Approaching Separation: A Rejoinder to Adam Hamilton

by Steve | Feb 19, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Thomas Lambrecht –

I recently expounded the primary reasons I see for separation taking place in The United Methodist Church. That article drew the response of the Rev. Adam Hamilton, who felt that my characterization of centrist and progressive understandings was not an accurate description.

I respect Adam and the vibrant ministry he has led at Church of the Resurrection. I have used some of his Bible study materials and found them helpful. His views on Scripture have appeared to evolve over time, however, and some statements in his 2014 book Making Sense of the Bible seem to reflect an approach to Scripture at odds with that of most traditional Methodists. In this article, I would like to delve a bit deeper into our differences.

The Primacy of Scripture

I focus on the traditionalist/evangelical understanding of Scripture as the primary authority for what we are to believe and teach as Methodist Christians. In his response to my article, Hamilton writes, “nearly every United Methodist I know believes … that Scripture is primary in determining what we believe, and tradition, reason, and experience are secondary.” He elaborates, “I do not know anyone who sees tradition, experience, and reason as equal to Scripture.”

An interesting survey of United Methodist members in 2018 done by United Methodist Communications asked the question, “What is the most authoritative source of your personal theology?” Scripture was identified as the number one source by 6 percent of self-identified progressives/liberals, 25 percent of moderates/centrists, and 41 percent of conservatives/traditionalists. In fact, Scripture was identified as the number three source of theology, after reason and tradition, by moderates/centrists. And for progressives, Scripture was the least important source of theology.

Granted, the subjects of the study were laity, not clergy. But it appears that there is a distinct difference in approaching Scripture between progressives, centrists, and traditionalists in general. I have to believe that at least some of this difference is due to their pastors, who reflected that difference of approach in their teaching and preaching.

A glaring example of that approach is the clergy delegate at a General Conference years ago who stood up on the floor of conference and said, “We don’t go back to the Bible for the last word on anything.” There may be more people in the church than Hamilton realizes who hold a different view of Scripture, for whom Scripture is not primary in guiding our beliefs and actions.

Hamilton’s statement of his beliefs about the Bible’s inspiration demonstrates the difference between a centrist understanding of Scripture and that of a traditionalist. “Divine influence on the writers [of Scripture] was not qualitatively different from the way God inspires or influences [people] by the Spirit today,” Hamilton writes. “The difference between biblical texts and some contemporary writings also influenced by the Spirit is that the biblical authors lived closer to the events of which they wrote. … This view allows us to value the Bible, to hear God speaking through it, yet … to recognize that some things taught in scripture may not represent God’s character nor his will for us today, and perhaps never accurately captured God’s will” (Making Sense of the Bible, p. 143).

By contrast, most traditionalists believe the Bible is “God-breathed,” which is why we can receive it as “the true rule and guide for faith and practice” (Confession of Faith, Article IV). If all Scripture is not God-breathed, but only some parts of it, how can we view it as our true rule and guide? This morphs over very easily into making ourselves and our own ideas the true rule and guide, since it is we who decide which parts of Scripture to regard as authoritative. If something in Scripture does not make sense to us or does not fit our cultural perspective, we can too easily discard it as one of those “not inspired” parts, rather than allowing Scripture to correct our understanding or cultural myopia.

Scripture and Culture

In my article, it was my contention that many centrists and progressives believe, “when modern knowledge contradicts our understanding of Scripture, we must change our understanding of Scripture. … Human knowledge and understandings are more important than any long-standing perception of what Scripture teaches.” This is seen among those who have changed their understanding of Scripture’s teaching on marriage and sexuality due to recent cultural shifts.

In reply, Adam names a number of illustrations where he claims new knowledge and a changing cultural perspective have altered the church’s interpretation of Scripture.

Hamilton puts forward the narrative that many preachers in the 1800’s promoted slavery as consistent with, if not commanded by, Scripture. It was only as American society came to reject slavery that such an interpretation became untenable. Tragically, however, the legacy of slavery is still with us in Jim Crow attitudes and racist practices among some in our society even today. So, I do not think we can regard the “progress” of society as the source for a changed view of slavery.

Historically, the progression was just the opposite. The early Methodists in England and America were adamantly against slavery. The early Book of Discipline forbade Methodists from owning slaves. However, as the church began to grow after the Revolutionary War, southern Methodists complained that the church’s stance on slavery was hurting their ability to evangelize among the slave-holding population. Because of this cultural influence, the church’s stance on slavery was weakened, and it was eventually not enforced in southern states. It was when the northern annual conferences wanted to enforce the slavery prohibition against a particular slave-owning bishop that the southern Methodists rebelled and forced a schism in the church in 1844. They removed the prohibition against owning slaves from their Discipline and rationalized that slavery (and, in some cases after the Civil War, racism) was God’s will.

Accommodation to a slave-owning and racist culture caused the church’s interpretation to change in a negative way. That is what we see happening today with the changing definition of marriage and affirmation of same-sex relationships.

The same could be said about women in leadership in the church. There are prominent examples of female leaders in the Bible, as well as in early Methodism. Not least among those examples was John and Charles Wesley’s own mother Susannah, who was in many ways a co-pastor with her husband. There were women leaders in early American Methodism, as well. Yet after its explosive growth on the frontier, the church failed to adjust its practice in line with its understanding of Scripture, and instead allowed the desire for social respectability to limit the leadership of women in the church. It was actually a return to its former understanding of the priesthood of all believers that enabled first the Evangelicals and United Brethren, and finally the Methodists to recover the equal role of women in leadership.

Here again, our society is not a stellar example of women’s equality, what with the gender pay gap and the paucity of female business and political leaders. It is just as fair to say that churches like the UM Church are leading society in this regard, rather than being influenced by society in our understanding of Scripture.

Truth and Identity

Adam questions my claim that “most centrists and progressives reject the idea of absolute truth.” However, that is not what I claimed. The actual quote is, “Most centrists and progressives value self-determination as the deciding factor in one’s view of oneself.” I say this is connected to the idea that “truth is defined by each person for themselves.”

I am heartened to hear Hamilton’s assessment that “Most United Methodists … would agree that God is absolute Truth, that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth. And that Scripture bears witness to God’s truth.” I would say that Scripture does more than bear witness to God’s truth – it reveals and teaches God’s truth. Aside from that quibble, I can affirm Adam’s quote.

However, I have not found that to be universally true in my interaction with United Methodist clergy. Some of my colleagues do not believe the doctrines we are “required” to believe in our doctrinal standards, particularly the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith. Some believe that everyone will go to heaven. Some believe Jesus did not need to die on the cross for our salvation. Some believe Jesus did not physically rise from the dead. There is not the universal agreement on the outworking of Adam’s quote above that he might think there is.

There are no better illustrations of people operating by their own “truth” than the One Church Plan, the Connectional Conference Plan, and the Christmas Covenant. Each of these plans envisions part of the church living by one truth, that the practice of homosexuality is contrary to God’s will. Another part of the same church would be living by another truth, that God affirms the practice of homosexuality. It is the ultimate example of self-defining truth attempting to coexist in one church body. The result is confusion and the loss of identity as to what it means to be a United Methodist Christian.

A Social Justice Agenda

Of course, Hamilton is right that we should “be unapologetic in pursuit of [social] justice.” The question is a matter of priorities.

The survey I cited earlier asked the question, “Which should be the primary focus of The United Methodist Church?” 68 percent of self-identified progressives/liberals said, “Advocating for social justice to transform this world.” Meanwhile, 68 percent of moderates/centrists and 88 percent of evangelicals/traditionalists said “saving souls for Jesus Christ.” Here, the demarcation is between progressives on the one hand and centrists and traditionalists on the other.

Most traditionalists perceive the denomination’s agenda as driven by the progressive “social justice” priority. Most of the general boards and agencies and most of the Council of Bishop statements have to do with issues of social justice. Aside from some good communication materials produced by UM Communications, most of the programs and resources produced by the general church have to do with social justice, with very little related to evangelism or discipleship.

More troubling to many conservative United Methodists is that often the positions promoted by the general church are in line with partisan policies advocated by one political party in the U.S. Politically conservative positions are not considered, and thus politically conservative United Methodists feel marginalized and even chastised by their church.

I agree with Adam that, “we are to live the gospel, doing justice, practicing kindness, being the hands and feet of Christ in addressing the brokenness in our world.” But we cannot live the gospel if we never hear the gospel, if we are never called to respond to the gospel call of Christ, or if we are never ushered into the lifelong discipleship of Jesus. I know these things are present in Hamilton’s ministry at Church of the Resurrection, but they are often missing from many congregations across our church and from the leadership of the general church.

Breakdown of the Church’s Governance

In my original post, I state, “When significant portions of the church refuse to abide by that church’s governance processes, the church’s unity is no longer viable. Ordained clergy vow to abide by the church’s tenets, even when we disagree, but many now are renouncing that vow by their actions and words.” Adam acknowledges this point, but has no answer for it.

Many traditionalists are outraged that the consistent and continual will of the General Conference quadrennium after quadrennium can be summarily ignored and set aside by some bishops, clergy, and annual conference boards of ordained ministry who disagree with the outcome.

My colleague, the Rev. Forbes Matonga of Zimbabwe, put it well when he said, “Africans expected to see their American counterparts who are generally perceived as champions of constitutionalism and democracy to show them by example how democratic institutions and systems work. This was a massive let down. We began to be taught new lessons, that minority voices override majority vote. That when you don’t have it your way then you make the institution ungovernable. That you only follow the law when it is in sync with your cultural beliefs.”

For traditionalists, this last straw breaks the camel’s back. We could and did abide differences of opinion and belief for 40 years in the UM Church. But when widespread schism through disobedience to the order and discipline of the church began, it became apparent that we could not all go on together as part of one church body.

I appreciate the opportunity to exchange views with Adam Hamilton. It clarifies our understanding of each other. As we approach the possibility of separation within The United Methodist Church, clarity of communication and understanding will be important. It is our contention that after 50 years of conflict over the issues above, it is time to go our separate ways. Each person and each congregation will have an opportunity to decide what their beliefs and direction will be. As we prayerfully make these decisions, our goal is that we separate amicably, blessing one another, and allow each group to pursue its ministry in the way it feels led by God to do so. There is no benefit to continuing a conflict that only detracts from our church’s focus on mission and ministry.

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

The Case for a Virtual General Conference, Part 2

by Steve | Feb 15, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Thomas Lambrecht –

Global Time Zones.

In last week’s Perspective, I outlined why an in-person General Conference in 2021 is unlikely to occur as scheduled. The virulence of the Coronavirus pandemic and the slow rollout of vaccines to the global population make a return of international travel unlikely before mid-2022.

I also made the case that some type of General Conference must occur in order to deal with the budget, set the apportionment formula, and elect members to the Judicial Council and other bodies. I also suggested the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation needs to be enacted this year to avoid the splintering of the denomination and potentially expensive litigation by congregations and annual conferences.

Moving forward with separation is a prerequisite for making other decisions about the post-separation United Methodist Church, including the Christmas Covenant idea that regionalizes church governance. Individuals with a long-term commitment to The United Methodist Church need to make those decisions.

The most likely scenario for General Conference is that it will be held virtually with a limited agenda. This is how almost all annual conferences met in 2020, particularly in the U.S. and Europe. With a limited agenda, it could operate like the 2019 General Conference, as a committee of the whole without breaking up into legislative committees. Petitions not included in the limited agenda could be tabled or referred to the next in-person General Conference.

In this article, I examine how a virtual meeting could happen and some of the obstacles we would need to overcome.

A Distributed General Conference

The most realistic way a virtual General Conference could take place is through what missiologist David Scott called a distributed General Conference. This would involve delegates gathering in regional groups to participate together in a global virtual General Conference. Regional gatherings are the only practical way for delegates in Africa, the Philippines, and parts of Europe to have sufficient Internet access in order to participate. If these delegates need to gather regionally in order to participate, all the other delegates should do so as well, so everyone is treated equally and fairly.

Depending upon the travel situation with the pandemic and the availability of Internet access, delegates outside the U.S. could gather in episcopal areas (which sometimes include several annual conferences) or even in central conference groupings. In the U.S., delegates might gather by annual conference or several annual conferences could gather in one place.

Bishops could preside over these regional gatherings of delegates for the purpose of engaging the delegates in discussion, questions, and debate about particular business items. There would be shorter plenary sessions via the Internet that would bring all the regional groups of delegates together to take action on proposals.

What Time Is It?

Perhaps the biggest logistical obstacle is the different time zones. When it is 8 am in Chicago, it is 3 pm in West Africa and Western Europe, it is 5 pm in East Africa and Moscow, it is 6 am in California, and it is 10 pm in the Philippines. No matter what time is chosen for plenary meetings, someone will be inconvenienced.

The starting times proposed above might inconvenience the smallest number of delegates for a three- or four-hour plenary. Another alternative would be for the Western Jurisdiction delegates to meet in a mid-America city and create a “bubble” for meeting together there. The Filipino delegates could do the same by flying to the Middle East (where there are major Filipino populations) and meeting in a hotel there. (Travel, hotel, and meals for all delegates would be paid by the general church.) This minimal travel outside their home area would reduce the inconvenience for Western Jurisdiction and Filipino delegates. (As a side benefit, most delegates would not have to travel long distances and would not have to cope with drastic time changes in their internal clocks.)

Since the length of each day’s plenary would be so short, the regional gatherings of delegates could use the time either before or after the plenary to hear presentations, ask questions, and enter into discussion and debate. They would then be ready to take action during the plenary sessions. Such an approach would maximize the use of time, while keeping the plenary manageable in length and complexity.

Can You Hear Me Now?

The other major logistical obstacle is assuring adequate Internet access for the regional delegate gatherings, particularly in Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Philippines. With a limited agenda, and even with shortened plenary sessions, a four-day General Conference should be enough time to accomplish the essential business. With travel being more localized and much lower hotel and food costs, the General Conference budget could provide extra funds to set up Internet nodes where needed for the regional gatherings. In some cases, we could set up the nodes in annual conference office buildings, which would yield a lasting benefit for the annual conference to use beyond just the General Conference meeting. With a six-month lead time, surely we could overcome the technological barriers.

The Need for Integrity

The fact that a handful of voters at the 2019 General Conference were not authorized delegates points to the need to ensure the integrity of the participating delegates. Trained observers functioning on behalf of the Commission on the General Conference could attend each regional site and authenticate the credentials of delegates. The observers could also monitor the proceedings at each site to ensure that there is no manipulation or undue influence upon delegates, and that they have the freedom to discuss all the relevant issues.

How to Handle Amendments and Questions

For those of us who have participated in virtual annual conference sessions, the most difficult aspect is fairly allowing questions to be asked and answered, as well as considering amendments to any proposal. The time lag between the presider and any person asking for the floor made the process go very slowly.

One way to address this would be to use the time either before or after the plenary session each day to surface questions and potential amendments. Questions posed in the regional groups could be forwarded to the General Conference secretary. A time could be built into the agenda of the next plenary session to hear those questions and the answers. That way, all the delegates would have the benefit of hearing the questions raised and answered.

The rules could stipulate that proposed amendments would first have to be adopted by the regional gathering of delegates in order to be considered by the plenary. If adopted by the regional gathering, the amendment could be forwarded to the General Conference secretary and prepared to be introduced at the appropriate plenary. This process would cut down on multiple amendments and provide an orderly way to get them before the body. Speeches could be rotated among the regional gatherings, so that all parts of the church can fairly participate in the discussion. The fact that delegates could speak in their regional gathering might also cut down on the number of speeches needed during the plenary sessions.

Can You Understand Me?

Translators would need to be present at the regional gatherings that needed them. Delegates who need translation could request it, enabling the most efficient assignment of translators to the venues where needed. The use of local translators could reduce cost. To further maximize the use of time, presentations could be recorded ahead of time and translation could be dubbed in. The presentations could be shown at the regional gatherings before or after the plenary in the language that works for the delegates in that regional gathering. One set of translators could be available during each plenary session to translate on a separate channel for all the delegates who need that translation.

Is This Legal?

Concerns have been raised that the Book of Discipline does not provide for a virtual General Conference, or that the Judicial Council would rule the process adopted unconstitutional. However, the Discipline gives the General Conference the power to set its own rules. The 2019 General Conference operated by a different set of rules from a normal, in-person General Conference. Virtual annual conference meetings in 2020 operated by different sets of rules from the normal annual conference. Of course, virtual annual conferences are not provided for in the Discipline, either, but they were held in 2020 and may be held again in 2021.

If the rules are carefully drafted, using the experience of many annual conferences last year, they can be drawn within the boundaries established by the Discipline. The first order of business would be for the delegates to adopt those rules authorizing a virtual/distributed General Conference. Once that is done, there is little chance that the Judicial Council would rule such a process unconstitutional.

The bottom line is that a virtual/distributed General Conference is doable. There may be issues I have not considered that might rule it out, but it would be best to try it. We would all prefer to meet in person, but in the absence of that possibility, a virtual General Conference can take care of the necessary business to enable the denomination to move forward into the future.

Given the uncertainty and the long-lasting nature of the pandemic, the earliest we could reasonably hold an in-person General Conference might be fall of 2022. Even then, it might need to be postponed until spring of 2023. The church simply cannot remain stuck in the current situation for another year or two. With some cooperation and goodwill on the part of groups across the theological spectrum, we can adopt the plan of separation and congregations and annual conferences can freely choose the kind of church of which they want to be part. The fellowship of the committed in each church can then move forward with alignment in mission, vision, and belief. That is the only recipe that allows for a faithful and positive future for all United Methodists.

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

The Case for a Virtual General Conference, Part 1

by Steve | Feb 5, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Thomas Lambrecht –

There is much anxiety about whether and how a General Conference will meet in 2021. General Conference was originally scheduled for May 2020, but was postponed to August 29 through September 7, 2021, due to pandemic travel and meeting restrictions. Now the Commission on the General Conference is planning to make a decision on February 20 about whether this postponed General Conference can go ahead as scheduled.

I do not have any inside information about what the Commission is likely to decide. They could postpone General Conference again or hold it in a limited form or hold it virtually on the Internet. What follows is my speculation about what could happen and my opinion about what should happen.

We do know that the Commission formed a task force to look at how digital technology could be used to allow young people to attend the General Conference virtually, due to the fact that it is scheduled during the first weeks of school for many students. We assume that this task force has broadened its investigation to consider whether and how a General Conference might be held in a virtual form online. Their report was due to the Commission at the end of January, so it could be considered as part of the decision-making process on February 20. We do not know if that task force report will be publicly released. In the absence of concrete information, prognosticators (including me) are trying to read the tealeaves and assess what might happen and what is possible.

Will there be an in-person General Conference in 2021?

I believe the short answer to this question is “no.” While the number of virus cases is starting to decline in some places, the overall caseload is quite high, both in the U.S. and in Europe. Travel restrictions have been put in place requiring a negative Covid test and a quarantine in order to travel. Europeans traveling to the U.S. would have to quarantine seven days upon arrival, participate in two weeks of General Conference, and then quarantine for seven to ten days in their home country upon return. Thus, in-person participation in General Conference would require at least one month of time from European delegates, which is an unreasonable ask, particularly of lay people who have non-church jobs.

Information about the situation in Africa and the Philippines is spotty, but we hear that cases are increasing in some countries and causing great hardship. Their hospital system does not have the capacity that ours does, so even a fewer number of cases can overwhelm their hospital system. Travel there is just as problematic.

Vaccination in the U.S. is speeding up but is still a monumental task. The latest estimates are that those in high-risk groups will not be fully vaccinated until April or May. That accounts for one-third of the U.S. population. It could take another four months for enough people to be fully vaccinated to reach “herd immunity.” Experts are estimating that might occur in August or September, right when General Conference is scheduled to meet. So there is a chance that life in the U.S. might open up to fewer restrictions on travel and large gatherings in the fall, but it is risky to plan for that to happen by the time of the scheduled General Conference. We have learned that very little about this pandemic has happened as we expected it would.

Unfortunately, vaccination in Europe is about two months behind the pace of the U.S. The population of the European Union is about one-third larger than the U.S., so it could take them even longer to reach “herd immunity.” That will affect the lifting of travel restrictions. Right now, even family members are not allowed to travel to Norway, for instance. (I have a daughter and her family living there.)

The situation is even worse in Africa and (I presume) in the Philippines. Vaccination has not even started there, and the poorer countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo (home of the largest General Conference delegation) are last in line to receive the vaccine. They also do not have a health system that is capable of efficiently vaccinating the whole population. It is highly questionable whether General Conference delegates from Africa and the Philippines can get vaccinated before next fall.

In addition, there is the complication of people from Africa and the Philippines getting visas to come to the U.S. Embassies in many countries are not currently open or accepting visa applications. It is unknown when embassies will open up, but it probably depends on when the virus is under control in those countries, which could depend upon when a critical mass of the population is vaccinated. There is no certainty that embassies will open up to grant visas in time for delegates to get them in time to travel to the U.S. for the conference.

Given all these complications, I do not believe it is possible to hold an in-person General Conference this year. I could be wrong.

Is it necessary for some form of General Conference to meet this year?

I believe the answer is “yes.” We are obviously in uncharted territory, but there are certain matters that need to be addressed. A new budget for the quadrennium needs to be passed, which would allow new apportionments to be levied to the annual conferences and then to the local churches. Right now, apportionments are being paid based on the 2017-2020 budget, which is substantially higher than what is proposed for the 2021-2024 quadrennium. Passing the new budget would allow general church apportionments to drop by at least one-forth from what they are now, making it much more likely for local churches to be able to afford to pay them. This is especially true of the Episcopal Fund, which is projected to run out of money in the next two years unless budgetary changes are made.

Church officials have said it is essential for General Conference to meet, so that jurisdictions and central conferences can meet to decide about their bishops. There is a movement afoot to refrain from electing any new bishops in the U.S. during this quadrennium. Also on the table is the proposal to elect five new bishops in Africa. General Conference is the body to decide these kinds of issues. In addition, some currently serving bishops are required to retire under the provisions of the Discipline. Yet, they have continued to serve in this crisis period. When will they be allowed to retire? General Conference needs to provide guidance.

Other elected leaders of the church have also exceeded their terms in office. This is particularly true of the Judicial Council, of which several of its members desire to stop serving. It is essential to elect new leaders to maintain these important functions.

It might be tempting to postpone General Conference yet again to fall of 2022, by which time we hope international travel can return to normal. However, doing so would cripple the church by putting off essential decisions. It might also precipitate jurisdictions and other bodies of the church taking actions not allowed under church law simply to deal with this untenable situation.

Is action on the Protocol for Separation necessary in 2021?

Some are promoting the idea that a decision as important as separation should only be addressed at an in-person General Conference. However, adopting the Protocol in 2021 is in the UM Church’s best interest. Resolving our conflict is the only way back to a healthy denomination.

Major changes are proposed for The United Methodist Church going forward. The delegates making those changes should represent the people who have a long-term commitment to remaining in the UM Church. Some of these major changes include regionalizing church governance (allowing the U.S. to create its own standards and practices), changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, changing ordination standards to allow practicing LGBT persons to be ordained, and reconfiguring the general church boards and agencies in light of new financial realities.

It would be absurd to allow those wanting to align with a new traditional Methodist denomination to have a say in (or block) how the post-separation UM Church wants to operate. Better to move forward now with separation, so that the next in-person General Conference can make the major decisions proposed for the church’s direction.

Nuts and bolts decisions need to be made around separation before structural decisions are made. How many new bishops should the jurisdictions and central conferences elect? Should the church keep its current five jurisdiction as they are? How many general church boards and agencies can the church afford? How should they be structured? All these decisions depend upon how many people are left in the post-separation UM Church.

Moving to separate this year would enable annual conferences and local churches to decide where they want to be, giving the general church the information it needs to make these structural decisions at the next General Conference.

The theological conflict in the church continues, and the polarization is getting worse. Granted, the conflict has moved off the front page due to the drastic effects of the pandemic on church life. But the conflict is still there and will reemerge as conditions allow a return to more normalcy. Failing to resolve the conflict has done immeasurable harm to the church and will continue to harm us in the months and years ahead. No one wants to join a denomination in conflict.

Churches and annual conferences embroiled in conflict will not have the energy to ramp up the kind of outreach ministries necessary to recover from the loss of up to 40 percent of our members due to pandemic inactivity. Moving through separation now will resolve the conflict and enable each of the new denominations (including the post-separation UM Church) to move strongly forward in its preferred ministry direction without being held back by those who do not share the same vision.

Some will object that making a decision on alignment is too much for a local church to handle right now, with all the pressures of ministry during the pandemic. There are hundreds of congregations that have already resolved which direction they want to go following separation. All they need is the legal ability to take action on that decision. It is also important to remember that no decisions need to be made until after General Conference adopts the Protocol, which would happen potentially at the end of August.

By the fall, conditions should be returning to “normal” in the U.S., enabling churches to make the decisions they need to make. Annual conferences would not need to make their decision until they next meet in spring of 2022. And both local churches and annual conferences will have a several-year grace period during which they can make these important decisions.

All of this is contingent, however, on passage of the Protocol. Delaying the Protocol would delay the possibility of all these other decisions that depend upon it. Better to open the door to separation now, allowing churches and annual conferences to make their decisions on their own time, rather than hindering those who are ready now to decide by forcing them to wait.

Moving toward separation now is in the best interest of the church. It would resolve the conflict and clear the way for ministry after the pandemic to be about the positive direction each church wants to take, rather than continuing to refight the same old battles and damaging the church in the process.

Is it practical or possible for General Conference to meet “not in person” and deal with the Protocol? I plan to address that question in my post next week.

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

Primary Reasons for Separation

by Steve | Feb 1, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

Delegates pause for prayer at the 2019 special General Conference in St. Louis. File photo by Kathleen Barry, UM News.

By Thomas Lambrecht –

As we approach a possible separation in The United Methodist Church this year, one of the important questions to answer is, “Why should we separate?” There are many reasons for the conflict in our church that have led us to this point. Rob Renfroe and Walter Fenton explored many of these issues in their book, Are We Better Together?

The fact remains that there is a certain inertia about staying in a church that has been one’s environment for years, and for many, a lifetime. There is the cry of the conflict avoider, “Can’t we all just get along?” Can we not simply overlook our differences and keep doing what we have been doing?

Due to the pandemic, our churches and leaders have been focused on the critical adaptations to ministry that it required. Theological and practical differences have been set aside in this “emergency” time. It is therefore easy to think that we can just keep muddling along as we have been, ignoring our differences. However, once the “emergency” eases off and life and ministry return to a more normal rhythm, the differences resurface. Several annual conferences experienced that even during this season of virtual conference sessions. The underlying differences in our church are not going away, so the reasons for separation are not disappearing, either.

The differences between the “sides” in this intra-church conflict are so deep and so entrenched that staying together has become unthinkable for many. The increasing trickle of departing congregations and individual members testifies to the growing sense that we are a church that is coming apart. But why?

Many assume that the disagreement over the definition of marriage (does it include same-sex marriage) and ordination standards (do we ordain practicing LGBT persons into ministry) is the primary reason for separation. But these are just the presenting issue for a much deeper divide in the church. That divide is reflected in both substantive disagreements affecting core beliefs and practical abandonment of core church processes.

Source of Beliefs

Traditionalists and evangelicals within United Methodism have always made it clear that the disagreement is about Scripture and the source(s) of our denominational beliefs and teachings. The traditional side focuses on the primacy of Scripture to establish our church’s beliefs and teachings. The tradition of the church plays a role in setting the boundaries for interpreting Scripture. Such interpretation is informed by one’s personal experience of God and life, as well as the best historical, linguistic, and archaeological scholarship. We use reason to make those interpretations rationally coherent. But the source of our beliefs is the clear teaching of Scripture.

Many centrists and progressives, by contrast, continue to operate by what they were taught was the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” approach to Scripture. This approach sees the tradition of the church and particularly contemporary knowledge (their definition of experience) and the application of human reason to be equal with Scripture as sources of our beliefs.

It should be noted that this is not the approach that John Wesley had to Scripture. This was a modern-day construct developed by Dr. Albert C. Outler, a well-known Wesleyan scholar. “The term ‘quadrilateral’ does not occur in the Wesley corpus – and more than once, I have regretted having coined it for contemporary use, since it has been so widely misconstrued,” Outler confessed.

In Outler’s misconstrued interpretation of Wesley, when modern knowledge contradicts our understanding of Scripture, we must change our understanding of Scripture. This attitude can be seen in the announcement by some that they want to be “on the right side of history.” Human knowledge and understandings are more important than any long-standing perception of what Scripture teaches.

This willingness to abandon (by some) or reinterpret the teaching of Scripture to match current societal understandings manifests in the issues regarding marriage and same-sex ordination standards. But it also holds the potential for any number of other accommodations to cultural assumptions.

Traditionalists believe the old adage still holds true: “Whoever marries the spirit of this age is destined to be a widow in the next.” It is too easy to adapt our beliefs to whatever fits our society, deluding ourselves into thinking that we are being faithful to Christ. Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).

These two ways of arriving at our church’s beliefs and teachings are incompatible with each other and will always engender conflict. (Traditionalists are not immune from interpreting Scripture in ways that adapt to the prevailing views of a particular time and place. But having Scripture as ultimate authority offers a built-in mechanism to correct such accommodationism.)

Self-determination vs. God’s Revelation

A second foundational difference between the “sides” in this conflict relates to how we define ourselves and determine what is right. Most centrists and progressives value self-determination as the deciding factor in one’s view of oneself. This is connected to the postmodern idea that there is no such thing as absolute truth, but truth is defined by each person for themselves. My “truth” can be different from your “truth,” and we are obliged to respect and affirm whatever is another person’s “truth.”

This concept again plays out in our culture’s ongoing sexuality debate, where a person’s attractions, desires, or sense of self are supreme in defining who that person is. According to the centrist/progressive dogma, no one can question how another person defines themselves or their stated identity.

Furthermore, it is assumed that what “is” is what “ought” to be. The fact that a person defines themselves a certain way means that is God’s will for them. God created them the way they perceive themselves.

Traditionalists disagree. We would point to the pervasive effects of the Fall and the catastrophic impact of sin, both on human experience and human perception. “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). What “is” might be that way because of the sin and brokenness of this world, not because it is God’s will for it to be so. What “ought” to be is what God reveals to us in his Word, through the life of Jesus and the teachings of Scripture. We are not who we think we are, but who God says we are. He is the one who can “search the heart and examine the mind” (Jeremiah 17:10), who knows us better than we know ourselves. Most importantly, it is he who created each one of us and knows what we are meant to be.

Traditionalists believe there is absolute truth that is valid for all people in all times and all places. That truth is revealed to us by God. God is unchanging and his truth is unchanging. What he reveals about himself and about us today is going to be consistent with what he has revealed in the past. We do not get to change the truth when it becomes convenient to do so.

These different understandings of truth will inevitably lead to endless conflicts between what God has revealed as truth and whatever new “truths” people want to adopt for themselves.

Different Agendas

The centrist/progressive agenda is an unapologetic social-justice agenda. Promoting “inclusion” has become the highest value of official United Methodism. The left wing of the church appears to believe that the church’s main purpose is to “transform the world,” often through political action in line with liberal political causes, such as abortion rights, unlimited immigration, and advocating for the Palestinians against Israel.

For traditionalists, the transformation of the world is a consequence of making disciples of Jesus Christ, not the primary goal of the church. As people’s lives are transformed in discipleship, the world is changed. Traditionalists do care about social justice and often work concretely to alleviate poverty, fight racism and sexism, and provide ways for people to overcome adversity. In advocating for social justice, however, we think the church should not always espouse one set of political solutions to addressing society’s ills, but listen to all perspectives.

Furthermore, the strident advocacy of liberal political causes that at times violate our understanding of Scripture has alienated traditionalists, as has the equating of discipleship with promotion of the latest political idea. The church is not built on politics, but on Jesus Christ, and on our worship of and discipleship to him.

These competing agendas pull the church in opposite directions. We cannot walk together if we disagree on the destination.

Breakdown of the Church’s Governance

The differences in the church have become so extreme and strident that the church’s governance has broken down. Since 2011, the church’s rules about marriage and ordination standards have been routinely and increasingly ignored by those who disagree with them. Some bishops have refused to enforce requirements of the Discipline with which they disagree. Under our current Discipline, there is no way to hold such bishops accountable or ensure compliance.

The General Conference is the one body that speaks for all United Methodists and has the power to determine the church’s laws. Yet, following the 2019 General Conference, more than 20 U.S. annual conferences passed resolutions repudiating the actions of General Conference, and leading pastors and laity took out full-page ads in newspapers apologizing for those decisions. A number of annual conferences in 2019-20 openly violated the church’s standards by ordaining self-avowed practicing homosexuals as clergy. This disregard for the church’s rules has spread to other aspects of the church’s life, including the unlawful suspension and removal of clergy (Here) and (Here) without due process and the closing of viable congregations possibly in order to seize their assets.

When significant portions of the church refuse to abide by that church’s governance processes, the church’s unity is no longer viable. Ordained clergy vow to abide by the church’s tenets, even when we disagree, but many now are renouncing that vow by their actions and words. In a troubled marriage, sometimes divorce recognizes the fact that the marriage has already ended. In our church, formal separation would simply recognize the fact that our church has already irrevocably divided.

Fight or Separate?

Some would urge traditionalists to continue to fight for what we believe is right within The United Methodist Church. We must ask, however, is this the best use of the time, energy, and resources God has given us? While we continue the fight, the church declines faster and faster. Separation would allow us to refocus on evangelism, making disciples of Jesus Christ, and strengthening the church’s life and witness.

No, The United Methodist Church is already irretrievably broken. Regrettably, the differences in how we decide what our beliefs are, how we perceive the truth, what our agenda for the church is, and our willingness to abide by the normal processes of the church are so deep that they cannot be bridged or papered over. The least harmful way forward is to recognize those differences and provide a fair and equitable avenue for different parts of the church to go their separate ways, pursuing what they believe to be God’s direction. It will not be easy or painless, but it will end the harm that is currently being inflicted on so many in the church due to this struggle. Relieved of the burden of conflict, perhaps all parts of the church can once again thrive and grow.

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