Why I Support the Separation Plan

Responses to the proposed plan for separation could hardly be more divergent. Some are shouting “hallelujah” and others are feeling dismissed, even sold out. We need to remember that nothing is final until General Conference has voted.

There are several components of the plan I do not like. In particular, I don’t like the perception it creates. When I was first told about it, I said, “It looks like we’re being paid off to walk away.” It doesn’t look like a separation or two new denominations being birthed. It looks like traditionalists lost, and now we’re leaving.

Having said that, I am in favor of the proposal. Let me tell you why I and most traditionalist leaders favor its passage.

First, I ask myself what’s our goal? What has been our goal for at least the past 20 years?

For me, it was never about winning or taking over the UM Church. It has been to create a vibrant evangelical Wesleyan church that is fully focused on mission and ministry – a church that is not mired in a dysfunctional and divisive struggle over sexuality.

For me the goal has never been about keeping a name – a name that in many parts of the country is a negative because it has become connected with progressive theology and non-biblical practices.

And it has not been about getting our fair share of the assets. I want that. We deserve that. But that wasn’t the goal. I was not desirous of continuing this ugly, destructive battle so we could receive additional funds. As a matter of fact, in the Yambasu negotiations that brought about the protocol, our (traditionalists’) primary concern was about funding for the Central Conferences, not ourselves.

Most of the leaders in the evangelical renewal groups have long ago accepted that we need separation. That is the result we worked for at GC 2016 and GC 2019. However, when we realized separation was off the table, the only option was an enhanced traditional plan – but that was not our first option, mainly because we knew it would not provide a long-term solution. It would prevent the church from adopting a non-biblical sexual ethic, but it would not end our struggle.

Liberal areas of the church would ignore it, progressive bishops would not enforce it, and we would remain where we were before the Traditional Plan was passed. This is exactly what has happened.

Then, new elections were held for GC 2020 delegates. And we suffered real losses. Plus, we continued to hear that some of the African bishops were willing to adopt – and they were encouraging their delegates to support – a regional conference plan that would allow the UM Church in the United States to have its own Book of Discipline and its own sexual ethics.

So, even though we “won” in 2019, there was no guarantee we would win in 2020. And even if we did, the disobedience and the division would continue.

Looking at who was elected as jurisdictional delegates, it is unlikely we will elect a single bishop in 2020 who would be committed to the full enforcement of the Discipline. And our church structure and constitution have made it nearly impossible to remove a bishop who refuses to uphold the Discipline.

So, the question is: After 47 years, how much longer do we continue to fight the same battle with the same results – good legislation that doesn’t change the reality of the church? How many more years should we spend precious financial, emotional, and spiritual resources on this same issue?

The decision was made that what was most important was allowing churches and annual conferences to vote to step into a vibrant Wesleyan connection with all their properties and with no payments required to the UM Church or to their annual conferences. In other words, it was time to move forward in a positive way for the sake of mission and witness.

In all honesty, I fully understand those who are upset about our not keeping the name “United Methodist.” I realize the name is important to many, but others view our brand as having been so tarnished that keeping it is not a long-term benefit.

I understand people who say, “The progressives and centrists want to change the UM Church – they should leave, not those of us who want to be who we have always been.” I get it when people say, “GC 2019 was called to resolve this matter and it did. Traditionalists won. Those who want to change the Book of Discipline should leave, not us.” People who say those things are right. That’s the way it should be.

Comments

  1. Dennis Ball says

    We had a DS here in Florida that was forced to return his credentials by Bishop Carter and those on the cabinet. He was probably doing the same thing the joint meeting was all about. I feel he was treated very badly and hope there is some way to help him going forward. He too was trying to envision what a new expression of Methodist would look like.

  2. “For me, it was never about winning or taking over the UM Church. It has been to create a vibrant evangelical Wesleyan church that is fully focused on mission and ministry – a church that is not mired in a dysfunctional and divisive struggle over sexuality.” This says it for me. I have no problem with gays. My problem is the distractions the church faces in a time when we are less relevant. And now we are identified with a preoccupation with sexuality. At our church, we are trying to read, study and understand the Bible and to follow Jesus. That keeps us pretty busy.

Speak Your Mind

*

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