reshaped the study of Methodist history by demonstrating how conference structures, shared discipline, and common mission formed the ecclesial identity of Methodism. Yet Methodist history also reveals persistent tensions within this ideal, as connectional unity has repeatedly been challenged by division, exclusion, and institutional fracture. This paper revisits Richey’s interpretation of Methodist connectionalism and asks how his framework might be extended in light of contemporary experiences of disconnection. It proposes belonging as a constructive lens for understanding the future of Methodist connectionalism. While Methodist polity established structures intended to bind communities together, connectional life has always depended on practices that cultivate recognition, participation, and mutual responsibility among the baptized. Reframing connectionalism as a practice of belonging highlights the relational and experiential dimensions of Methodist ecclesiology and offers a way to interpret connectionalism not only as governance but as a shared form of ecclesial life.