A U.S.-Only Church

Map Assessing the Worldwide Mission of The United Methodist Church (UMC.ORG)

By Thomas Lambrecht –

It has been intriguing to follow a series of blog posts from “Mainstream UMC,” a newly minted special interest caucus. The posts have been analyzing an unscientific, non-representative survey that they administered through the Internet. Over 13,000 people took the survey and self-identified as either Traditionalist, Centrist, or Progressive. Mainstream UMC provides the numbers and analysis. We do not have access to the raw data. So my conclusions are based on their analysis.

Of course, the survey results are being touted to support the narrative that Traditionalists just want to “break up” The United Methodist Church. Well over two-thirds of Traditionalists answering the survey said they could not live in a denomination where same-sex marriage and ordination of practicing LGBT persons was allowed. The vast majority of Centrists and Progressives said they could continue to live in our denomination ONLY if it changed to allow same-sex marriage and LGBT ordination. In other words, if Centrists and Progressives get what they want, they could live with that. But if Traditionalists are forced to be in a denomination they believe violates Scripture, we could not live with that. Hardly breaking news.

More significantly, over 80 percent of Centrists and Progressives believe that if the Traditional Plan stays in place at the 2020 General Conference, there would need to be a change in the “common governance structure.” This could be understood as code for creating the U.S. as its own central conference to govern its own affairs. The vision is that the U.S. would have different standards of ordination and requirements around LGBT ministry than the rest of the world. The Connectional Table is submitting the beginnings of this plan to the 2020 General Conference.

More than 86 percent of Centrists and Progressives think that the U.S. conferences should have the same right to adapt the requirements of the Discipline to our cultural and legal context that the central conferences outside the U.S. have. This is despite the fact that the U.S. still has a majority of the delegates at General Conference and much of the Discipline is aimed at the U.S. context. There is only one area where the U.S. cultural context is not honored, and that is on the definition of marriage and standards for human sexuality. For the sake of that one issue, the U.S. Centrists and Progressives want to separate their governance from the global church.

Remarkably, more than three-fourths of Centrists and Progressives said it is not “appropriate for delegates from outside the United States to vote on LGBTQ ordination and marriage that affects the U.S. church.”

Again, more than three-fourths of Centrists and Progressives said it is not “appropriate for churches in the U.S. to pay for 99.3 percent of the global budget but to have only 56 percent of the votes (and declining) at General Conference.”

More than 80 percent of Centrists and Progressives thought, “The church in the United States should change our common governance structure with the global church.” This means setting the U.S. to determine its own affairs separately from the church outside the U.S. Even the way this question is worded betrays a U.S.-centric bias. According to the question, it is up to the church in the U.S. to change the governance structure, not in consultation with the global church.

Finally, three-fourths of Centrists and Progressives would be willing to continue funding the global church in a revised structure that allows the U.S. to govern itself separately. The Mainstream analysis did not say whether they asked the question whether Centrists and Progressives would be willing to continue funding the global church if the structure continues as it is today.

The biggest omission from the survey is the input of members from outside the U.S. It gives the clear impression that Mainstream UMC believes U.S. members of the church can and should determine our church’s standards and governance without even considering the 45 percent of the church that lives outside the U.S.

From the answers and analysis of this survey, it seems that many Centrists and Progressives do not want a global church. They want an autonomous U.S. church that does mission work in other countries. They want a U.S. church that can become more “relevant” to U.S. culture, while allowing the UM Church outside the U.S. to make different decisions. They want to decide matters for the U.S. church without the “interference” of United Methodists in other countries.

This attitude reflects a post-modern concept that marriage can be whatever we want it to be. Sexual morality can be determined by what works for individual people. Moral standards can wildly vary from one culture to another.

The problem with this concept is that it is not true. While customs and cultures vary over the historic eras, marriage has only ever been between a man and woman – in biblical and non-biblical cultures. God has a blueprint for human flourishing and moral standards that apply to all human beings, regardless of race, nationality, or culture.

The actions of many Centrists and Progressives betray the fact that they know morality is not relative, but universal. None of them, for example, is uncertain about the wrongness of polygamy or child marriage. That is the right impulse – but it also acknowledges that there are certain relationship barriers that should not be crossed. If morality accords with the culture, on what basis can Centrists and Progressives oppose the cultural practices of others? One cannot have it both ways. When they advocate for same-sex marriage they are merely disingenuously elevating their standards in preference to anyone else’s.

The Mainstream UMC analysis is preoccupied with the issue of money. They apparently believe that, since Americans give a great share of the money that funds the church, they should be the lone determiners of how that money is spent. It appears they believe that those who do not give as much money have no right to tell Centrists and Progressives what moral standards should be operative for them.

This attitude turns the concept of connectionalism and a global church on its head. It certainly does not accord with the vision of the church that Paul paints: “But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things that are not – to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him” (I Corinthians 1:27-28).

Never in our lifetime will United Methodists in developing countries be able to contribute as much financially to the work of the church as we in the U.S. This elitist approach condemns less advantaged United Methodists (most of the world) to a permanent second-class status. Does the fact that the U.S. has much more money mean that we can simply ignore and disrespect the voices of our brothers and sisters in less advantaged nations?

The real lesson of the Mainstream UMC survey is that there are deep and irreconcilable differences between Centrists/Progressives and Traditionalists. We have different visions for the church. We have different understandings of Scripture and different standards of morality.

The Mainstream analysis says the survey “shows that Centrists and Progressives are still trying to find a way toward some kind of unity.” With all due respect, this comes across as wildly unrealistic. It is difficult to see how any form of unity can persist in the midst of such deep divisions. Centrists and Progressives want to have unity on their terms. Traditionalists can only accept unity on our terms. The terms are mutually exclusive. Therefore, unity is impossible without one side or the other surrendering their deeply held beliefs.

Rather than consistently demonizing Traditionalists, a more fruitful approach would be to seek a constructive way to separate in order to honor the spiritual integrity of both groups. Rather than try to force a unity that is not there or force Traditionalists out of the church (as if we were the problem), it would be healthier to recognize reality and seek a way forward that minimizes the pain and shame attached to any perspective. If we cannot honor one another together in one body, can we not at least honor one another enough to allow for a gracious separation that does not stigmatize?

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. 

Comments

  1. Jim Wolfgang says

    Thank you Tom for sharing the results and interpretation of this survey. Evidently the progressives/centrists believe all our churches, jurisdictions, and annual conferences in the U.S. would be of their opinion: what would happen to those that aren’t? The Central Conference U.S. idea is coercive and I suspect, elitist. Surely a better idea is the multidenomination proposals which allow us to part company with some amicability and cooperate on the general boards and agencies such as Wespath and U.M.C.O.R. It grieves me to see our great United Methodist Church come to this. When our theology is adhered to we were an authentic New Testament church, but not in our current impass. I know when a local church has members decide they no longer will adhere to the beliefs of that congregation: that congregation will split. The same principle applies to a denomination of over twelve million. If folks cannot continue to accept the covenant beliefs they once said they did, then be Christian enough to go to another fellowship they are compatible with. What is Christian about wrecking the church and bringing destruction to what once was unified in covenant?

    • contrast not reflection says

      Jim,

      Sadly ‘amicability and cooperate’ are two words that do not seem to exist in the current climate, at least on one one side of the discussion. It may apply to both sides at this point.

      The words have not been current across a large range of religious, social, and political issues for a very long time either. The debate the spurred the General Conference of 2019 was the event that broke the church, but it was breaking a long time before that.

      All one has to do is remember how two United Methodist political leaders were treated by the church during their years in the spotlight. The two are Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush. There are many other examples of the divide, obvious to many of us.

  2. A Progressive Methodist Church-USA, separate and apart from an Orthodox Methodist Church-Global, is the best way forward.

  3. The Connectional Table is going to present a plan at GC2020 for a US Central Conference. Will any Renewal Groups or Entities offer a new plan for “separation”? What is the deadline for submitting plans, etc. for the GC2020 ? Time may be short and inadequate plans may be presented causing more disruption to the continuity of the Church. Transparency for all plans submitted should be done for Church’s to review them in a timely manner before GC2020.

  4. John Cobil says

    Sounds like Mainstream wants the same separation but they want to carve out a portion for themselves that would let them control 51% of the delegates and 95% of the assets of the UMC. I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say it’s a money grab, but my first thought when I read this article was race. This “Separate But Equal Conference” idea has been tried before.

  5. Now they have cancelled the 2024 GC in Manila at a behind closed doors meeting. In other words; the world can comt to us, but we can’t go to the world. The arrogance and hypocricy of American Progressive Methodists is on full display! I’m disgusted! If we don’t split next year or if progressives turn the US into a central conference I will retire June 2021. Iwould rather br a greeter at Walmart than a minister in a progressive denomination. How long until we leave Christianity and become Diests and Universalists like the ECLA?

  6. Gary Bebop says

    Tom is putting up a trenchant defense against these repeated statistical assault tactics by Mainstream and others. What’s not visible to us is how these numbers are being debated within the confidential parleys now negotiating the future of the church. Does Tom’s logic hold sway in a party of snakes (“For your iniquity teaches your mouth, and you choose the tongue of the crafty.” Job 15:5)?

  7. Two, perhaps three denominations. A traditional denomination is clear, unambiguous and fully understandable since it would essentially be a continuation of the current, on paper, United Methodist Church. A progressive denomination is also mostly clear and understandable, certainly with relation to sexual ethics and marriage. But, clarity seems to fly out the window when considering a centrist/progressive denomination. Since the “centrists” are grouped with the progressives in this denomination, and given the current divide — doesn’t that automatically make them progressive since there is no middle ground found anywhere to stand on in this schism?

    https://wesleyancovenant.org/basic-provisions/

  8. “more than three-fourths of Centrists and Progressives said it is not “appropriate for churches in the U.S. to pay for 99.3 percent of the global budget but to have only 56 percent of the votes (and declining) at General Conference.” The US used to deal with this with the poll tax, until declared unconstitutional as a form of voter suppression (if you don’t literally pay tax, even as a citizen you can’t vote). Their gripes actually are more akin to the late, whacky billionaire H.L. Hunt who advocated for a process whereby the more tax you paid, the more votes you had. In any event, the sheer racism and Western white middle-class tilt screams contempt against the gospel preferential posture toward the poor.

Speak Your Mind

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.