by Steve | Feb 13, 2023 | Home Page Hero Slider, In the News
By Stephen A. Seamands —
In his profound reflections on revival, based on his experiences in 18th century colonial New England, during what historians refer to as the First Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards said this: “God hath had it much on his heart from all eternity, to glorify his dear and only begotten Son; and there are some special seasons that he appoints to that end, wherein he comes forth with omnipotent power … and these are times of remarkable pouring out of his Spirit, to advance his kingdom.”
Revivals then, according to Edwards, are special times and seasons when God the Father reveals, glorifies, and exalts his Son through the power of his Spirit. And in such clear-cut, powerful, demonstrable ways that you can’t miss it – because he wants the whole world to know who his beloved son is.
That’s what Edwards saw happening right before his eyes. The members of the congregation he pastored had all grown up Christian, but during the Awakening, it was as if the veil was pulled back and they glimpsed Jesus for the first time. They were seized by a revelation, captured by what Edwards called “the divine excellency of Christ.” And after that their lives were never the same. I love the way he describes it in his quaint 18th century way:
“By the sight of the transcendent glory of Christ, true Christians see him worthy to be followed; and so are powerfully drawn after him; they see him worthy that they should forsake all for him: by the sight of that superlative amiableness, they are thoroughly disposed to be subject to him, and engaged to labor with earnestness and activity in his service, and made willing to go through all difficulties for his sake.
“And it is the discovery of this divine excellency of Christ that makes them constant to him: for it makes a deep impression upon their minds, that they cannot forget him; and they will follow him whithersoever he goes, and it is in vain for any to endeavor to draw them away from him.”
This is what happens in true revivals. People get seized, gripped, overwhelmed by the divine excellency of Christ.
As a result of being captured by his love, his “superlative amiableness,” as he puts it, they fall in love and stay in love with Jesus in such a way that their lives are never the same, the church is never the same, the world is never the same.
These first hand revival experiences, convictional experiences, divine encounters – grip us so profoundly, transform and shape us so deeply that they set us on a trajectory that continues for the rest of our lives.
Like Paul’s encounter on the Damascus road, they impart to us such a profound awareness, such a revelation of the risen, exalted Jesus, such an experience of his presence in us through the Holy Spirit, such an unswerving commitment to his mission, that standing in chains before King Agrippa decades later, he would declare, “No matter what happens, I simply can’t be disobedient to such a heavenly vision.”
Revivals produce Christians who are faithful, bold, and unapologetic. Christians who find their joy and satisfaction in God. Christians with a love passion for holiness, who will gladly lay down their lives for Jesus, who are looking, not for a prosperity gospel, but in Amy Carmichael’s words, “a chance to die.”
Revivals cause the church to move forward in purity, power, and unity; in boldness and confidence to be his witnesses. As a result God’s people are able to withstand cultural pressures to conform and compromise. They refuse to be seduced by the gods of their culture.
I think Jonathan Edwards had it right. We need revivals because we need more of Jesus. Through revival God raises up a generation, a people, a church which gets focused on Christ. As the characters in Narnia would say: “Aslan comes in sight.” So we discover things about him that we never knew before. He truly becomes the pearl of great price. Ultimately, revivals are about “the divine excellency of Christ.”
Stephen A. Seamands is Professor Emeritus of Christian Doctrine at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He served as the Professor of Basic Christian Doctrine at Asbury Seminary for close to 40 years. In addition to that class, he taught Introduction to Spiritual Warfare, Introduction to Healing Prayer, and a class studying the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Dr. Seamands has authored numerous books, including Wounds That Heal, Ministry in the Image of God, and The Unseen Real: Life in the Light of the Ascension of Jesus.
Photo: Hughes Auditorium at Asbury University, February 10, 2023. Photo by Sarah Thomas Baldwin. Used by permission.
.
by Steve | Feb 8, 2023 | In the News
The death toll for the earthquake in Turkey and Syria now exceeds 11,600. We rejoice for every man, woman, and child who is rescued from the rubble. We mourn for the families that have lost loved ones.
Lord, have mercy.
If you want to help, there are several agencies at work.
Image of the Virgin Mary in the rubble of the Cathedral of Alexandria in Turkey, Feb. 6, 2023. | Credit: Facebook, Antuan Ilgit SJ (Catholic News Agency)
by Steve | Feb 3, 2023 | In the News
Celebrating Saint Brigid’s Day
By Steve Beard —
In Ireland, the first day of February is St. Brigid’s Day, as well as the ancient Celtic festival of Imbolc, marking new birth and the threshold of spring. It was recently christened as an Irish government holiday (St. Patrick’s Day became an Irish “bank holiday” in 1903). The occasion is a celebration for both Christians and those who observe pre-Christian Gaelic traditions.
During the summer of 2022, I was mesmerized by a compelling mural depicting a dual-faced Brigid in the town of Dundalk – halfway between Belfast and Dublin on Ireland’s east coast. After returning home, I read the medieval hagiography of this intriguing woman who died almost 1,500 years ago.
St. Brigid is said to be the child of a pagan chieftain and a Christian slave woman. It is thought that her father named his daughter after Brigid, the indigenous Celtic goddess associated with spring, healing, fire, fertility, and poetry. As a girl, she is said to have been raised in a separate Druid home before becoming a Christian at a young age.
The two-story mural created by the artist Friz in Dundalk attempts to portray the similar-but-different stories told about both Brigids. Because of the time period, there are many details that we do not know. Scholars continue to debate the competitive portrayals of the saintly abbess and the Gaelic goddess.
What has been passed down is that Saint Brigid (451-525) was a winsome and compassionate founder of one of Ireland’s most important and remarkable dual monasteries for both nuns and monks. Although exact dates are debated, St. Brigid’s ministry would have taken place after St. Patrick’s death in 461. The Abbey at Kildare – 40 miles west of Dublin – is thought to be built upon the very site of a shrine to Brigid the goddess under a large oak tree (Cill Dara, “church of the oak”).
The Abbey was known for its Christian hospitality, as well as its emphasis on art, metalwork, and “illuminated manuscripts” similar to the world-renowned Book of Kells. Unfortunately, the Book of Kildare is lost to history, and the Abbey at Kildare was destroyed in the 12th century (the Cathedral of Kildare is now built on the original site).
“This woman … grew in exceptional virtues and by the fame of her good deeds drew to herself from all the provinces of Ireland inestimable number of people of both sexes…” wrote Cogitosus (c. 650), a monk of Kildare, in his remembrance of St. Brigid. “On the firm foundation of faith she established her monastery … which is the head of almost all the churches of Ireland and holds the place of honor among all the monasteries of the Irish. Its jurisdiction extends over the whole of the land of Ireland, from coast to coast.” (Cogitosus’ work is the earliest hagiography found in Ireland.)
Because of her prominence, St. Brigid is also one of the three patron saints of Ireland, alongside St. Patrick and St. Columba.
There are numerous stories of her faith and tenderheartedness. As a child, she gave away butter and bacon to those who were hungry (including a whimpering dog). She is said to have also given away her father’s jewel-encrusted sword to a beggar in need – much to her father’s exasperation. After trying to sell her off, he finally realized that allowing her to live a life devoted to her faith made far more sense.
There are innumerable churches, schools, athletic associations, and more than a dozen holy wells in Ireland dedicated to St. Brigid. However, she is most well-known for weaving a cross from straw or reeds while at the deathbed of a pagan chieftain who had grown delirious with his illness. As she sat with him, she weaved a cross and explained its meaning. In some versions of the story, it is said that it brought peace to the man’s heart and he sought baptism before his final breath. (Modern day Irish children celebrate St. Brigid’s feast by weaving crosses from reeds.)
In his remembrance of her kindness, generosity, and miraculous life, Cogitosus did not fail to mention the time Brigid turned bathwater into beer. “On another extraordinary occasion some lepers asked this venerable Brigid for some beer, but she did not have any beer to give them,” he wrote. “Seeing water that had been prepared for baths, she blessed it in the strength of her faith and turned it into the very best beer, which she generously dispensed to the thirsty.”
Notably, the legacy of St. Brigid is immortalized outside her native Ireland. There are, for example, Brigidine nuns at work all over the globe. One of St. Brigid’s tunics is said to be treasured at the Cathedral of Bruges, Belgium. She is the patron saint of the oldest church in London – St. Bride’s, Fleet Street. There is even a Chiesa di Santa Brigida d’Irlanda (Church of St. Brigid of Ireland) in Piacenza, Italy. Twenty churches or parishes are named after her in the United States.
In the thirteenth century, three Irish knights took the skull of St. Brigid with them on a journey to the Holy Land as a sacred relic. It is said that the knights did battle in Portugal and stayed with her revered remains until their deaths. The three knights are interred in the tombs of St. Brigid’s chapel within the Church of St. John outside of Lisbon.
“Brigid bridges the greatest divide, between heaven and earth, between God and humanity,” wrote religious scholar Maeve Brigid Callan recently in The Irish Times. “The sixth- or seventh-century priest/poet Broccán describes her as ‘a marvelous ladder for pagans to visit the kingdom of Mary’s Son.’ From childhood on, she simultaneously embodied the highest Christian and indigenous Irish ideals, integrating attributes exemplified both by Christ at Cana and the Sea of Galilee and by native goddesses of fertility and sovereignty.”
The religious community that she helped create in Kildare, Ireland, centuries ago was a true sanctuary for weary souls. “The city is a great metropolis within whose borders, which St. Brigid marked out as a clear boundary, no earthly enemy nor hostile attack is to be feared,” wrote Cogitosus. “For the city is the safest place of refuge of all the towns anywhere in the whole of Ireland, with all its fugitives. …
“And who could count the various multitudes and innumerable crowds of people who swarm here from all provinces. Some come for the abundance of the festivals, some to have their illnesses cured, some come to see the spectacle of the crowds, and others come with great gifts for the feast of St. Brigid, who fell asleep on the first of February, safely casting off the burden of the flesh, and followed the Lamb into the heavenly mansions.”
Happy St. Brigid’s Day!
Steve Beard is the editor of Good News. Photo: Brigid mural in Dundalk, Ireland. Taken by Steve Beard.
by Steve | Feb 3, 2023 | In the News
By Thomas Lambrecht —
In Part 1 of this series, the roots of our United Methodist conflict were examined, including what led up to the 2019 special General Conference. Part 2 covers the response to the 2019 General Conference and the events leading up to the present situation in January 2023.
Following the special General Conference, some bishops and as many as 28 out of 54 annual conferences in the U.S. declared that they would not abide by the Book of Discipline on these matters. They declared that they would operate as if the One Church Plan had passed. This has thrown the UM Church into a constitutional crisis. When a sizable portion of the church rejects the outcome of “Christian conferencing” and is unwilling to live by our duly adopted policies, there is a stalemate.
It is this constitutional crisis that has led most leaders in the church to come to believe that some form of separation is necessary (or is inevitable) to resolve the conflict. Various proposals for separation were developed and submitted to the 2020 General Conference. The election of delegates to that conference resulted in fewer traditionalist delegates being elected in the U.S., particularly among the clergy.
In an attempt to put forward an amicable separation plan, Bishop John Yambasu of Sierra Leone convened a negotiating group of prominent progressive, centrist, and traditionalist leaders, along with representatives from the Council of Bishops. Aided by the efforts of renowned mediator Kenneth Feinberg, Esq., the group came to an agreement to propose the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. The Protocol had unanimous agreement from all the leaders in the group and was supported by nearly all the traditionalist, centrist, and progressive caucus groups in the church.
The Protocol, announced in January 2020, provided for the formation of new expressions of Methodism – new denominations that could be traditionalist or progressive in theology. Central Conferences (regions outside the U.S.) could separate from the UM Church by a two-thirds vote to join a new denomination. All its annual conferences and local churches would go with the central conference unless they chose otherwise. Annual Conferences could separate from the UM Church by a 57 percent vote to join a new denomination. All its local churches would go with the annual conference unless they chose otherwise. Local churches could separate from the UM Church by either a simple majority or two-thirds vote (as chosen by their church council). This process provided a uniform way for separation to occur, with the hope of minimizing conflict at the local church level. Only those local churches that disagreed with their annual conference’s decision would have to vote.
Financially, no annual conference or local church would have had to make payments to depart from the UM Church, other than the request to be current on apportionments at the time of departure. Pension liabilities would be transferred to the new denomination for those who separated. New traditionalist denomination(s) would receive $25 million from the UM Church over four years and new progressive denomination(s) would receive $2 million. (It was anticipated that any progressive denomination forming would be much smaller.)
This proposed amicable separation plan was broadly supported in the church and looked ready to pass at the 2020 General Conference, which would have created a uniform, orderly process for separation to occur. Then Covid hit. The 2020 General Conference was postponed until 2021, and then again until 2022. Finally, General Conference was postponed to 2024. Traditionalists staunchly opposed this final postponement. They believed it was unnecessary in the face of rapidly easing Covid restrictions. They saw it as an effort to delay separation and perhaps kill the Protocol. By this time, many centrist and progressive leaders had become disillusioned with the Protocol, believing it gave too much ground and would facilitate too much of the church separating into a new denomination(s).
Faced with this further delay and the prospect of many traditionalists beginning to vote with their feet by exiting their local UM congregations, leaders of the Global Methodist Church announced the launch of their new traditionalist denomination as of May 1, 2022. On the heels of that announcement, all the remaining centrist and progressive signatories to the Protocol withdrew their support, meaning that the Protocol would be unlikely to pass the 2024 General Conference. Separation would occur, not through an orderly and uniform amicable process, but through a chaotic, expensive provision called Paragraph 2553.
Par. 2553 was adopted by the 2019 General Conference to provide a way for the anticipated small number of churches that could not accept the decision of that Conference to adopt the Traditional Plan. However, many more churches than anticipated refused to accept the Traditional Plan, and they also refused to leave the denomination, determined to stay and resist the church’s decision.
Three years later in 2022, Par. 2553 became the only exit route available for traditionalist churches that had had enough of the denominational chaos and disobedience and wanted to join a new traditionalist denomination that aligned with their historic theological perspective. Attempts were made by annual conferences to vote to withdraw from the UM Church, based on an earlier Judicial Council ruling that such withdrawals were constitutional. The Bulgaria-Romania Conference withdrew successfully under these provisions. However, the Judicial Council then clarified (at the bishops’ request) that, while annual conference withdrawal was constitutional, the General Conference must adopt a process for that to happen, which now could not be adopted until at least 2024. The door for annual conferences to depart under the Discipline was closed.
There were discussions between traditionalist leaders and a team from the Council of Bishops about creating a separation pathway for local churches using a different paragraph of the Discipline. The goal was to keep as much of the Protocol process as possible but use a different provision already in the Discipline to do so. In the end, not enough bishops wanted to develop a Protocol-like process and the discussions collapsed. The Judicial Council then ruled (at the bishops’ request) that this different paragraph (2548.2) could not be used for separation.
The church was left with only Par. 2553 as an avenue for separation to take place, and that avenue would expire on December 31, 2023. Unfortunately, the cost of pension liabilities was much higher in 2021 than was anticipated in 2019. (Those costs have since come down substantially, which is helpful.) In addition, Par. 2553 allows annual conferences to impose added costs and requirements for local churches to separate. About one-third of U.S. annual conferences have imposed costs that made separation difficult or even impossible. Some conferences require up to 50 percent of the property value be paid to the conference. Other conferences added substantial insurance or personnel costs. Two U.S. annual conferences prohibited any local churches from departing because they said their conferences were following the Discipline and churches had no grounds for separation. (One of those conferences has since provided an alternative method of separation that may work but has not yet been tested.)
A few conservative annual conferences created a gracious exit pathway for congregations by using annual conference reserve funds designated for pensions to offset the required pension liabilities. This allowed local churches to avoid burdensome financial payments and recognized that all the conference’s churches had contributed to those reserve funds and should benefit equally from them.
Unfortunately, some annual conferences took a more adversarial stance and did everything they could to prevent local churches from disaffiliating. Some imposed rigid deadlines and detailed procedures. Some forbade the sharing of information with churches by persons interested in disaffiliating. Complaints have been filed against some traditionalist clergy for sharing information. Accusations of misinformation and deception have flown back and forth between both sides of the debate. One annual conference initially agreed to offset pension liabilities with reserve funds, but later rescinded the offer, tripling a local church’s cost of disaffiliation. The North Georgia Conference at the end of 2022 prohibited all disaffiliations because of allegations of “misinformation,” disrespecting the ability of lay members to sort through the information presented by both sides and make their own choices.
None of this adversarial behavior needed to happen. It could have been avoided with the adoption of the Protocol or something like it. Some bishops and other denominational leaders chose to maximize “command and control” in an effort to coerce as many churches into remaining United Methodist as possible. While they may succeed in retaining more churches in the short term, they have created an even more unhealthy denominational environment in the long run. This unhealthy environment will undoubtedly impact the ability of the UM Church to thrive and grow in the future (which it has not since its formation in 1968).
Despite the challenges, at the end of 2022 more than 2,000 congregations had officially disaffiliated from the UM Church and 1,100 of them had officially joined the Global Methodist Church. More churches are still in the pipeline to join the GM Church. It is estimated that an additional 1,000 to 3,000 churches may disaffiliate from the UM Church in 2023 before Par. 2553 expires. A few annual conferences are having special meetings toward the end of the year to approve last-minute disaffiliations.
As this account is written in early 2023, changes and developments are happening at a rapid pace. Further Judicial Council decisions are anticipated that may strengthen the denominational hierarchy’s hand. A new exit path is needed to replace the expiring Par. 2553 for local churches that chose to wait for General Conference 2024 or who were locked out of the disaffiliation process for one reason or another. The Council of Bishops now claims that Par. 2553 does not apply outside the U.S. A clearer exit path for annual conferences and local churches outside the U.S. is needed. The need to stay engaged in the conflict through General Conference 2024 and its aftermath ensures that high-stakes confrontations will continue. We continue to pray that God opens a window where every door has been shut.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jan 27, 2023 | In the News
By Thomas Lambrecht —
The current state of separation and disaffiliation in The United Methodist Church has roots stretching far back into Methodism’s history. Profound disagreements about theology, spirituality, and hot-button social issues have been brewing within Methodism for decades.
“Creeds have had their day. They are no longer effective,” said one liberal writer in Methodist Review clear back in 1910. “Without doubt, they were well intended. Possibly they have done some good – they certainly have done much harm…. The revolt against creeds began in the lifetime of many now active in the work. The creeds are retired to the museums and labeled ‘Obsolete.’”
In his book The Rise of Theological Liberalism and the Decline of American Methodism (Seedbed), the Rev. Dr. James V. Heidinger II writes that “the seeds for Methodism’s decline were sown more than a hundred years ago – in the period of the early 1900s. This was an era in which theological liberalism brought sweeping change to the substance of Methodist thought and teaching. While not embraced widely by local church pastors and most laity, it was affirmed by much of Methodism’s leadership during that period – including many bishops, theologians, editors of publications, board and agency staff, and pastors of large urban churches” (page 190).
Heidinger – our president emeritus at Good News – notes this was an era “in which Methodism and the other mainline denominations experienced major doctrinal transition and revision. For a number of Methodist pastors and leaders (and most all of the mainline Protestant churches in America, for that matter), there was a move away from the supernatural elements of the faith. Doctrines such as the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, the miracles, the ascension, and the promised return of Christ were difficult to affirm amid the exhilarating and supposedly liberating views of the new science and emerging rationalism” (Ibid, p. 190).
Sadly, similar to today’s situation, “Methodist bishops were concerned that renewed doctrinal controversy might lead to further division across Methodism,” notes Heidinger. “They were determined to avoid controversy at all costs and thus chose to emphasize unity and collegiality rather than engage the serious doctrinal questions that were challenging and changing the historic doctrines of their church” (Ibid, p. 191-192).
1972 General Conference
Out of the soil of this unresolved doctrinal confusion, one of the manifestations or “presenting issues” of our fractured church emerged in 1972, when the General Conference endorsed “theological pluralism” and the Board of Church and Society proposed the very first Social Principles for the new United Methodist Church (founded in 1968). One of the provisions in the proposal indicated a sympathetic acceptance of homosexuality. Traditionalist delegates at General Conference were concerned that the biblical position regarding same-sex behavior was disregarded, and the conference voted to add words clarifying that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” Those words have remained in our Social Principles ever since.
Almost immediately, those who disagreed with a traditionalist position began lobbying to remove those words and change the church’s position to one of tolerance and even affirmation of same-sex practices. The church was not able to deal effectively with instances of high-profile disobedience through the normal accountability channels. This led to the addition of language in subsequent General Conferences mandating “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness” for clergy, prohibiting the candidacy, ordination, or appointment of “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” as pastors, or performing of same-sex weddings. Each time language was added, it was to close a loophole in the accountability process to reflect the church’s historic teaching.
Over the past 50 years, there have been several church-wide studies, many annual conference task forces, and numerous dialogs between persons with opposing perspectives, seeking to come to some common ground. Often, these experiences were heavily weighted toward a liberal understanding of affirmation and were seen by traditionalists as a way to try to manipulate the church into changing its position. Regardless, the outcome at every General Conference has been to affirm the historic and biblical teaching of the church.
No Theological Accountability
The theological conflict broadened in scope when Bishop Joseph Sprague, serving Northern Illinois at the time, published a book entitled Affirmations of a Dissenter in 2002. As my colleague, the Rev. Scott Field, describes Sprague’s views, he “denied Christ’s virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and atoning death, asserting that Jesus was not born divine but became divine through the faithfulness of his earthly walk, with the implication that others could follow suit.” Sprague suggested an alternative Trinity of Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Field asked Sprague subsequently about the role of orthodox affirmations of faith such as the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. According to Field, “He told me that the historic Christian creeds were simply a matter of who showed up with the most votes when the church councils got together. We are free, he said, to change ‘orthodoxy’ whenever we have majority votes to do so.”
I was part of a group of 28 clergy and laity who filed a complaint against Bishop Sprague for the chargeable offense of “dissemination of doctrines contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United Methodist Church.” While those of us who filed the complaint were criticized for doing so, there was no rebuke of Sprague’s doctrinal deviation, and the complaint was dismissed. This episode demonstrated that even blatant departure from the church’s teachings would be tolerated and even affirmed by the church’s hierarchy. (One active bishop wrote a glowing endorsement of Sprague’s book.) There was an unbridgeable divide between those holding to traditional Methodist doctrine and those open to varieties of belief and even changes in doctrine.
2012 General Conference
The closest the church came to changing its position regarding marriage and sexuality was in 2012, when a motion to say that the church is “not of one mind” on these concerns failed 54 to 46 percent. In the run-up to that General Conference, over 1,100 clergy signed up on a website their willingness to perform same-sex weddings in defiance of the Book of Discipline. In 2013, retired Bishop Melvin Talbert performed a same-sex wedding in Alabama despite the request of Northern Alabama Bishop Debra Wallace Padgett that he not do so. A complaint was filed against Talbert. It was eventually dismissed.
Talbert’s action was joined by a number of other situations around the U.S. when ordained clergy performed same-sex weddings. In each instance, when complaints were filed against such clergy, the “penalty” was a 24-hour suspension or some other nominal consequence. In some cases, clergy were required to explain in writing to their colleagues why they violated the Discipline, giving those clergy an official platform to promote their views contrary to church teaching. The clergy accountability system was failing to require clergy to conform their actions to what the General Conference had decided on behalf of the whole church.
On the Verge of Schism
Just before the 2016 General Conference, Bishop Talbert performed another same-sex wedding in North Carolina. Again, there were no consequences or accountability. At the 2016 General Conference, efforts to reinforce the long-standing position of the church were being passed in committee by a greater margin than before, and there was talk that the church might split over this conflict.
I was present in private conversations where a group of prominent traditionalist, centrist, and progressive leaders agreed that a separation of the church was inevitable. The group saw the best way forward to be providing as amicable and mutually respectful a process of separation as possible, as a witness to a watching world. The group sent a request to the Council of Bishops meeting during General Conference to form a commission to develop an amicable process of separation.
The Council declined to accept the possibility of separation. Instead, they proposed forming a Commission on a Way Forward (COWF) to find a way to resolve the conflict, while preserving as much unity in the denomination as possible. The 2016 General Conference agreed, and all proposals regarding sexuality were put on hold until a special 2019 General Conference that would deal only with this issue. The Commission (of which I was a member) came up with three proposals: a Traditional Plan to strengthen accountability to the church’s current position, a One Church Plan to allow annual conferences and local churches to determine their own stance on same-sex marriage and ordination, and a Connectional Conference Plan to create three new “jurisdictions” within the UM Church, based on viewpoint on ministry with LGBTQ persons.
The Traditional Plan was an 11th hour proposal developed by only a few members of the Commission, as the Council of Bishops had previously prevented consideration of either separation or maintaining the status quo by the Commission. We understand that some African bishops objected that there had to be a Traditional Plan on the table for the General Conference to consider, which prompted the Council to reverse course and permit such a plan. The Traditional Plan did not have the benefit of a thorough refinement by the full Commission and was proposed at the Commission’s last meeting only a few months before the deadline for submitting legislation to General Conference. (Indeed, some Commission members said they could not in good conscience work on a Traditional Plan, even though traditionalists had been willing to work on other plans we disagreed with.)
A special General Conference was held in St. Louis in February 2019 to address the COWF proposals. The Traditional Plan passed by 53 to 47 percent. However, about half the provisions of the Traditional Plan were declared unconstitutional by the Judicial Council, due to the lack of adequate refinement of the plan by the Commission. More problematic than the actual voting were the vitriolic rhetoric and personal attacks in speeches from the floor, particularly by some centrist and progressive delegates.
Part 2 of this series will deal with the aftermath of the special General Conference and the developments that lead to our current impasse.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. Photo: A delegate speaks during a plenary session of the historic 1968 Uniting Conference of The United Methodist Church. A UMNS photo courtesy of the General Commission on Archives and History.
