by Steve | Oct 21, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
In a file photo from 2016, the Rev. Anna Blaedel speaks during the Iowa Annual Conference session. Photo by Arthur McClanahan, Iowa Conference.
By Tom Lambrecht –
The special-interest “centrist” caucus group known as “Mainstream UMC” is running a campaign to show that “harm” is being inflicted on LGBT persons in our United Methodist Church by our accountability process and to call for an end to trials. The campaign rings hollow when the whole story is told.
Part I of the campaign features the story of the Rev. Anna Blaedel, a partnered lesbian clergy in Iowa. Blaedel made a public statement from the microphone to the Iowa annual conference in 2016 and claimed to be a “self-avowed practicing homosexual” (in the terms of our Book of Discipline). The consequences of the activism are due primarily to the fact that Blaedel deliberately refuses to comply with the standards of our church, and secondarily that Blaedel sought public attention with the statement, inviting complaints to be filed. Reasonable observers do not consider this “harm.” Blaedel is experiencing a drawn-out complaint process because a previous bishop of Iowa failed in his responsibility of accountability, dismissing complaints against Blaedel without any justification. This is actually the course of action recommended by Mainstream UMC — drawing out the complaint process until after General Conference 2020 — and then Mainstream UMC turns around and blames the process for inflicting harm.
Part II of the campaign features the story of the Rev. David Meredith, a married gay clergy in Ohio. He is under charges for being a “self-avowed practicing homosexual” because he is married to another man. Again, Meredith sought out this attention. He and his partner were married in a public ceremony just three days before the 2016 General Conference began. The public version of his ceremony was not strictly necessary, as Meredith and his partner had been married earlier in a private ceremony. The media event was intended to raise the issue of same-sex marriage with the hope of influencing the General Conference to change its position.
The Mainstream UMC caucus is promoting a narrative that traditionalist United Methodists are on a witch hunt to “evict bishops, clergy, and entire annual conferences from the UMC.” If that were the case, there would be complaints being filed against hundreds of clergy across the U.S. who are either same-sex partnered or have performed same-sex weddings. Instead, there are currently less than half a dozen. And no trials have taken place since 2013. Those on the receiving end of complaints have generally been activists who brought public attention to their violation in an attempt to influence church opinion. Yet contrary to reality, Mainstream UMC repeatedly raises the specter of numerous trials in order to sow discord and heighten acrimonious division.
Rather than being harmed by our United Methodist system, those under complaints are actually harming our system through intentional, defiant, public disobedience. What matters to traditionalists is compliance with the stated policies of our church, affirmed repeatedly by General Conference over the past 47 years. All clergy promised to comply with the church’s Discipline when we were ordained. It is the failure to honor those vows that has put the church in an untenable position. Traditionalists have no desire for hundreds of trials. Rather, we were the only group pushing to include a gracious exit for local churches and annual conferences that could not abide by our Discipline. If some centrists and progressives want confrontation, we are prepared to stand firmly and faithfully by the principles and doctrines the church has held for 2,000 years. But we would much rather work together for a resolution of our conflict that all groups can support — one that respects those with whom we disagree while we are all freed to go our separate ways.
Another storyline that the Mainstream UMC group is promoting is that Good News hatched a nefarious conspiracy in 2004 to force the departure of LGBTQ persons and their allies from the church. This conspiracy theory is based on an internal Good News document, “Options for the Future,” that I had a hand in writing. (Mainstream calls it a “master plan” and quotes sentences out of context to portray the document as a guide for traditionalist strategy.) The document was written to help the Good News board think through its options after the 2004 General Conference, when the Rev. Bill Hinson publicly proposed allowing those unable to live within the boundaries of our Book of Discipline to depart from the denomination with our blessing. That proposal was rejected by General Conference delegates at the time, and Good News realized that it was likely that our United Methodist conflict would fester and worsen over the years to come.
“Options for the Future” was based on the influential book by Lyle Schaller, The Ice Cube Is Melting. In the book, Schaller laid out many options for the UM Church to consider in order to resolve both the conflict and the decline that besets the church. The paper attempted to flesh out various possibilities for how these options might happen. The paper considered at least six different options, including a “local option” or “One Church Plan” denomination, and named the pros and cons of each. Far from being a “blueprint for forced departure” of centrists and progressives, the paper merely examines different possibilities. It is amazing how prescient parts of the paper were in predicting how the conflict might develop.
Like many internal analysis papers, “Options for the Future” was put on a shelf and not referred to again after its discussion by our board. There was no conspiracy, nor did Good News commit to a plan to force centrists and progressives out of the church. On the contrary, for at least the last seven years, Good News has argued that a negotiated, fair, equitable separation was the better way forward for the church.
The Mainstream UMC caucus continues its overblown rhetoric when it says, “The leadership of the WCA has spent a generation harming LGBTQ persons.” Let us not forget that the WCA was officially launched in October 2016. It has become fashionable to blame or credit the WCA for everything that happens on the traditionalist end of the church, but the WCA is specifically focused on preparing for the next iteration of Methodism, either within the UM Church or separate from it, not on the political battles over increased accountability.
Mainstream UMC claims, “WCA President Keith Boyette penned the majority opinion in the infamous, anti-gay Judicial Council Decision 1032.” Opinions issued by the Judicial Council, however, are the product of the whole Judicial Council as all members inevitably have a hand in their composition. The Council does not release the name of the person who writes the first draft for the reason that all who concur with it take ownership in it. So Mainstream UMC has no credible way to state authorship of the decision.
Decision 1032 specifically held that the “Discipline invests discretion in the pastor-in-charge to make the determination of a person’s readiness to affirm the vows of membership.” Boyette did write a concurring opinion in Decision 1032 in which he observed that nothing in the opinion of the Judicial Council could “remotely be construed as making a sweeping declaration that … ‘homosexuals’ are barred from membership in the church.” Boyette’s concurring opinion further noted that the pastor’s discretion as to a person’s readiness to affirm membership vows was not unfettered, but was subject to review.
Mainstream UMC also attacks the Rev. Boyette for not recusing himself in Decision 1032. They ignore the point that Boyette specifically addressed the fact that the issues in Decision 1032 did not personally involve him and that he did not participate in the Virginia Conference’s discussion of the matters involved in Decision 1032 because he was a member of the Judicial Council. The issues raised in Decision 1032 were not unique to Virginia. Not recusing himself was entirely appropriate.
The more important point is that Mainstream UMC continues to call the upholding of biblical teaching as “discrimination against LGBT persons.” Upholding scriptural standards and the discernment of our General Conference over 47 years is not discrimination. The church is solidly within its historical tradition to require clergy to observe “celibacy in singleness or faithfulness in a heterosexual marriage.”
If Mainstream UMC wanted to stop the trials, Good News and the Renewal and Reform Coalition have proposed and supported mechanisms to do just that for years. Proposals for amicable separation and gracious exit were submitted to both the 2016 and 2019 General Conferences. These would have ended the conflict and ended the trials. But many centrists fought tooth and nail to oppose these proposals. If the 2020 General Conference approves a plan of separation similar to the Indianapolis Plan, the conflict and the trials would end immediately.
It is difficult enough for people with differing perspectives on these contentious issues to dialog with one another, to seek understanding, and to work out a mutually acceptable way forward. That task is made infinitely more difficult when advocates distort and mischaracterize their conversation partner’s perspective and demonize their opponent.
One gets the impression that such advocacy seeks to win at all costs, rather than follow a Christ-like path toward a fair resolution of the conflict. If that is the approach taken at the 2020 General Conference, we will only prolong a conflict that does the church no good and allows observers to cast the church as irrelevant and hypocritical. That approach does real harm to the cause of Christ and all who participate. We should work to do better.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Oct 14, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Tom Lambrecht –
Over the last 20 years, I have witnessed friends and colleagues in other mainline denominations struggling with principled disagreements over the definition of marriage and the role of LGBTQ persons in the church. It was always clear to me that these other denominations were just a few years ahead of where the conflict in The United Methodist Church would lead. I hoped United Methodists could deal with our differences in a more Christ-like manner. Now, we are presented with that opportunity.
The two other mainline churches most like the UM Church in governance structure are The Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA). Both are relatively hierarchical in their structure and both have trust clauses that restrict local churches from leaving the denomination with their property.
The Episcopal Church ordained its first openly gay bishop in 2003, which touched off a firestorm in the denomination and in the worldwide Anglican Communion. At the same time, some dioceses (equivalent to our annual conferences) began affirming the blessing of same-sex unions. Openly gay priests were allowed beginning in 2006. Permission for priests to bless same-sex unions, subject to the bishop’s approval, was given denomination-wide by the 2009 General Convention (equivalent to our General Conference). In 2015, the General Convention permitted same-sex marriage, unless a particular bishop forbid it in his or her diocese. In 2018, same-sex marriage and ordination of LGBT persons was required in all dioceses.
As these developments took place over a 15-year period, more and more conservative Episcopal congregations and even a few dioceses sought to leave that denomination and start a new one. The Anglican Church of North America was formed to preserve traditional biblical values. However, the General Convention made no provision for local churches or dioceses to depart with their property. Instead, the denomination adopted a “scorched earth” policy, challenging in court every attempt to depart with property.
Since 2003, The Episcopal Church nationally has spent over $45 million in court costs for lawsuits over property. Local churches and diocese have probably spent an equivalent amount, meaning that the denomination as a whole has probably spent nearly $100 million in lawsuits. Although a few congregations and dioceses prevailed, most lost in court, meaning that the denomination could keep their property. Remarkably, this included congregations whose buildings pre-dated the formation of The Episcopal Church in 1785.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) removed restrictions against ordaining partnered homosexual persons in 2010, which was ratified by the various presbyteries (equivalent to our annual conferences) in 2011. In 2014, their General Assembly changed the definition of marriage to “two people,” a change that was ratified by the various presbyteries in 2015. Many conservative congregations left the denomination for other, more conservative Presbyterian denominations, and a new traditionalist Presbyterian denomination (ECO) was formed.
However, the PC(USA) General Assembly did not provide a specific path for local congregations to exit from the denomination, but left it up to each presbytery to develop its own policy. Some presbyteries were generous in allowing congregations to depart with their property, while others were very strict, requiring high payments or refusing exits altogether. The national church bureaucracy pressured the lenient presbyteries to toughen up their stance and require higher payments from departing congregations. A number of congregations found themselves in court, trying to defend their property. Again, millions of dollars were spent on legal costs, and a highly contentious atmosphere prevailed.
What was the impact on membership?
The Episcopal Church went from nearly 2.3 million members in 2003 to under 1.7 million in 2018. That represents a loss of over 600,000 members, or more than 26 percent. That works out to the loss of nearly 40,500 members per year (a rate of 1.8 to 2.4 percent per year).
The Presbyterian Church (USA) went from over 1.8 million members in 2010 to less than 1.4 million in 2018. That represents a loss of over 450,000 in only eight years, or more than 25 percent. That works out to the loss of nearly 57,000 members per year (a rate of 3.2 to 4.1 percent per year).
By comparison, The United Methodist Church has averaged just over 1 percent membership loss since 2000, although since 2012 the membership decline has increased to 1.6 percent per year, and it hit 2.1 percent in 2017.
It seems that this approach of moving into a “local option” on homosexuality, coupled with drastic attempts to keep churches from leaving, has only accelerated the decline of these two denominations. In addition, the denominations have been embroiled in ugly and vitriolic disputes over property and the right to exit the denomination. Such a highly conflicted atmosphere is not conducive to making disciples of Jesus Christ, as we have seen in our own denomination since 2012.
The United Methodist Church has an opportunity to do things differently – and better. As the 2020 General Conference approaches, we can arrive at a fair plan of separation that allows annual conferences and local churches to choose their ministry direction without heavy-handed interference from denominational bureaucrats. Instead of fighting over every last penny, we can provide for a fair distribution of resources to each new denomination coming out of this separation and seek to offer love and consideration to each other as we go our separate ways. The Golden Rule comes to mind, “Treat others as you yourselves want to be treated.”
The Indianapolis Plan offers a framework for just such an equitable plan of separation. It allows annual conferences and local churches to decide by majority vote whether to identify with a “One Church Plan” denomination, a denomination that upholds traditional biblical values, or a fully affirming progressive denomination. No matter which direction is chosen, annual conferences and local churches get to keep their property. The plan further envisions the General Conference approving a fair way to divide up general church resources among the separating groups, since all shared in contributing to those resources. Disputes would be settled through binding arbitration, rather than resorting to expensive lawsuits. A two-year process of separation would enable each group to be free of the conflict and free to pursue the ministry of the church in the way it believes is most faithful to God’s intent.
The UMC Next Plan, however, does not provide for fair separation, but continues the fighting in 2020 and beyond. It would call for the denomination to change its stance on marriage and sexuality by defining marriage as between “two people,” and it would remove all restrictions on the ordination of practicing homosexuals. If this change is attempted at General Conference 2020, it in itself would cause a major fight and is not at all likely to pass. At the very least, the plan calls for a moratorium enacted in 2020 on all enforcement of the Discipline regarding same-sex weddings and LGBT ordination, which would be a highly controversial and conflict-ridden decision and again unlikely to pass. The plan provides that any congregation (but not an annual conference) that disapproves of the switch to a “One Church Plan” denomination could withdraw by a two-thirds vote (not a majority). The plan calls for a task force to develop a formula for giving some general church resources to the departing traditionalists, but not a fair division of the general church assets. So rather than allowing a choice between equal alternatives, the UMC Next Plan forces traditionalists who cannot agree to a “One Church Plan” to leave the denomination – if they can muster a supermajority vote of their local congregations. This will result in thousands of congregations having to take a vote to leave the church, engendering disruptive conflict in local churches. Churches where a majority favors disaffiliation, but not two-thirds, would probably lose a sizable chunk of their congregation, severely damaging their ministries.
So far, annual conferences have taken a hardline approach to churches wanting to leave the denomination. The exit path enacted in St. Louis was supposed to give a fair and straightforward way for churches to leave the denomination. I have spoken with a law firm that is working with churches wanting to leave the UM Church. They have dealt with around 800 congregations of varying theological perspectives that are interested in leaving. However, in every case, the annual conference has imposed additional requirements and in some cases onerous payments on local churches wanting to leave. This is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter of the exit path that was enacted in St. Louis. If we go down the same pathway that The Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA) took, we will only create a generation’s worth of hard feelings against the church and fail to demonstrate to the world that Christians can treat one another differently.
It is time for the delegates to General Conference to acknowledge that separation is necessary, as well as beneficial for the church through the multiplication of different forms of United Methodist ministry. What matters is that we do the separation in a fair and loving way, not trying to punish one another for our disagreements or gain the last ounce of flesh from those with whom we cannot pursue common ministry. We need to let one another go in as fair and loving a way as possible. The United Methodist Church has the opportunity to show the world that we can resolve our conflict in a peaceful way, in the spirit of Jesus Christ. We can learn from the mistakes of those who have faced these issues before us and be the first denomination to take a different approach. After all, the world is watching
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Oct 7, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Dr. David F. Watson
By David F. Watson –
Last semester I taught a class called Wesleyan Biblical Interpretation. We read a considerable number of Wesley’s writings along with a couple of secondary texts. Rereading these primary and secondary sources led me to ponder anew the vast differences between the way in which Wesley read the Bible and the critical stances that emerged during and since the European Enlightenment.
Wesley did engage in some of what is called “lower criticism” – criticism of the biblical text in order to render the most accurate manuscript possible. He also at times offered translational corrections to the King James Version. Wesley would have balked, however, at the skepticism that came to characterize what is called “higher criticism,” or historical-critical readings of the Bible.
For Wesley, the way in which the church had interpreted a passage of Scripture through the centuries was in large part determinative of that passage’s meaning. In other words, the church’s consensus helped to establish the plain sense of the text. Reading the Bible was not simply an individual undertaking. It was an ecclesiastical undertaking. In fact, without the guidance of the church, it was not possible to understanding the Bible correctly. For Wesley the Bible had one purpose: to lead us into salvation, and therefore reading it apart from the church’s theology of salvation would be futile.
Historical Criticism
Even during Wesley’s lifetime, however, the seeds of historical criticism were beginning to sprout, and soon they would grow into a dense forest of interpretive skepticism. For the historical critic, the consensus of the church is far more likely to impede proper interpretation than to facilitate it. For one thing, the argument goes, the orthodox faith of the church depends upon an ancient worldview that is supposedly no longer believable to the modern mind. Modern people simply don’t believe in miraculous healing, the multiplication of food, angels, demons, and the like.
Further, according to the historical-critical method, the theological readings of Christians represent developments that are in many ways foreign to the text. The real meaning of the text is controlled by historical context. Only when we have clearly established the historical context of a biblical text can we begin to discern its meaning. In fact, one who allows faith claims to infiltrate his or her investigation has in fact abdicated the role of historian. Perhaps the best articulation of this position is Van Harvey’s The Historian and the Believer.
The purpose of the Bible, for historical critics, is not to lead us into salvation, but to reveal the historically conditioned perspectives of ancient Israelite, Jewish, and Christian communities. To the extent that the Bible can inform the life of the church, it does so based upon the meaning derived from historical context.
The historical-critical approach long dominated seminary education. Of course, many scholars have adopted some of its presuppositions and interpretive strategies a la carte. I’d put myself in this camp. Historical context does matter in biblical interpretation. Yet I’ve rejected the skepticism that has tended to inhere within historical-critical approaches. I do not, moreover, limit the meaning of a text to its historical context. I believe there is real value in the ways in which Christians have interpreted texts theologically over the centuries. (H/T to John Henry Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine).
Postmodern Approaches
To some extent, reliance on the historical-critical method has abated in seminary education. The modernist historical-critical approach has given way to postmodern readings that locate meaning in social location and identity. There are, for example, African-American, Korean, feminist, and queer readings of Scripture. Far from the originalist inquiries of the historical critics, these approaches emphasize the ways in which the text takes on a life of its own within particular communities today. A common (though not universal) feature of postmodern readings is a “hermeneutics of suspicion.” Rather than the skepticism of modernist interpreters, many postmodern interpreters approach the Bible as a source of coercive power that has been used to control, oppress, and harm.
Wesley’s reading has more in common with these postmodern approaches than with historical-critical method because he did not aspire to critical detachment from the text. Though Wesley did at times take into account the historical settings in which the biblical texts were written, he read them in specifically theological ways. His reading was conditioned by, among other perspectives, the worldview and values he derived the Great Tradition of Christian faith, the Church of England, German Pietists, and the evangelical Methodist movement.
A Hermeneutics of Trust
Nevertheless, Wesley would have been as uncomfortable with some postmodern approaches as he would have the skepticism of the historical-critical method. His reading of the Bible was characterized by what we might call a “hermeneutics of trust.”
Wesley trusted the Bible. Or to be more precise, he trusted the God who had given us the Bible, and therefore he regarded the Bible as trustworthy. He realized that there were passages that one could not interpret literally. He believed that that there were passages that, when taken at face value, presented the reader with an absurdity. He also understood that it was possible to use Scripture in ethically irresponsible ways (such as in support of the slave trade). He dealt with such matters as best he could (as we all do). The key to understanding Wesley’s hermeneutics of trust is to understand that his true north when reading Scripture was salvation. The Bible was the book that God had given us in order to teach us how to be saved — how to live in keeping with God’s will in this life and live with God eternally in the next. Any reading that did not lead to salvation was in fact a misreading.
Wesleyans and the Bible Today
It has been both spiritually edifying and intellectually interesting to look at Scripture through Wesley’s eyes. I’ve never been comfortable with a primary stance of either skepticism or suspicion. In part this is because, like Wesley, I believe that a good God has given us Scripture for our salvation. Scripture teaches us how to live well in this life and to live eternally with God.
Part of what is at stake for me in this conversation is vocation. There is a difference between a scholar and a scholar of the church. My work is in and for Christ and his church. It is in service to a saving faith in Christ that has been passed down from generation to generation through the church. To attempt to serve Christ’s church while separating her faith claims from her sacred text is an exercise in futility. It was that very faith that gave rise to the development of those texts. I haven’t jettisoned the tools I was given in my training as a biblical scholar, but neither have I retained all of the assumptions that so often accompany the use of those tools.
I make no claims to originality here. Scholars such as Joel Green and Thomas Oden were thinking about these things long before I was, as were many others. As cultural Christianity in the West collapses, however, the question of how scholars interpret the Bible in and for the church is going to become more acute. Churches are going to have think more self-consciously about their relationship to an increasingly anti-Christian academy. They are going to have to identify more precisely what they want from their scholars and seminaries. They are going to have to identify the relationship of skepticism and suspicion to the church’s evangelistic mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ.
Of course skepticism and suspicion can help us with regard to intellectual and moral self-examination. But what happens when our analysis of the Bible is characterized more by skepticism and suspicion than by trust? It seems then our relationship to the Bible will be one primarily of antipathy.
I submit here that the people called Methodists would do well to attend more fully to the emphases of our founder as he approached the Bible. We could use more trust, more theology, more doctrine, and more prayer in our reading. Skepticism and suspicion aren’t going away, nor should we attempt to silence them. Yet neither should we give them a place of privilege as we read the church’s book.
David Watson is the academic dean and professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. This article first appeared on his blog HERE. Dr. Watson is the author of Scripture and the Life of God (Seedbed) and co-author of Key United Methodist Beliefs with William J. Abraham (Abingdon).
by Steve | Sep 30, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
The 2019 General Conference of The United Methodist Church. Photo by Kathleen Barry, UMNS.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
As noted last week, the conversation group working on the Indianapolis Plan has come to agreement and submitted the final version of a plan for an amicable separation in The United Methodist Church. You can read the first part of my analysis of the plan here.
This plan (of which I am one of the authors) envisions the UM Church giving birth to new denominations of United Methodism: a Traditionalist UM Church, a Centrist UM Church, and possibly other denominations, including a Progressive UM Church.
This blog continues to talk about the unique values and advantages of the Indianapolis Plan.
All denominations formed under the Indianapolis Plan could use (but are not required to use) the “United Methodist” name with a modifier to distinguish one denomination from another (e.g., Liberationist United Methodist Church, United Methodist Church of the Philippines). The use of the name is not important for many United Methodists in the U.S. However, it is an extremely important issue for some in the central conferences outside the U.S. In Africa, the United Methodist name is a well-established and trusted brand that opens doors and protects the church from capricious governmental actions that might threaten the property or ministries of the church there. They also told us how difficult, cumbersome, and expensive the process is to change a corporate name. We heard from many that they could not support a plan that would require them to change the name of the denomination they are part of. The same is true of the cross and flame logo, which is widely used in Africa and the Philippines to demarcate the United Methodist Church brand. Denominations could continue to use (but are not required to use) the logo with modifications to distinguish one denomination from another.
The Indianapolis Plan provides a new, less costly way to handle pension liabilities. Rather than require an up-front payment of pension liabilities (as in the current local church exit provision), this plan allows Wespath to reallocate those liabilities to the new denominations based on which annual conferences, local churches, and clergy choose to align with each denomination. We engaged in extensive conversation with legal experts at Wespath about how to handle pensions. They were eager to cooperate (without implying any endorsement of our plan) and provided significant legal language for the Indianapolis Plan legislation that they believe addresses the concerns over pensions. Since the money for unfunded pension liabilities may never be needed, it makes more sense to transfer the liability, rather than requiring churches and annual conferences to pay the liability up front. Local churches that withdraw to become independent would still be required to pay for unfunded pension liabilities before withdrawing.
The Indianapolis Plan envisions a General Conference-approved equitable plan for allocating general church assets among the resulting new denominations. While the UMC Next Plan proposes the gift of some financial resources to a new Traditionalist UM Church, the Indianapolis Plan envisions an equitable division of general church assets among all denominations formed in this process. Such a division of assets would not require any boards or agencies to be dissolved or any property to be sold. Rather, liquid assets and investment properties could be divided proportionally based on membership. Where there are donor restrictions on assets, those restrictions would be maintained. While the Indianapolis conversation group did not have time to agree upon a formula for allocating assets, different groups have submitted proposals for how such an allocation might be done. The General Conference and its legislative committee will determine how the process would work. The group agreed that disputes would be settled by appeal to an arbitration board, making any resort to civil courts or lawsuits unnecessary.
The Indianapolis Plan offers a short timeline, allowing expeditious movement into the new denominations for those who are ready, while leaving the door open for alignment decisions for the next eight years. The plan envisions annual conferences making alignment decisions before the end of 2020, with local churches that disagree making their decisions by mid-year 2021. General Conferences forming the new denominations would take place in fall 2021. The new denominations would be fully functional under their new governing documents on January 1, 2022. This timeline allows the new denominations to form and get on with ministry, rather than being mired in the decision-making process. At the same time, annual conferences or local churches (more likely) could change their alignment through the end of 2028. This allows those who are not ready to make a decision right away to live into the possibilities and make a decision later. However, no annual conference or local church could take a vote to reconsider its alignment unless three or four years had passed since its previous vote on the matter.
The Plan creates an interim implementation for those ready to move immediately into a new denomination. Annual conferences and local churches that make a quick alignment decision could begin to live under their new denomination beginning August 1, 2020, on an interim basis. In addition, jurisdictions would be encouraged not to elect new bishops in 2020 but wait until 2021 or 2022 to do so, based on the annual conferences that remain in the Centrist UM Church. This would avoid having a surplus of bishops who do not have an annual conference in which to serve. Central conferences would likely not see any change in their annual conference alignments and could elect bishops as planned in 2020.
The interim implementation will allow immediate change to how churches and annual conferences function, in order to curtail further conflict. Traditionalists would immediately be free of the pressure to change their position on marriage and sexuality and could begin moving in a robustly proactive ministry direction. At the same time, centrists and progressives would immediately be free of complaints, trials, and disciplinary processes over same-sex weddings or the ordination or appointment of self-avowed practicing homosexuals.
Some have pictured amicable separation as a divorce. Our group has instead pictured this process as The United Methodist Church giving birth to new children. The UM Church as it has been will exist no more. But it will exist through the new denominations that inherit the characteristics of the parent denomination. Each of the “children” will be different from each other. But they will all be part of the United Methodist family and heritage.
The underlying motive for taking this path is to broaden and multiply the mission of the church. As different denominations, we will be able to reach more people with the good news of Jesus Christ, make more disciples, and see more ways in which the presence of God’s Spirit transforms the world. We will be able to focus our energies and resources on mission and ministry, rather than fighting, power, and control. Each new expression of the church will be able to reach people that the other denominations cannot reach.
As the plan states, “We envision an amicable separation in The United Methodist Church which would provide a pathway to new denominations of the Methodist movement so we can all make new disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. These new denominations, though separate, will continue the rich heritage of the Methodist movement while being free to share their respective witnesses for Christ unhindered by those with whom they have been in conflict. We will release one another to joyful obedience to Christ’s call on our lives.” May it be so.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Sep 23, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Photo by Nick Youngson. Alpha Stock Images.
By Tom Lambrecht –
The conversation group working on the Indianapolis Plan has come to agreement and submitted the final version of a plan for an amicable separation in The United Methodist Church. As the document states, “We seek to move away from the caustic atmosphere which has often marked conversation in the United Methodist Church into a new season where we bless one another as we send each other into our respective mission fields to multiply our witness for Christ.” Readers can find the final version of the plan here.
This plan (of which I am one of the authors) envisions the UM Church giving birth to new denominations of United Methodism.
- A Traditionalist UM Church would maintain the current stance of the Discipline regarding same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBT persons.
- A Centrist UM Church would remove all the restrictions related to same-sex marriage and LGBT ordination, allowing individual annual conferences and local churches to make those decisions (essentially a “One Church Plan” denomination).
- A Progressive UM Church that celebrates and mandates same-sex marriage and LGBT ordination in all its churches could form immediately, and/or progressives could find a home in the Centrist UM Church.
- Other denominations could be formed by any annual conference or group of 50 congregations.
These new denominations would be separate from one another, with different Books of Discipline, separate finances, and different theological perspectives. However, all would share a common Wesleyan, United Methodist heritage and doctrine. All could use the name “United Methodist” with a modifier to distinguish it from the other denominations. All could use a version of the cross and flame logo modified to fit their particular denomination. Future blogs will talk more about the nuts and bolts of this plan and how it might work.
What are the unique values and advantages of the Indianapolis Plan?
It is the only plan made public up to this point that was crafted by persons representing diverse theological perspectives. The group contained five traditionalists, five centrists, and two progressives. (Attempts were made to enlist more progressives, but those approached were unable or unwilling to participate. However, progressive groups were consulted as the plan developed.) As such, this plan seeks to take into account the values and interests of all three groups. It represents a compromise among the three for the sake of ending the fighting and helping the church move into a positive and fruitful future.
It is the only plan that seeks division/separation rather than expulsion. By now, the leaders of all three groups — traditionalists, centrists, and progressives — have publicly stated that separation of some kind is the only way to move forward in a positive direction. Most other plans, however, envision a forced departure of one group or another from the church. The UMC Next Plan would essentially force traditionalists to leave the UM Church by changing the church’s definition of marriage and allowing LGBT ordination. Continuing to perfect the Traditional Plan by increasing accountability and closing loopholes would essentially force progressives to leave the UM Church or be subject to complaints and disciplinary procedures.
Only the Indianapolis Plan treats all perspectives equally, forcing no one to “leave” the church, but at the same time creating new denominations and allowing anyone to choose which new denomination to be part of. Nowhere in the plan is this more clearly seen than in the ability of central conferences, annual conferences, and local churches to make the decision on which denomination to align with by majority vote, rather than a super-majority (2/3) vote. If one group is “leaving,” a super-majority vote would make sense. But if all are choosing between equal alternatives, then a majority vote is more appropriate. Under the Indianapolis Plan, there are no winners or losers, people “leaving” and people “staying.” The plan attempts to treat all parties equally.
The Indianapolis Plan does not dissolve The United Methodist Church, but provides for its legal continuation through the Centrist UM Church. This is necessary in order to avoid constitutional amendments, which would require a 2/3 vote of General Conference and a 2/3 vote of all the annual conference members. This plan can be passed by a majority at General Conference and implemented immediately, rather than having to wait up to two years for the ratification vote. Legal continuation of the UM Church is also necessary because of legal issues that may need to be cared for in the process of separation that we may not even be aware of at this point.
But the Centrist UM Church will not simply be a continuation of The United Methodist Church as it currently exists. It will “do business as” the United Methodist name with a modifier. It will change its 48-year moral teachings and requirements around LGBT persons. It will consider making the United States its own central conference, able to adapt the Discipline differently in the U.S. than in other countries. It will undoubtedly change its structure to address the loss of perhaps one-third of its U.S. membership. Even the UMC Next Plan (from the centrists and progressives) envisions the creation of a “Commission on the 21st Century Church” that would “prepare a comprehensive structure and governance plan” to be enacted by a future General Conference. The Centrist UM Church will be in this sense a new denomination.
The Indianapolis Plan seeks to minimize the need for local congregations to vote as much as possible. Taking ideas from the Commission on a Way Forward proposals, this plan envisions central conferences and annual conferences voting on which denomination to align with. Only those local churches disagreeing with their annual conference alignment would need to vote. Because the General Conference cannot mandate that central conferences and annual conferences vote, the plan provides that U.S. annual conferences that do not vote would automatically become part of the Centrist UM Church. Central conferences and annual conferences outside the U.S. that do not vote would automatically become part of the Traditionalist UM Church. These defaults were determined based on our understanding of where most annual conferences would probably end up.
At the same time, it will be easy to trigger a vote in an annual conference. If the annual conference does not announce its intention to vote, any member can make a motion during the session of annual conference that it does take a vote. If the motion passes, the conference would have to take a vote. In addition, the plan allows the annual conference itself to call a special session of the annual conference if needed in order to take such a vote on alignment.
If the goal is to gain support across the theological spectrum for a fair and equitable plan that allows the different parts of the church to move easily into new denominations that can operate independently based on different theological perspectives, the Indianapolis Plan is best suited to accomplish that goal. Future blog posts will continue to explore the values and provisions of the Indianapolis Plan.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Sep 16, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
David F. Watson
By David F. Watson –
Many have noted that what we call “contemporary” worship isn’t so contemporary anymore. It’s a feature of the “attractional” model of church growth, embodied so well in Willow Creek and like-minded megachurches that popped up in the 80’s and 90’s.
The basic philosophy of the attractional model is that if we can create a church experience that reflects popular elements of the wider culture, people will like our churches enough to give up an hour of their time on Sunday morning. Once we have them in the building, we can begin to evangelize them. This model has been most effective with baby boomers. As the culture has continued to change, however, the question arises of whether or not we can become enough like the culture to attract the “unchurched,” or even to retain the “churched.”
At the outset, I’d like to clarify that my point isn’t to hammer on contemporary worship. I’ve worshiped in contemporary services many, many times. I’ve had some amazing experiences of God in contemporary services. I’ll worship in contemporary services many more times, and I anticipate that I will meet God in those services as well.
Perhaps, though, we who worship in such settings might consider incorporating some more traditional elements of Christian worship into our services.
I’m no expert on worship or liturgy, but I do care deeply about Christian formation, and worship forms us. How many Christians have grown up in services where the congregation never says the Lord’s Prayer (the Our Father)? How many have grown up in church and yet don’t know the Apostles’ Creed, and perhaps have never said the Nicene Creed? Worship forms us in the faith. The way we speak about God, the way we pray, the way we use Scripture, and the way we sing. Week after week, these practices shape our beliefs. As the old saying goes, lex orandi lex credenda — loosely translated, “as we pray, so we believe.”
Those of us who are concerned to preserve doctrinal orthodoxy in our traditions should take special note. We tend to use the word “orthodoxy” to mean “right doctrine,” but more literally it means “right praise.” The ways in which we praise God will shape what we believe about God. There are liturgical elements from the tradition that can help to shape our praise in service to the faith once and for all entrusted to the saints.
Recently I read a book by Winfied Bevins called Ever Ancient Ever New: The Allure of Liturgy for a New Generation (Zondervan, 2019). This is one of the supplementary readings for the DMin group that Justus Hunter and I lead at United Theological Seminary, called “Living the Historic Faith.” It’s a group about finding ways to reclaim some of the treasures of the Christian tradition for the church today. Bevins’s book was a natural fit.
I commend it to your reading. It’s both accessible and informative. It offers numerous real-life examples of young people who have been attracted to liturgical worship experiences, and it explains why they find such worship experiences so fulfilling. For example, Bevins writes:
“Moral and religious relativism has infiltrated the church and profoundly influenced the religious thinking of many young people. Thankfully, in some cases they are responding to this relativism in positive ways. Instead of embracing these nebulous and rootless beliefs, they are looking for firm ground on which to stand. Because they have not been introduced to creeds, confessions, and catechisms in the youth programs or discipleship ministries of their church, they are turning to other Christian traditions that embrace liturgy and creedal affirmations” (67).
Some of these young worshipers have joined the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. Some have joined with the Anglican/Episcopal denominations. Others, however, have remained within evangelical or mainline churches but reincorporated time-honored practices of Christian worship into their services. Chapter 6, “Something Ancient, Something New,” focuses specifically on churches that have moved in this direction.
In many churches, if a service began with acolytes, a robed processional, and organ music, people would fall out of their chairs. But the reincorporation of liturgy doesn’t have to look like that. There are myriad ways in which historic practices around prayer, song, Scripture, creed, communion, and baptism can find their way into the lives of churches that have long been beholden to the attractional model. 
Think, for example, about the sacrament of Holy Communion. What are we doing when we celebrate communion? I realize that different traditions understand communion differently from one another. In my tradition however, communion is supposed to be more than a remembrance. Rather, we believe in the real presence of Christ in the communion elements. We are receiving Christ’s body and blood, and we believe that we are thereby transformed. Communion is a means of grace –– or, put differently, a reliable way in which we receive the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.
The basic idea is this: we were once dead in our sins, but because of Christ’s sacrifice we are alive. We get to celebrate what Christ has done for us, and thus we call our liturgy the “Great Thanksgiving.” We begin with a confession of sin, we pronounce forgiveness over one another, we recite God’s mighty acts of salvation, we remember Christ’s instructions to his disciples during his final meal with them, and then we call upon the Holy Spirit to move us from remembrance to sacrament.
Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here, and on these gifts of bread and wine. Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ, that we may be for the world the body of Christ, redeemed by his blood.
By your Spirit make us one with Christ, one with each other, and one in ministry to all the world, until Christ comes in final victory, and we feast at his heavenly banquet.
Through your Son Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit in your holy church, all honor and glory is yours, almighty Father, now and forever.
I don’t know how many times I’ve recited that part of the liturgy, but without exception when I do I’m confronted by the sacredness of the moment. In the liturgy we are marking off sacred space, setting ourselves apart. We are entering into communion with a holy God, and God in turn blesses us with the real presence of Christ as we eat and drink.
Church today doesn’t have to look like mid-twentieth century “traditional” mainline Protestant worship, but neither does it have to look like 1980’s evangelicalism. We can bring together the ancient and the new in ways that will enliven the faith of our worshipers each Sunday.
David Watson is the academic dean and professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. This article first appeared on his blog HERE. Dr. Watson is the author of Scripture and the Life of God (Seedbed) and co-author of Key United Methodist Beliefs with William J. Abraham (Abingdon).
