Broad Traditionalist Group Casts Vision for Future Denomination

by Steve | Mar 16, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Thomas Lambrecht –

A group of nearly 30 diverse United Methodist bishops, clergy, and laity -men and women, African-American, Asian, Caribbean, Caucasian, and Hispanic persons from every U.S. jurisdiction, and three central conferences -recently concluded a three-day gathering in Atlanta, Georgia, during which they explored ways to reach consensus about the shape of a new traditional denomination.

The meeting was convened by the Rev. Keith Boyette (president of the Wesleyan Covenant Association – WCA), Bishop Scott Jones (Texas Annual Conference), and Mrs. Patricia Miller (executive director of The Confessing Movement) in response to the “Protocol of Reconciliation & Grace Through Separation,” which proposes a separation plan for traditional-minded United Methodist congregations to separate from The United Methodist Church and form a new denomination. The 2020 General Conference will vote on the Protocol during its meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota, May 5-15.

Following the Atlanta gathering, 28 of the attending leaders signed a vision document for a proposed new Wesleyan Methodist movement and released the following statement:

“Although no one yet knows what The United Methodist Church will look like following 2020 General Conference,

it is clear that our denomination is no longer unified in its

beliefs. Therefore, some sort of separation is probable. As such,

we felt it necessary to begin conversations about what the new

traditional expression of Methodism might look like.

“This gathering in Atlanta represents one conversation among many currently going on in the life of The United Methodist Church.

A statement was drafted, and ideas were shared about how to  proceed if the Protocol is adopted.”

The drafted statement and vision document for a new traditional Wesleyan movement, along with a full list of signatories, is available at http://NewWesleyanDenomination.com/.

The group that gathered in Atlanta was broadly representative, focusing on three groups: renewal and reform group leaders, traditionalists who are not part of a renewal group, and bishops – including three bishops from central conferences. Many people assume that a new traditionalist Methodist denomination would be “the WCA Church.” However, this broader group gathered to demonstrate that is not the case. The WCA is one stream that will feed into a new denomination. Other streams, including whole annual conferences, will also feed into the new church. Only the inaugural General Conference of a new denomination, including representation from all traditionalists wanting to join it, will finally determine the structure and polity of the new church.

“What a beautiful thing,” said the Rev. Dr. Jan Davis, Senior Pastor at Central UM Church in Fayetteville, Arkansas, “to be in a room with broad diversity, people from all over the world, from many different perspectives, yet we were solidly of one mind in our mission for a new denomination – proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord! It brought me to tears.”

Davis, a clergywoman who leads one of the fastest growing local UM churches in the U.S., and was one of the participants who has never aligned with any of the renewal and reform groups, added, “I want to be part of a clergy covenant that shares my core beliefs – a high Christology, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the authority of Scripture. I want to be in a system that holds one another accountable for preaching and teaching basic Christian doctrine and beliefs.”

The vision adopted by the group inspires a commitment to a new Wesleyan way of doing church:

God calls us to embrace a new day as the people called Methodists. Established in the faith entrusted to us by our forbearers, we discern the Holy Spirit reviving the Methodist movement in a new work. We are committed to God’s vision given to our predecessors “to reform the continent[s] and spread scriptural holiness over the lands.”

If the 2020 General Conference adopts the Protocol legislation, with one voice and a spirit of humility we intend to form a global Wesleyan movement committed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures, and the work of the Holy Spirit in conveying God’s truth, grace, renewal, and sanctification to all people who repent and believe.

We are committed to being a people who covenant together around time honored core doctrines, ethics, and mission. We aspire to be a covenant community, watching over each other in love. We long to reclaim the Wesleyan genius of mutual accountability throughout our connection.

We will be a church that is truly global in nature, fully welcomes people of various ethnicities and women into every level of ordination and leadership, and is characterized by joy. We will be committed to the Christian faith as expressed for 2,000 years, the four-fold movement of grace, compassion, and a passionate desire for people to experience a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We will inspire growth in discipleship, holiness, and a commitment to service, mercy, and seeking God’s justice.

“We started working through some difficult and challenging issues that we all must address together,” said the Rev. Dr. Carolyn Moore, Lead Pastor at Mosaic Church in Evans, Georgia, and Vice-Chairwoman of the WCA Council. “And what encouraged me the most was our willingness to be open to the Holy Spirit. At one point, we just stopped, set the agenda aside, and prayed because someone shared the prompting of the Holy Spirit in our midst. That prompting, and the time of prayer that followed, propelled us forward.”

The proposed vision centers on “engaging people in lifelong, intentional formation as disciples” through spiritual disciplines and “communion and accountability with one another in the Body of Christ.” A church “deeply committed to prayer and dependence upon the Holy Spirit” would “reach out to the world at its points of deepest need through ministries of mercy and justice.”

The group is committed to “Episcopal appointment of clergy that practices true open itinerancy with enhanced models of consultation with congregations and clergy, ensuring equity in pastoral appointments for women and persons of varying ethnicities.” There was much discussion about the need to overcome historic patterns of racism and sexism in the church, and particularly in the appointment process.

The new church would be “passionate about planting new churches, revitalizing existing churches, and apostolic ministry” – going into uncharted territory with the Gospel and replanting a traditionalist Methodist church in parts of the U.S. and the world that currently lack it.

The group pictured a denomination that is a “nimble and less bureaucratic institution, continuously led by the Holy Spirit,” which is “more movement than institution.” At the same time, the church would “embody our global nature in every aspect of doctrine, relationships, structure, and church culture.” It would aspire to be a truly global church.

The new church would have “bishops elected for one 12-year term, rather than lifetime service” and “a global Council of Bishops consisting only of active bishops.” Bishops would be “elected, assigned, and accountable regionally, with clearly established means of global accountability.”

Annual conferences would work at “recruiting, developing, credentialing, and deploying lay and clergy leaders to equip the Church.” The main focus of annual conferences would be “resourcing local churches for effective mission.” They would “ensure that those who are currently Licensed Local Pastors are equal partners in ministry, with a pathway to ordination as elders and with voice and vote on all clergy matters within their order.”

These and other specifics may be found by reading the entire statement. It concludes:

Our covenant with God and each other will be renewed as we claim, teach, and live into a life-affirming confession of faith rooted in Scripture and our doctrinal standards. We worship God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We are sent to be disciples and to make disciples of Jesus Christ. And we are called to be the Body of Christ in the world, bearing witness to the transforming power of the Good News as we humbly, but boldly, strive to serve others in Christ’s name.

By the power of the Holy Spirit, this new traditional Methodist denomination is dedicated to fulfilling this mission. May we be a people of integrity, living out what we believe as the Church. May God grant us the grace and wisdom to grow into this Church so conceived!

I encourage you to read the entire statement. It marks a momentous step on the journey to a new Methodist denomination that is faithful to what Methodism has always stood for.

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

Is Structural Unity Mandatory for the Church?

by Steve | Mar 9, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Thomas Lambrecht –

In a recent blog, Bishop Gary Mueller makes the case for yet another plan to resolve the conflict in The United Methodist Church. His “2 X 4 Plan” calls for two regional conferences in each part of the globe — Africa, Europe, the Philippines, and the United States — one traditional and one centrist/progressive in each area. He sees this as a way to accommodate “the 30- 40% of The United Methodist Church in the United States that is more traditional concerning human sexuality, but wishes to stay in The United Methodist Church.”

In the course of his argument, Bishop Mueller makes the statement, “The mandatory nature of this unity is expressed in John 17:20-24, when Jesus prays that his followers may be one as he and God are one.” But what does Jesus mean by this prayer for unity, and is belonging to a certain type of church structure required by Jesus’ prayer? Is any type of structural separation therefore contrary to God’s will?

If this is the understanding of Jesus’ desire for unity among believers, then we must frankly admit that every Christian alive today is living in sin, contrary to God’s will. The Christian Church around the world is structurally divided into Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox main branches. Both the Catholic and Orthodox branches have a few divisions in their branches. And of course, Protestants are divided up into thousands of denominations worldwide.

Methodism separated from Anglicanism in the late 1700’s. Anglicanism separated from Catholicism in the 1500’s. Methodism itself has experienced many separations throughout its history, notwithstanding the mergers of 1939 and 1968. The mergers have not reunited all the original branches of Methodism.

If structural unity is required of us as Christians, we should all rejoin the Roman Catholic Church and advocate for a reunion with the Orthodox Churches. To do anything less would be a violation of Jesus’ desire for us.

Biblical Separation

The Bible gives examples of separation between individuals and groups for a variety of reasons. One reason for separation is a practical one. Genesis 13 records the decision of Abram and Lot to separate from each other because the land could not support both of their flocks, and their shepherds were continually getting into fights. To avoid conflict, they separated.

Amos 3:3 asks, “Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?” Where there is no agreement on the destination (or perhaps no agreement on the traveling companion), it is impractical to go together.

Acts 15:36-41 records an instance of “sharp disagreement” between Paul and Barnabas due to differences in mission philosophy (or perhaps again disagreement over a particular traveling companion). They chose to pursue different directions.

United Methodism is experiencing conflict at the level that separation seems the only way to end the fighting. There is deep disagreement over the direction of the church, necessitating different parts of the church traveling in different directions. There is a deep difference in the mission philosophy of traditionalists and progressives, making them incompatible mission partners.

Is the Bible the divinely inspired word of God or a fallible record of human experiences with God? Is Jesus the eternal divine/human Son of God, or a human being with an extraordinary closeness to God’s Spirit? Was Jesus’ death on the cross necessary for the forgiveness and redemption of all humanity, or was it a case of divine “child abuse.” Did Jesus physically rise from the dead or did the memory of his life and teachings merely inspire his disciples to think he was “spiritually alive?” Did God “create us male and female for each other,” as it says in our marriage ritual, or did God create an infinite number of gender identities and sexual orientations that are all good? Is a sexual relationship outside of the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman sinful, or are such relationships between consenting adults to be welcomed and blessed? Are all people ultimately going to be “saved,” or must one “repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38), “receiving him” and “believing in his name” (John 1:12) in order to experience salvation?

I could go on listing examples of deep theological disagreement within our church. Ironically, our United Methodist doctrinal standards cover all these issues, yet many clergy and even some bishops fail to conform their teaching within the doctrinal boundaries our church has established. How can we continue as one church teaching many different and conflicting ideas, with the resulting theological confusion? We are already not united.

Is the “2 X 4 Plan” Realistic?

Bishop Mueller and others are well-intentioned in proposing this plan. There is pain and grief in considering separation from The United Methodist Church, including the loss of some personal history and some meaningful relationships. Change is hard, and the future uncertain. All who wish will have a voice in determining the future new traditional Methodist denomination, but none of us can say with certainty what it will look like. Only an inaugural General Conference will have the authority to stipulate how that new denomination will function. (Contrary to popular belief, it will not be a “WCA church.”) Some long to find a “middle way” between outright separation and forced unity (although the accuracy of Bishop Mueller’s estimate of “30 to 40 percent” of U.S. United Methodists is most certainly debatable).

One must ask, however, if the solution proposed in the “2 X 4 Plan” is any more faithful to Scripture than either of the alternatives? Under the “2 X 4 Plan,” each regional conference (traditional or progressive) will have its own Book of Discipline, so the church will be operating globally with eight different Disciplines. How is this structural unity?

Under the plan, the General Conference is supposed to create a “Global Book of Discipline” that focuses on doctrine, mission, and shared heritage. As we have seen above, however, our global church does not have doctrinal agreement and cannot enforce its own doctrinal standards.

The plan calls for nearly all the general agencies to become independent, so they would not remain part of the Global United Methodist Church. About all the global church would share is a small Global Book of Discipline, a General Conference, one agency (GCFA), and financial support for UMCOR, Africa University, and the Black College Fund. Oh, and the whole church would share the name “United Methodist” and the cross and flame logo. In reality, we would be “United Methodist” in name only.

One gets the impression that, in the view of the plan’s proponents, sharing the name and some small bit of structure allows us to be faithful to Jesus’ desire for “mandatory unity” in a way that the Protocol for Separation would not. If that is all that “unity” means, it is a very shallow thing indeed.

Practically speaking, it would be miraculous if the “2 X 4 Plan” were to pass and be implemented. The legislation to implement the plan has not been submitted to General Conference and has not been translated. This legislation would be every bit as complicated as the Protocol legislation, yet the delegates would undoubtedly not be able to review it in advance of Minneapolis.

Furthermore, the plan would require a two-thirds vote of the General Conference delegates and a two-thirds vote of all the annual conference members around the world. Besides the fact that this ratification would add two years to the process of resolving our church’s conflict, the consensus around the church now seems to favor separation, rather than another attempt to find unity where there is none. It would take a massive shift in the opinion of the church to move toward a supermajority support for this plan. If it passed General Conference but failed to achieve ratification in the annual conferences, we would continue to be locked in conflict for another four years — an untenable situation.

Real Unity

For centuries, the church has interpreted Jesus’ prayer for unity as desiring spiritual unity among believers, not structural unity of the church. Structural unity is based on deep agreement on the essentials of doctrine, the basic outline of how the church is governed, and the direction and nature of the church’s mission. Spiritual unity allows believers of different denominations to consider each other to be part of the Body of Christ and to work together cooperatively in areas of missional agreement. United Methodists do so all the time with Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Wesleyan Methodists of many different stripes.

Let us pursue true unity across the broad Body of Christ and not fall for the false ideal of “mandatory unity” based on some shared structure. Such structural unity across the whole Body of Christ is unattainable in today’s world. Chasing it would prevent us from realistically resolving the crisis in our church and would hinder our ability to engage in effectively loving God and our worldwide neighbors.

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

Guest Commentary: Why Progressives and Traditionalists should Support the Protocol

by Steve | Mar 2, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

Dr. Jack Jackson

Jack Jackson is E. Stanley Jones Associate Professor of Evangelism, Mission, and Global Methodism at Claremont School of Theology in California. Some of the opinions expressed in this analysis will be provocative to both progressive and traditionalist readers. Nevertheless, we believe that Dr. Jackson’s viewpoints should be read and discussed across the United Methodist connection.

As our May 2020 General Conference approaches, delegates have been offered a gift with the Protocol. It lays out a path of separation that traditionalists and progressives alike should support.

Advocates on both sides, as well as the few true centrists who remain, can certainly find fault in the Protocol, but there should be no mistake: this is the best solution for the United Methodist Church and the only one which, as Bishop John K. Yambasu (Sierra Leone), Janet Lawrence (Reconciling Ministries Network), and Patricia Miller (Confessing Movement) each argues, avoids denominational catastrophe.

Progressives should embrace the protocol for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, it delivers on progressive’s core demand, namely that the UM Church will ordain and marry LGBTQI+ persons. As the Rev. David Meredith argues, the protocol provides the provisions that progressives so desperately want to stop.

Some progressives complain that inclusion both in the U.S. and around the world will only be optional. Churches in the U.S. “may” opt to host gay weddings and clergy “may” choose to officiate, and annual conferences “may” ordain non heterosexual persons. Meanwhile central conferences around the rest of the world can decide how they will respond to gay persons.

But progressives should rest assured that the Protocol will profoundly shift the denomination’s theological emphasis, at least in the United States, towards a progressive vision.

For instance, while only a small percentage of traditionalists may leave at first (some traditional clergy and laity in their 50’s and older will choose to remain in the UM Church for relational and pragmatic reasons), traditionalist clergy and laity younger than 50 will begin to leave immediately. Even more important to progressives, current and future traditionalist seminarians and young people will leave in mass as they recognize that their vision of human sexuality is increasingly rejected at UM seminaries, Annual Conference Boards of Ordained Ministries, and post separation UMC (PSUMC) congregations.

The result of this departure of laity and clergy in the U.S. means that by the 2028 General Conference, if not 2024, the church will be thoroughly progressive and change its language on inclusion from “may” to “shall.” Churches will be forced to welcome gay weddings and clergy will be required to officiate gay weddings.

The protocol will result in a thoroughly progressive PSUMC. The church will not be a big tent and there will be no room for traditionalists, and little room for centrists by 2028.

A second reason progressives should affirm the protocol is that it will keep most, if not all separately incorporated UM Church institutions within the PSUMC. Already many UM colleges, hospitals, children’s homes, Wesley Foundations, seminaries, etc. are in active conversations regarding leaving the UM Church because of its stance on human sexuality. The vast majority of traditionalists are willing to forgo these institutions. But if progressives continue to fight, many of these institutions will discontinue their connection with the UM Church. On the other hand, if the protocol passes, these institutions will almost certainly remain in the PSUMC. Keeping these institutions connected to the PSUMC, institutions with billions of dollar in assets, is well worth the relatively small payment of $25 million the denomination will give to a new traditionalist movement.

Unfortunately, some have argued that because some progressive voices were not at the table the process was flawed and the recommendations must be rejected.

This is reckless thinking. The church has tried for five decades via large, representative groups to come to an agreement the larger church would embrace. Each effort has ended in unmitigated disaster for progressives. The only option was a small gathering similar to the one which created the Protocol.

Progressives will not get a better deal than the one outlined in the Protocol. Progressives can rejoice that they have won the conversation on human sexuality in the United States, but they have not prevailed in the global UM Church. In light of the precipitous decline in UM Church membership in progressive jurisdictions, progressives do not have time to wait in hope that the General Conference will one day give them everything they want. Progressives should take the deal as outlined in the protocol and move forward knowing the PSUMC will be a thoroughly progressive Wesleyan movement within the decade.

Traditionalists should embrace the protocol for different reasons.

First, the protocol satisfies traditionalists’ core desire, namely the freedom to connect as a movement with other Methodist communities of like mind on human sexuality. The new Methodist denomination will be one that includes members of the WCA but will also reflect the desires of a broader group of traditionalists who, for various reasons, are not members of the WCA. The denomination will have clear expectations for clergy, laity, and ecclesial leaders when it comes to human sexuality. No right minded progressive or centrist will become part of the new denomination and structures will be put in place to ensure missional cohesion on human sexuality. Missionally minded young traditionalist clergy, seminarians, future seminarians, and laity will embrace this new movement in droves over time.

Second, the Protocol allows traditionalist congregations to leave without an “exit fee” of one or two years of apportionments that previous plans have mandated. This is a major concession by progressives and would result in traditionalist congregations saving tens of millions of dollars, thereby removing a tremendous barrier for departing congregations.

Some traditionalists argue that the plan simply isn’t fair because it awards the institutional mechanisms and assets to the numerically smaller group of the global UM Church, a group that has lost every major vote at General Conference on human sexuality. This is a legitimate point, but traditionalists must ask what alternative they have and if they are really willing to keep up the struggle.

The reality is that while traditionalists have prevailed in the global conversation on human sexuality, they have lost it in the United States and have little hope of regaining the majority in the U.S. for a generation if not longer.

Traditionalists can keep on fighting but the resulting missional deadlock, disobedience to the Discipline, and church decline that has marked the UM Church for decades will continue. Episcopal leadership will become even more progressive since progressives are now the majority in each of the jurisdictions. As traditionalist bishops retire, traditionalist clergy will soon have no episcopal support. Even if traditionalists were to prevail in the conversation 25 or 50 years from now, the church they will inherit will have less functional institutional mechanisms and fewer assets. And most importantly, since many young traditionalist laity and clergy are already leaving the denomination, the UM Church in 25 or 50 years would almost certainly have fewer members.

Furthermore, the UM Church structure as currently designed has led to this untenable stalemate. There simply is no mechanism whereby traditionalists can “fix” a structure that permits disobedient bishops, Boards of Ordained Ministry, and clergy. The structure will allow ecclesial disobedience for decades to come and there is nothing traditionalists can do about it.

There is little evidence that traditionalists have the resources, energy, and commitment from future young clergy and laity to keep up the struggle for another generation. Traditionalists today would be wise to embrace the Protocol, despite its deficiencies, and work to create a new vision of Methodism in a new denomination.

All this said, a word of warning to progressive clergy and churches in traditionalist conferences and vice versa: you have your work cut out for you. The protocol enshrines a process that defaults churches and clergy into the majority view of an Annual Conference. Churches and clergy who differ from their Annual Conferences will need help and encouragement to navigate their way into a likeminded Annual Conference or new traditionalist denomination. The General Conference should make it as easy as possible for both progressive and traditionalist congregations to join a likeminded community.

There is no resolution that gives progressives, centrists, and traditionalists everything they want or think they deserve. The Protocol offers a mediated and political truce in the best sense of the terms, as the Reconciling Ministries Network, WCA, UMNext, Good News, UM Queer Clergy Caucus, and Confessing Movement among others acknowledge. Critically it offers both sides what they must have in order to form vital Christian communities in line with their visions of human sexuality. It is time for both sides to embrace a foundational principle of Protestantism in general and Methodism in particular, namely that missional faithfulness always triumphs over ecclesial purity and unity. It is time for both sides to embrace the protocol as a final act of grace towards each other as the only way forward.

Jack Jackson is E. Stanley Jones Associate Professor of Evangelism, Mission, and Global Methodism at Claremont School of Theology in California.