United Methodism in Africa is not for sale to Western Cultural Christianity

by Steve | May 31, 2024 | In the News, Perspective / News

United Methodism in Africa is not for sale to Western Cultural Christianity

By Dr. Jerry Kulah

A month ago, the worldwide United Methodist Church (UMC) concluded its postponed 2020 General Conference, held in Charlotte, North Carolina, from 23 April to 3 May 2024. The General Conference is the quadrennial gathering of delegates representing annual conferences of the UMC from around the globe. They meet to discuss the mission and ministry of the church and vote on critical issues that would influence the spiritual health and numerical growth of the church, whether negatively or positively. From every indication, the predominantly liberal and progressive delegates and leadership of the UMC at the just ended General Conference did everything they could to reverse United Methodism’s teaching on marriage and human sexuality of the past 52 years. The worldwide UMC is now a liberal denomination that has officially approved same-gender marriage, the ordination of LGBTQIA+ persons as pastors, and the election and consecration of gays and lesbians as bishops within the general church.

From the perspective of the majority of African delegates who attended the conference, the predominantly liberal and progressive leadership of the church had conducted the postponed 2020 General Conference among themselves prior to its official convening on 23 April. Upon our arrival at the seat of the General Conference at the Charlotte Convention Center, the Commission on the General Conference and its staff filled the entire city of Charlotte with banners bearing “#Be UMC.” The packets for keys to delegates’ hotel rooms bore the hash tag, “#Be UMC,” the souvenir bags given to every delegate to the General Conference also carried the same campaign label – something unprecedented at any prior General Conference.

Unlike any previous General Conference, the Commission on the General Conference and its staff insisted that they would make the travel arrangements for all delegates attending the General Conference. Worse yet, they insisted that all Central Conference delegates arrive on 18 April and begin three days of Pre-General Conference orientation the following day. No earlier arrivals were allowed. As difficult, frustrating, and punishing as the process was for African delegates who had to travel for about 26-30 hours from their various destinations into Charlotte, the Commission on the General Conference and its staff refused to respond to our appeal for a reconsideration of their decisions.

Regrettably, however, upon our arrival, they had no pre-General Conference training organized for Central Conference delegates. Instead, they took us on a campaign trail of their liberal and progressive agenda for the General Conference. We felt like the Commission on the General Conference and its staff were treating us as if we were their stooges that must submit to the agenda they had prepared in advance for the General Conference. What they presented to Central Conference delegates as pre-General Conference orientation included the Regionalization Plan as structured by the Connectional Table of the UMC for consideration by the General Conference. Following that, they presented the new pension plan of the UMC, structured by Wespath, the financial institution responsible for UMC Clergy Pension. Next, they presented the new Social Principles, published in 2020 by the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) that legalizes same-gender marriage, the ordination of LGBTQIA+ persons, and the election and consecration of gays and lesbians as bishops of the Church. They concluded the so-called pre-General Conference orientation with a repeat of a presentation on the new quadrennial budget that the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA) had previously presented to Central Conference delegates through a webinar session a couple of weeks prior.  Following each presentation, the Commission and its staff provided pencils and sheets of paper to the Central Conference delegates to discuss the presentation and ask questions.

Realizing that the entire plan by the Commission on the General Conference and its staff to conduct a pre-General Conference for Central Conference delegates was a scheme to sell their agenda for the General Conference and receive feedback, some of us revolted against their actions. We reminded them of our expectations of activities for pre-General Conference orientation, consistent with previous General Conferences, including principles and practices of the “Robert’s Rules” that are used to govern plenary sessions of the General Conference. They refused to listen to us. We further reminded them that they were in error by presenting to us legislations and petitions for our feedback that were properly before the 2020 postponed General Conference for delegates to discuss, debate, and vote upon in legislative sessions during the first week of General Conference, and hence, that their action was premature, unfair, and unacceptable. Despite our revolt, the Commission and its staff remained adamant about fulfilling their manipulative plans without any redress to our expressed concerns. Consequently, we received no orientation. They succeeded in wasting our precious time that would have been well spent in overcoming jetlag.

At the official commencement of the General Conference on 23 April, the Commission on the General Conference and its staff, along with the various liberal, progressive, and centrist caucuses of the UMC, confirmed our suspicions about their deciding beforehand the outcomes of the General Conference. During the actual conference, they planned and tele-guarded the agenda of the General Conference to achieve what appeared to be their predetermined goal of liberalizing the church. With 70-100 official African delegates’ not seated in Charlotte, and being cognizant of the fact that almost all American UMC conservative members and delegates had already left the denomination, we already knew that the liberal and progressive delegates would outnumber those of us who are conservatives.

Of the about 750 out of 862 official delegates that made it to the General Conference, the liberal, progressive and centrist delegates consisted of about 600. This number included some African delegates who were under duress by their progressively leaning bishops to support the regionalization plan of the liberals as well as the Social Principles that would change the language of the Book of Discipline in favor of their LBGTQIA+ agenda for the church. Additionally, some new African delegates did not have a good understanding of the process. Expressions such as “amendment,” “amendment to the amendment of the main motion,” “friendly amendment,” “point of inquiry” etc., were very strange to them.  Consequently, some became confused and could not participate in the plenary sessions adequately, including their ability to vote. Had the Commission on the General Conference taken the time to provide the needed orientation to Central Conference delegates instead of allotting it to their “#Be UMC” campaign, they would have helped some of the African delegates who were appearing at the General Conference for the first time.

Despite all their manipulations, our primary objective was to ensure that the General Conference heard the conservative and biblically committed voice of the UMC in Africa, but they did everything to silence us. Unlike previous General Conferences, the Commission on the General Conference and its staff, with the acquiescence of the presiding bishops, denied us any moment of privilege to express ourselves on the floor of the General Conference. They formulated a new rule that demanded delegates to write out any expressions they wanted to make and pass them on to a special committee. This committee would review and submit it to the General Conference Secretary so that he would give to the presiding bishop what they felt the writer wanted to say to the General Conference. Occasionally, some presiding bishops would interrupt and attempt to intimidate us when we presented our opinions on some critical matters on the floor of the General Conference. What a General Conference this was!

To crown the assault we suffered, the outgoing President of the Council of Bishops who preached the opening worship service told us ­– traditionalists – that we were not welcome if we did not join their liberal train that was now directing the affairs of the worldwide denomination. Shocking!

Conclusion

Inevitably, members of the liberal and progressive wing of the UMC have gotten what they had craved over the past 52 years, however, not without perilous consequences. That is, to turn the worldwide UMC into a denomination that rejects biblical orthodoxy and that subjugates the teachings of the infallible Word of God to Western Cultural Christianity. They achieved their goal by passing the regionalization plan, removing the biblical restrictive rules from the Book of Discipline, including the statement that “homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings,” and revising the Social Principles.

They are now promoting ratification of their regionalization plan as a solution for the clear disparities between United Methodism in Africa and the United Methodism now practiced in the United States and Europe. Each region, they argue, can have its own rules. But the proposed regionalization makes Africa complicit in the progressive direction of the entire denomination. Bishops are general superintendents of the whole church. Regionalization requires Africa to accept the two openly LGBTQ bishops that have already been elected in the USA and the others that are sure to follow.

The Revised Social Principles, the new statements that no longer describe marriage as the union of a man and woman exclusively, are statements on behalf of the entire UMC. The United Methodist Social Principles cannot be regionalized. A sin is a sin, regardless of geography.

As a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal by Professor Carl Trueman of Grove City College states, “For all the pious language, the UMC’s decision doesn’t represent a commitment to Christian orthodoxy. It is an affirmation of current middle-class sensibilities. The church shies away from the logic of its own position — a logic that would lead to the legitimation of any sexual act or arrangement as long as it concerns consenting adults. In short, it has chosen to embrace the liberal Protestant specialty: baptizing the dominant values it sees as informing the culture, no more, no less.”

This Western Cultural Christianity is selective of what it chooses to believe and what it chooses not to believe, as the Word of God. It redefines marriage from the biblical picture of a covenant relationship between a man and a woman to a union between any two consenting adults, to promote its LBGTQIA+ agenda, same-gender marriage, and the ordination and consecration of gays and lesbians.

Admittedly, this is not the kind of Christianity that the early missionaries birthed in Africa and that Africans embraced. The majority of the African church does not ascribe to this kind of Christianity. While most parts of the Euro-Western UMC have become liberal and progressive, we pledge to remaining biblically committed, Christ-centered, and Holy Spirit-empowered toward the evangelization of the nations, the revitalization of the church, and the transformation of society.

Therefore, we emphatically declare to all that the church in Africa in general and the UMC in Africa in particular, is not for sale to the Euro-Western liberal and progressive agenda. We cannot and will not sell the church in Africa to any brand of Western Christianity that rejects the gospel of Jesus Christ for another gospel that is no gospel at all (Galatians 1:6-9).

We will not deny Christ and his liberating gospel. This gospel, rather than baptizing what the Bible calls sin, preaches a repentance and faith in Jesus Christ that alone saves. This gospel is redeeming souls all across Africa in no small measure. When it becomes necessary to decide between submitting to the liberal agenda of Western Christianity and our commitment to biblical Christianity, we will choose the latter, because Jesus is our Savior and Lord.

With God above our rights to prove, we shall prevail over principalities and powers, financial inadequacy, and any form of dependency currently plaguing the African church. The church in Africa will continue to progress in triumphant victory as we make disciples of Jesus Christ for the holistic transformation of the world. To God be the glory.

Rev. Dr. Jerry P. Kulah is a General Conference delegate from Liberia and the General Coordinator of the Africa Initiative. Photo: The Rev. Dr. Jerry P. Kulah, an elder of the United Methodist Church and a member of the Liberia Annual Conference, leads a prayer demonstration outside the Charlotte Convention Center in Charlotte, NC, after the General Conference of the United Methodist Church voted to revise the Social Principles to change the definition of marriage. Kulah and other African delegates in attendance support traditional views of marriage between one man and one woman. Photo by Steve Beard, Good News. 

What Would Regionalization Look Like?

by Steve | May 24, 2024 | In the News, Perspective / News

What Would Regionalization Look Like?

By Thomas Lambrecht

Before pivoting to today’s topic examining the likely evolution of regionalization, it is important to note some significant developments in the aftermath of the 2024 UMC General Conference. Anxious congregations have been inquiring from renewal group leaders how to move forward in disaffiliating from the UM Church in light of the changes made at the General Conference.

Local church disaffiliation at the denominational level was shot down and removed from the Discipline by the General Conference. The argument was that annual conferences can provide their own mechanisms for congregational disaffiliation. The question is: would they? We are beginning to see mixed answers to that question.

A few annual conferences have already announced that they are working on disaffiliation processes that can be used by local congregations – some based on the Par. 2549 closure process. Some of those may come up for a vote at next month’s annual conferences or at least be announced as in process.

On the other hand, at least one annual conference has come out with a resounding “no” to the question of disaffiliation. The Susquehanna Annual Conference leaders have announced, “In the Susquehanna Conference there is no longer a process in which a local church may leave the United Methodist Church with their facilities.”

This is a doubly disappointing answer because Susquehanna was one place where leaders on the ground report that conference leaders promised there would be such a disaffiliation process available after the General Conference meeting. According to renewal leaders, churches were encouraged to “wait and see” the results of GC rather than disaffiliate because things “might not change.” Many of those same churches were told that it would be “likely” that disaffiliation would be renewed as another reason for waiting. This was shared not only by the disaffiliation team sent out by the bishops but also by other district superintendents.

Over the years, renewal leaders have become accustomed to some centrist and progressive leaders honoring their commitments only as long as it was convenient for them to do so. As long ago as 2004, some institutional leaders violated a pledge of confidentiality to share information about closed-door discussions about separation ideas. And it did not take long for the “changed circumstances” of the Covid pandemic to give cover for all the centrist and progressive signatories to the Protocol to renounce their support.

It is particularly disturbing that conference leaders promoted the idea that disaffiliation would be possible after the General Conference and then did not lift a finger to keep that promise. Not one centrist or progressive delegate at the General Conference spoke in favor of any of the various proposed disaffiliation pathways. Now that the ball has returned to the annual conference court, it remains to be seen how many annual conference leaders across the U.S. will honor their word.

History may harshly judge those who exhibit a coercive, authoritarian treatment of their local churches. United Methodist members are not children, nor are they stupid. One way or another, they will not be coerced to violate their consciences. By trying, some UM leaders are only portraying the denomination as devious and heavy-handed – a church few will want to belong to. It is up to other UM leaders to demonstrate that the UM Church believes and practices grace and respect, even toward those who disagree with its new direction. The greatest exhibition of respect is to honor conscience-driven decisions without exacting a heavy penalty. One hopes that common sense and Christian charity will win out.

Whither Regionalization? 

At the 2024 General Conference, all the components of regionalization were adopted by nearly three-fourths votes or greater. Those enactments do not take effect immediately, however. What happens next?

The next step in the process is for the General Conference secretary to prepare the constitutional amendments for ratification votes in every annual conference. In order for regionalization to take effect, a series of constitutional amendments needs to be ratified by a two-thirds vote of all the annual conference members in aggregate. The legislation required that the amendments be prepared for ratification within 30 days of the adjournment of the General Conference. But the first ratification votes are unlikely to take place until this fall, with some annual conferences outside the U.S. being the first to vote.

Most U.S. annual conferences will vote on ratification in 2025. The Council of Bishops is responsible for collecting the results from each annual conference, tabulating them, and then announcing whether the amendments were ratified or not. (It is ironic in this era of doubts about election integrity and pushes for greater transparency that some or even most annual conferences decline to announce the results of their individual annual conference vote. One must trust that the votes are being fairly tabulated and accurately transmitted to the Council of Bishops, but there is no public transparency of the results.)

The earliest the ratification results could be announced is probably at the Council of Bishops meeting in the fall of 2025. It is more likely it will be announced at their spring, 2026, meeting, just before the special General Conference is supposed to meet. It all depends upon when bishops decide to hold the ratification vote in their annual conferences. In the last cycle, some non-U.S. bishops postponed ratification for a year beyond when they could have voted, which delays the ability of the Council of Bishops to tabulate the full results and announce the outcome.

A Regional Reality

It is likely that, if the amendments are ratified, they would go into effect at the 2026 General Conference. However, there would not have been time to plan that conference in light of the regional reality. Practically speaking, then, the first General Conference to be significantly affected would be the 2028 General Conference.

At that conference, there would probably be a shorter meeting with fewer days devoted only to issues of global relevance (in the mind of the organizers). The U.S. Regional Conference would then meet following the General Conference to act on matters relevant to the U.S. and adapt any provisions of the Discipline to fit the U.S. “context.” The outcome would be a U.S. Book of Discipline that contains the general Discipline binding the whole denomination as determined by the General Conference, plus all the provisions adopted by the U.S. Regional Conference that would govern the church in the U.S.

The Central Conferences outside the U.S. will have a bigger task in 2028. They would share the same general Discipline adopted by the General Conference, but they would also have the task of coming up with their own rules and policies related to all the parts of the Discipline that are adaptable to regional context. Since they have not had to do this before, it will be an intimidating task. Since the Central Conference meeting is where they also elect bishops, they will need to add days to their meetings at U.S. expense (for Africa and the Philippines) in order to have time to accomplish all they need to do. The U.S. will also need to pay for the printing of all these Central Conference Books of Discipline, so that church leaders have copies to work from.

For most matters, the newly adapted Disciplines for each region will go into effect on January 1, 2029.

Regionalization Lite

What if the ratification of amendments fails? Does that mean regionalization is dead? Not entirely.

First, the 2026 General Conference could try to pass the regionalization amendments again, for ratification in 2027. This would be especially likely if African votes sink regionalization in 2024-2025 but then significant portions of Africa disaffiliate from United Methodism. With those opposition votes gone, regionalization would stand a much better chance at passing on a second attempt. It would be similar to this year’s General Conference where, in the absence of a significant number of traditionalist delegates, the progressive agenda sailed through with supermajority margins. (Of course, it is also possible that some parts of Africa will disaffiliate before even taking a ratification vote. That would make it more likely that ratification would pass on the first attempt.)

Second, the last regionalization petition passed by the plenary session in Charlotte set up a Standing Committee on U.S. Matters to deal with U.S. concerns. This is parallel to the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters that deals with issues relevant to areas outside the U.S. However, the Central Conference Committee only has about 35 members, while the U.S. Standing Committee would have all 500-odd U.S. delegates.

The U.S. Standing Committee would meet prior to the 2026 General Conference and also future General Conferences, if ratification fails. They would weigh in on any petitions or resolutions that uniquely affect the U.S. Since U.S. delegates are likely to still have a built-in majority at the General Conference, decisions made by the U.S. Standing Committee will likely be rubber stamped by the General Conference plenary. Judging by recent experience with the Central Conference Standing Committee, the U.S. Committee is likely to be more effective at killing legislation that it does not like, rather than promoting positive legislation for the General Conference to adopt. However, it is a new situation, and it will be interesting to see how these structures are used and evolved.

So, if ratification fails, the U.S. Standing Committee would still meet to care for U.S. interests. They would not be able to adapt the Discipline, however. As was seen at the Charlotte General Conference, it is likely that U.S. delegates will continue to dominate the agenda and votes in the next few General Conferences, making adaptations unnecessary.

One way or another, then, regionalization will go forward. The interim structure of the U.S. Standing Committee provides “regionalization lite.” Once the constitutional amendments are ratified, on the first or second attempt, the U.S. Standing Committee goes away, and full-blown regionalization and adaptation takes its place. It will be instructive to follow the evolution of this new form of “connectionalism” in the years ahead to measure its impact on the church’s ability to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. Photo: Delegates from the 2024 General Conference of the United Methodist Church in Charlotte, N.C. Photo by Steve Beard.

The Myth of Neutrality

by Steve | May 23, 2024 | In the News, Perspective / News

The Myth of Neutrality

By Thomas Lambrecht

As observers continue to unpack the significance of actions taken by the United Methodist General Conference in Charlotte, one myth continues to float around the blogosphere: the General Conference merely returned the UM Church to a “neutral position” on issues of marriage and sexuality. The language is back to what it was before 1972, when homosexuality wasn’t mentioned at all. This means liberals and traditionalists can live together in harmony under this “neutral” umbrella that gives space for all perspectives.

Taking a closer look at what was actually enacted in Charlotte, one can see that the UM Church is not neutral on marriage and sexuality. Instead, there is a definite tilt toward the affirmation of same-sex relationships, transgenderism, and a major shift in moral standards.

Same-Sex Marriage

The most neutral aspect of what took place in Charlotte was the reversal of the church’s long-standing prohibition on performing gay weddings. No longer are pastors prohibited from performing such weddings. At the same time, most pastors are not forced to perform them. The decision is up to the pastor’s conscience.

Explicit language was added to protect clergy conscience. “No clergy at any time may be required or compelled to perform, or prohibited from performing, any marriage, union, or blessing of any couple, including same-sex couples. All clergy have the right to exercise and preserve their conscience when requested to perform any marriage, union, or blessing of any couple.”

This language is to be applauded. However, it may have limited impact when it comes to clergy serving as military chaplains or in some other roles outside the local church. Previously, chaplains could point to the prohibition against performing same-sex weddings as the reason why they could not perform them in the military. Now that the prohibition is gone, military chaplains may be expected to perform same-sex weddings without the ability to fall back on conscience objections. Given the current progressive climate, the military may well demand all chaplains to offer equal services regardless of the sexual orientation of the service members they minister to. This non-discrimination policy can trump the conscience of the chaplain, putting them in the position of being required to perform same-sex weddings even if they oppose them. Since this provision took effect immediately on May 4, there has been no time for chaplains to sort out the implications of this change.

Definition of Marriage

The new definition of marriage found in the Social Principles is the most confusing change made by the General Conference. The new definition reads, “Within the church, we affirm marriage as a sacred lifelong covenant that brings two people of faith, an adult man and woman of consenting age, or two adult persons of consenting age into union with one another.” According to this definition, marriage can be between a man and a woman or between two adult persons, presumably of the same or non-binary gender.

It is unmistakable that this definition delineates the union of two people of the same gender as a sacred marriage. Very few delegates in 1968 would have endorsed such a definition, even though the church did not formally define marriage until 1972. This new definition is not a return to neutrality but a definite step to accommodate a progressive understanding of marriage.

What complicates this definition is that it is part of the Social Principles, which are set for the whole denomination, not able to be adapted by different regions. Although not binding, the Social Principles state the church’s consensus teaching on social issues, upon which the church bases its policies. The change in the definition of marriage is the root of why all the other prohibitions related to homosexuality became untenable. If same-sex marriage is now considered Christian marriage, there is no basis for preventing people in such relationships from full participation in all levels of the life of the church.

Another newly adopted provision gives regions the ability “to set the standards and policy for rites and ceremonies for the solemnization of marriage, taking into consideration the laws of the country or countries within its jurisdiction.” Even so, under the Social Principles, those regions that define marriage differently are still part of a denomination that explicitly affirms same-gender marriage. This is not “neutral,” nor does it restore the situation of 1968.

Funding Issues

Previously, both the general church and the annual conference were prohibited from spending apportionment money “to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.”  While sometimes ignored, this provision prevented the church from promoting a position contrary to its stated teachings.

Now, that prohibition is removed. Since the church’s teaching has changed, it can now spend church money to promote that teaching, namely “the acceptance of homosexuality.” At the General Conference it was announced that the General Commission on Archives and History intends to establish a “Center for LGBTQ+ United Methodist Heritage” at Drew University.

In addition, the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) was given the new responsibility to “Provide training, resources, and consultation for and with all levels of the global church to actively resist intersecting structures of white supremacy, heterosexism, sexism, patriarchy, transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, colonialism and classism” (emphasis added). This means that GBGM will be promoting the acceptance of homosexuality (resisting heterosexism) and transgenderism (resisting transphobia), in addition to a number of other far left causes at all levels of the global church. This is not restricted to those countries whose laws allow the practice of homosexuality but includes even Africa and the Philippines. This is not neutrality, but advocacy for a progressive agenda.

Using apportionment dollars to promote the acceptance of homosexuality is not “neutral.” One should not imagine that apportionment dollars will also be spent to promote a traditional position that the practice of homosexuality is contrary to biblical teaching.

African and Filipino apportionments will be used to promote the acceptance of homosexuality, despite their opposition to the practice. Central conferences outside the U.S. pay apportionments to the General Administration Fund, which supports the Commission on Archives and History and its future LGBTQ+ Center. This is not “neutral” and may well represent a violation of the consciences of United Methodist members that makes them less willing to pay apportionments.

Receiving a Gay Pastor

Bishops are going out of their way to reassure congregations that a gay or lesbian pastor will not be appointed to their congregation unless it is willing to receive such a pastor. This may well be true in the short run. The supply of gay and lesbian pastors is not expected to surpass the demand of congregations open to such a pastor in the near future.

However, a new requirement adds “sexual orientation” to the list of qualities that may NOT be considered by bishops when making pastoral appointments. “Open itineracy means appointments are made without regard to race, ethnicity, gender, color, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or age, except for the provisions of mandatory retirement. Annual conferences shall, in their training of staff-parish relations committees, emphasize the open nature of itineracy and prepare congregations to receive the gifts and graces of appointed clergy without regard to race, ethnicity, gender, color, disability, marital status, economic condition, sexual orientation, or age” (emphasis added).

The fact that pastoral appointments are to be made “without regard to … sexual orientation” means that factor cannot be considered in the making of an appointment. In addition, annual conferences are responsible for training congregations and their leaders to be willing to accept “the gifts and graces of appointed clergy without regard to … sexual orientation” (emphasis added). These changes put sexual orientation on the same level as race, gender, and age when combatting discrimination. Congregations will be trained in their need to accept gay and lesbian pastors, meaning that down the line, they can expect to receive such a pastor. That is not “neutrality,” but an attempt to change minds and hearts away from a traditional position based on eliminating discrimination.

Beyond Homosexuality

Other changes made in the Book of Discipline send a message that the church is dismantling clear lines of accountability around all forms and expressions of human sexuality.

Previously, those seeking ordination as clergy in the UM Church were required to “make a complete dedication of themselves to the highest ideals of the Christian life.” This included “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness.” This is a clear standard that is easily understood and enforced.

Now, the language has been changed to require “faithful sexual intimacy expressed through fidelity, monogamy, commitment, mutual affection and respect, careful and honest communication, mutual consent, and growth in grace and in the knowledge and love of God.” No longer are sexual relations clearly prohibited for single clergy. Instead, the emphasis is on respect, communication, and consent.

Previously, the “chargeable offenses,” which list the specific violations under which clergy can be held accountable, included “immorality, including … not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a heterosexual marriage” and “being a self-avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual unions; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies.”

In Charlotte, not only was the second offense covering homosexuality eliminated, the first was mostly deleted, as well. There is some confusion about whether the simple offense of “immorality” was deleted. The online record of the conference shows that it was. If so, there is no chargeable offense related to adultery or other forms of sexual unfaithfulness. It could fit under the offense of “sexual misconduct,” but church authorities will be hard-pressed to justify behavior between consenting adults as being “misconduct.” Even if immorality was left in, there is no definition of what that means. Undefined offenses are much more difficult to enforce. This change greatly weakens accountability for clergy, particularly when sexual abuse by clergy has gained new prominence in the public eye.

Previously, the Social Principles said, “Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are affirmed only with[in] the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.” Again, a clear standard that upholds biblical teaching.

Now, however, the Social Principles have been changed to read, “Human sexuality is a healthy and natural part of life that is expressed in wonderfully diverse ways from birth to death. … We support the rights of all people to exercise personal consent in sexual relationships, to make decisions about their own bodies and be supported in those decisions …” This new language takes away the standard and seems to “support” every expression of human sexuality, as long as it is characterized by personal consent and decision.

One could conclude from these examples that United Methodist standards and expectations have shifted to “neutrality” in a bad way. That is, our church has become neutral about what the right or wrong avenues of sexual expression are. We are open to whatever individuals decide about their own sexual morality. There are no clear boundaries set for sexual behavior for clergy, for laity, or for society in general, other than “mutual respect” and “consent.” In a culture characterized by extreme licentiousness with regard to sexual relationships, the lack of those boundaries and expectations is harmful to persons not warned away from sin and unhealthy behaviors, as well as being unfaithful to our biblical convictions.

This survey of changes made in Charlotte demonstrates that United Methodist neutrality is a myth. The church is not neutral, but an active proponent of the acceptance, indeed affirmation, of homosexuality, transgenderism, and even a libertine sexual ethic. While in Charlotte, we read and heard repeatedly that these changes are only the first step of where progressive United Methodists intend to lead the church. What used to be proscribed became accepted, what was accepted is becoming promoted, and what is promoted usually becomes eventually required.

The desire of people who support this approach to Christianity to remain United Methodist is to be supported and encouraged. However, no one should remain United Methodist under the mistaken idea that the church is now neutral regarding specifically LGBTQ+ persons or sexual ethics in general. The tide has turned, and the church is moving in a decidedly progressive direction. ​​​​​

Thomas Lambrecht is a ​​​​​​​United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Photo: United Methodists celebrate the denomination’s removal of its ban on the ordination of clergy who are “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” — a prohibition that dates to 1984, during the 2024 United Methodist General Conference in Charlotte, N.C. Photo by Mike DuBose, UM News.