by Steve | Mar 18, 2021 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, March/April 2021
By B.J. Funk –
“Plan your work and work your plan.” Sometimes, however, those plans have to be laid aside.
That’s where churches found ourselves this past year. Covid-19 took the lead role in the play called, “Think Again … You Actually Thought You Were in Charge?”
Actually, yes. We did. If not us, then who? Well, that would be God, of course. Proverbs 16:9 speaks of this: “We may make our plans, but the Lord directs our steps.” It could not be clearer. We must recognize that he has the last word.
No wishing or hoping can override the plan of God. If we can understand this, then we will move forward with a feeling of security. Deep down, we are thankful that One who is omnipotent actually makes the plans.
Napoleon, at the height of his career, is reported to have given this cynical answer to someone who asked if God was on the side of France: “God is on the side that has the heaviest artillery.”
Then came the Battle of Waterloo. Napoleon lost both the battle and his empire. Years later, when he was in exile on the island of St. Helena, completely humbled, Napoleon was reported to have quoted the words of Thomas à Kempis: “Man proposes; God disposes.”
Throughout this time of international pandemic, it is too easy for us to throw up our hands and completely give up on God with questions like, “Why is God doing this?” and “What purpose could he possibly have in mind?” and “Is this the beginning of the end of time?”
In answer to the first question, not one person on earth, even the wisest of scholars, has the perfect answer. His purposes, as the second question asks, are far too wide and too high for our finite minds. In answer to “Is this the beginning of the end of time” the answer would be, “Absolutely not. It is a continuing of the beginning of the end of time that entered our lives two thousand years ago.”
Jesus ushered in the last days. Since we are two thousand years into that ushering, it seems that God is not in any hurry to bring this truth to its final purpose. At least as we understand earth time.
A month into the pandemic, Maxie Dunnam provided this succinct explanation. “The coronavirus is not the will of God; this is not his deliberate judgment upon a sinful nation and an unfaithful church, and it is not any sort of announcement about end times. Listen to me now, listen carefully. I am not questioning God’s power. Even the winds and the waves obey God simply through the word of His Son. This is not God’s will, but God has a will in the midst of it.”
What we can all possibly agree on is that our lack of speaking out against sin has come home to haunt us.
One of the strongest “What were we thinking?” realizations is that most of us have closed our eyes. Simply closed our eyes as Satan brought forth one area of tolerance after another.
So, what do you see as God’s will for you in this virus? Maybe God is pointing out to us our need for a moral compass. Somewhere in these past years, we lost ours. Also, our spending habits might need a death and new life revival. Had we only known our income might be at risk through a virus, would our savings have been more important? Have our spending habits been over the top? Could we have said “no” to some of our newest possessions?
The solution should be fairly simple and yet decidedly difficult to carry out: Just open our eyes. Then, allow our disgust to move to our hearts, voice box, and hands. Speak out against injustice. Write letters to those in charge. And one more thing. Recognize who the enemy is. He is a very real, very alive, ruler of this world, and he is out to get you and your children. Don’t let him. “The one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4).
If you are a believer, then the power that created the world lives in you. Your enemy has already been defeated.
He just didn’t get the memo.
B.J. Funk is Good News’ long-time devotional columnist and author of It’s A Good Day for Grace.
by Steve | Mar 8, 2021 | Home Page Hero Slider, Magazine, Magazine Articles, March-April 2021
By Walter Fenton –
The Transitional Leadership Council, a 17 member team of theologically conservative Methodists, has released information on the formation of the new Global Methodist Church. The council said the new church will officially come into existence when a United Methodist General Conference adopts the implementing legislation for the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. Alternatively, if it becomes apparent that the leading bishops, centrists, and progressives who covenanted to support the Protocol no longer do so, then the council will consider bringing the new church into existence without delay.
“The primary mission of the Global Methodist Church will be to make disciples of Jesus Christ who worship passionately, love extravagantly, and witness boldly,” said the Rev. Keith Boyette, who serves as chairman of the Transitional Leadership Council. “Over the past year the council members, and hundreds of people who have informed their work, have faithfully and thoughtfully arrived at this point.”
With the announcement of the new church the council authorized the release of a comprehensive and detailed website (globalmethodist.org). It includes the new church’s mission statement, vision, information about its name and logo, a frequently asked questions section, and downloadable versions of the church’s Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline in English, French, Korean, Portuguese, and Spanish. The website clearly notes that “the Global Methodist Church is in formation” and will not officially launch until the Protocol is approved.
“It was a great honor to participate in such exhilarating work,” said the Rev. Philippe Adjobi, a member of the Transitional Leadership Council, a district superintendent in the Cote d’Ivoire Annual Conference and a General Conference delegate. “I believe the Global Methodist Church will fulfill the expectations and aspirations of local churches throughout Africa. They will appreciate focusing on what is essential: testifying to Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.”
Adjobi and the names of the other 16 members of the council – men and women from Africa, Eurasia, the Philippines, and the United States – are listed on the Global Methodist Church’s website. The list includes laity, clergy, and bishops who believe an amicable and orderly separation is the best way forward.
The special General Conference in 2019 proved to be as contentious and divisive as many people anticipated when a Traditional Plan reaffirming the UM Church’s sexual ethics, teachings on marriage, and ordination standards was approved. Progressive and centrist United Methodists in the U.S. denounced the General Conference’s actions and resolved to defy the global body vested with the sole power to speak authoritatively for the UM Church.
Within weeks, small groups of centrist, progressive, and traditionalist UM Church leaders, quietly and often haltingly began having conversations about plans for dividing the denomination. A group convened by the late Bishop John Yambasu of Sierre Leone and guided by the world renown mediator Kenneth Feinberg hammered out the Protocol and its implementing legislation. The 16 member team included leading UM bishops and representatives from the major advocacy groups representing centrists, progressives, and conservatives.
The Protocol team released its plan in early January 2020 and it quickly gained the sometimes hopeful and sometimes grudging support of United Methodists around the world. It appeared headed for likely passage at the denomination’s May 2020 General Conference.
In light of the Protocol, a group of theologically conservative UM Church leaders met in Atlanta in March 2020. The group included several traditionalist bishops, evangelical advocacy group leaders, and other clergy and laity who identified as theologically conservative. During their meeting, they nominated the members of the Transitional Leadership Council, assigning them the task of forming the new church.
“I am convinced the Global Methodist Church will be a vibrant, vital expression of Methodism in terms of its teachings and ethics,” said Dr. Bob Hayes, a Transitional Leadership Council member and Bishop in Residence at The Woodlands United Methodist Church in The Woodlands, Texas. “As a fourth generation Methodist I am excited by a fresh wind of the Holy Spirit where I see God doing a new thing! God is creating a church rooted in Scripture and the love of Jesus, and he is calling us to participate with him.”
At the time of the Transitional Leadership Council’s formation, no one knew the Covid-19 pandemic would result in the postponement of the UM Church’s 2020 General Conference. Despite the postponement of an in-person General Conference, the Transitional Leadership Council has been meeting almost weekly since March 2020. As is evident in its Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, the council has approved the Global Methodist Church’s core confessions of faith, hammered out a transitional governing structure, and adopted the new church’s name and logo. The council has emphasized fidelity to the historic teaching of the Christian faith, and a desire to be a truly global church.
“I believe a good number of ethnic congregations will want to align with the Global Methodist Church,” said the Rev. Kevin Ryoo, a council member and an elder in the Dakotas Annual Conference. “They long for a church which honors the Bible, stays within the traditional mission of Methodism, and keeps local church ministry as a first priority. I know Korean Methodist congregations have a strong passion for evangelism and mission.”
Boyette, who is the president of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, acknowledged that while the association has played a role in preparing for the new church, many other traditionalist leaders have been critical in the formation of the Global Methodist Church.
“Traditionalists do not march in lock-step,” said Dr. Leah Hidde Gregory, a Transitional Leadership Council member and a district superintendent in the Central Texas Annual Conference. “Some traditionalists have been wary of the WCA, thinking it was moving too fast and others believing it was moving too slow. It took a few meetings before I realized there were only three people from the WCA leadership on our council. It became obvious to me that the group who nominated us wanted to make sure all people who regard themselves as traditionalist, orthodox, conservative, or evangelical were represented on the Transitional Leadership Council.”
In the “Frequently Asked Questions” section of its website the new church states, “Women, like men, will be called to serve in the Global Methodist Church and will be entitled to serve at all levels.” The section also says, “As a truly global church the denomination will be ethnically and racially diverse and will insist on the equal treatment of all the church’s members.”
“I believe Methodism is on the cusp of another Great Awakening,” said Transitional Leadership Council member Cara Nicklas, an attorney and General Conference delegate from the Oklahoma Annual Conference. “The Global Methodist Church is the vehicle by which that will happen because we value a connectional, global church with doctrine and discipline that is not guided by our U.S. culture but is simply focused on bringing people into a deep and intimate relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
Walter Fenton is Vice President for Strategic Engagement for the Wesleyan Covenant Association and an elder in the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference.
by Steve | Mar 8, 2021 | Home Page Hero Slider, Magazine, Magazine Articles, March-April 2021
Members of a diverse group of bishops and other United Methodist leaders after reaching agreement on a proposal that would maintain The United Methodist Church but allow traditionalist congregations to separate into a new denomination. Photo courtesy of the Mediation Team.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
On February 25, the Commission on the General Conference announced that the 2020 General Conference – postponed once until August 29, 2021 – has now been postponed again until August 29, 2022. On the same day, the Council of Bishops announced it is calling a special session of the General Conference to meet virtually on May 8, 2021, to address technical issues that would allow the church to continue operating until the full General Conference can meet.
Notably, the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation is not currently on the agenda for the special virtual General Conference.
No Regular General Conference. The Commission made the expected decision that an in-person General Conference could not take place in 2021, due to the travel restrictions in place now and expected to remain in place for the foreseeable future. Travel by delegates from outside the U.S. – fully 40 percent – to attend General Conference will likely still be impossible throughout 2021.
A Technology Study Team met during January to consider the possibility of a virtual General Conference. After extensive research and conversations with representatives of the church outside the U.S., the team concluded that a virtual General Conference, even with a limited agenda, would not be possible because of issues related to time zones, reliable electricity and Internet service, travel restrictions, and the integrity of the voting process.
As one who promoted the viability of a virtual General Conference, reading the report of the Technology Study Team convinced me that it is not feasible with current technology during a pandemic. This decision is disappointing, and the situation is frustrating, but it was the right call.
The Special Session. The Council of Bishops proposes that the special session gather on May 8 for an extremely limited agenda. The first task would be to secure a quorum, in order for the special session to take action. In light of the above considerations, it is unlikely that more than a scattered few delegates from Africa or the Philippines could attend. It must be acknowledged that, despite the high value on universal participation by all delegates, this special session will mainly include U.S. and European delegates who have access to Internet technology. But this situation is unavoidable in trying to get some of the church’s administrative processes unstuck.
With the knowledge that many delegates could not participate in a deliberative General Conference, the Council of Bishops has limited the proposed agenda to twelve administrative items that it considers non-controversial. The virtual General Conference will also act to allow the voting to be done by paper ballots that would be compiled by mail and the results announced on July 13, 2021. The paper ballots would not allow any amendments to the above legislation. Delegates would simply vote yes or no. Although not all delegates could participate in the virtual General Conference, all 862 delegates could cast paper ballots on the proposed legislation.
What about the Protocol? Although the proposed agenda for the virtual special session of General Conference does not include the Protocol, the decision about separation requires urgent resolution. Many of the other decisions, such as the budget and the number of bishops to elect, depend upon how many churches and annual conferences will remain in the UM Church after separation. It would be better to make the decision regarding separation before needing to make all these other decisions. It is in no one’s best interest to prolong this decision. Deciding now would enable the UM Church and the new traditionalist denomination to begin moving ahead in ministry as we come out of the pandemic. Many are ready to act, and deciding now would open the door for churches that are ready to go in a new direction.
It is in the best interest of centrists and progressives that General Conference make a decision now regarding the Protocol. Once traditionalists start moving to a new denomination, it would allow centrists and progressives free rein to change the church’s position on marriage, sexual ethics, and other isssues at the 2022 General Conference.
The need to offer amendments to the Protocol is not essential. The mediation team negotiated the major terms of the Protocol based on compromise and give-and-take. Changing any of those major terms could jeopardize the carefully balanced agreement and throw the adoption of the Protocol into question. It would be better to adopt the Protocol as negotiated, with the implementation dates extended by one year, which would be possible under the plan of the special virtual session. The Council of Bishops could amend the call for the special session to include the Protocol. If not, the delegates – with a two-thirds vote – could add the Protocol to the agenda of items to be dealt with by the special session.
Hope for the Future. Meanwhile, the Protocol mediation team needs to provide leadership in continuing its support and promotion of the Protocol. The Reconciling Ministries Network and the Western Jurisdiction and its progressive bishops have recently reiterated their support for the Protocol, as has a broad group of traditionalists. With support across the spectrum, including from bishops, the Protocol can move forward as a positive way to amicably resolve the decades-long conflict in the UM Church. Freed from conflict, both groups could wholeheartedly pursue ministry according to their mission and convictions.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Mar 8, 2021 | Home Page Hero Slider, Magazine, Magazine Articles, March-April 2021
Rob Renfroe
rrenfroe@goodnewsmag.org
As you are probably aware, the Commission on the General Conference announced on February 26 that the 2020 General Conference has now been postponed until August 29, 2022. This is a second postponement, General Conference having previously been moved from May 2020 to August 2021, due to concerns regarding the COVID crisis.
At the same time, the Council of Bishops announced it is calling a special session of the General Conference to meet virtually on May 8, 2021, to consider a variety of issues, the most important of which is how we will conduct business as a church when we cannot meet in person.
United Methodist pastor and blogger Andy Bryan summed it up very well in a recent tweet: “I am a part of a denomination that needs to set a meeting to suspend our rules so that we can create new rules to dictate what we are supposed to do when we cannot meet to create rules.”
If that sounds confusing, it’s because it is confusing. And it’s confusing because we are a confused denomination. For fifty years many of our leaders – pastors and bishops – have confused the acceptance of nonbiblical theologies with openness. They have confused affirming behaviors contrary to the teaching of Scripture with giving grace. And they have wrongly confused the views of a postmodern, progressive culture with the values of God’s Kingdom.
Confused leadership creates confused organizations that create confusing plans that create more confusion – and more distrust. That’s why the Good News office (and the offices of all the orthodox renewal groups) has been flooded with the concerns of faithful UM pastors and laypersons who believe the additional postponement is nothing more than a ploy, the goal of which is to discourage traditional members to the point they will leave the church. And many, after being disappointed by the Council of Bishops over and over again in the past, are thinking this may now be the time to do just that.
We should give the General Commission on the General Conference some grace. The pandemic put them in a very difficult place. The Commission had to determine if a truly fair and representative General Conference could take place virtually, knowing that in many countries delegates might not have the same access to technology that we in the United States enjoy. And we should be grateful that the Commission announced that the postponed Conference will be scheduled in 2022, rather than leaving us without any idea when the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation will be considered.
Still, we are in a confusing place. Unless some clarity is given regarding our future, the results are predictable. Members will leave. Churches will exit (some already have as a result of General Conference 2019 and the original postponement of GC 2020). In states where the laws favor the local church over the denomination (and there are many) lawsuits will be filed by some congregations to leave with their property. The Wesleyan Covenant Association’s recent announcement of a new orthodox Wesleyan denomination, the Global Methodist Church, will increase the number of churches who are willing to depart the UM Church, even if they must fight their way out through the courts. And, of course, apportionments will decline, further exacerbating the denomination’s already precarious financial situation.
Without clarity about a way forward, the Wesleyan movement, whether in the form of a traditional expression of the Christian faith or in the remaining post-separation UM Church, will be harmed numerically, financially, and spiritually. In the midst of a global pandemic, as racial issues continue to divide our country, at the same time that more people in the U.S. are walking away from the faith than ever before – in other words, when those around us desperately need the hope of the Gospel and the witness of the church – a lack of leadership and clarity about our future will weaken our ability to minister to a hurting and needy world.
What needs to be done? Denominational leaders need to state clearly and explicitly that they support the Protocol and that they will do all they can to secure its ratification.
Some already have. The progressive Western Jurisdiction did so last fall. A broad group of traditional leaders, including bishops, pastors, and laypersons, many not associated with conservative renewal groups, reiterated its support of the Protocol in February before the postponement was announced. And Reconciling Ministries reaffirmed its commitment to the Protocol shortly after the delay was made public. Conservative and progressive leaders have spoken out. It’s time for others to do the same.
1. The team that negotiated and proposed the Protocol should make a joint statement that they are still committed to its passage with no amendments. The entire church was grateful that an agreement was reached by progressive, centrist, and traditional leaders that makes an amicable parting possible. Since that time, other proposals have been put forth, but none by a team that is theologically diverse and representative of the whole church. We need those who performed the arduous work of creating the Protocol to remind us why it is still the best and most fair way forward. We need them to reaffirm that in spite of other proposed options, they are still fully in favor of the Protocol.
2. Centrist leaders need to reaffirm their unequivocal commitment to the Protocol. Centrists on the Protocol team played a valuable role in its creation. But since that time, we have not heard much, if anything, from them as to why it is still the way forward. Progressive and traditional leaders have reiterated their support of the Protocol. It is imperative that those who claim to be at the center of the church do so as well.
3. The Council of Bishops must lead the way and be clear that it is committed to the Protocol, as proposed. Nothing would be more helpful in alleviating the distrust and the angst so many of our members are feeling as a strong statement by the COB that it endorses and will work for the passage of the Protocol. If we must wait until 2022 to vote on the Protocol, the Council could be the “calm and assuring presence” our bishops have talked about so often by assuring the church that they will use all of their influence to secure the Protocol’s ratification.
4. If the Council of Bishops fails to make a statement, traditional bishops should declare they are committed to an orthodox Wesleyan expression and that they will support the new Global Methodist Church. Whereas most progressive bishops have been very open in the past about their support of The One Church Plan and other more radical solutions to our current crisis, traditional bishops have been less willing to indicate which plan they support. They have believed that rather than being an advocate for a particular path forward, it was better and more in keeping with their role as a bishop to the whole church to explain clearly the various plans. That way their pastors and members could make an informed decision for themselves about the solution they thought best. We can appreciate the balanced approach of our traditional bishops. But it is now time to move from education to direction. Again, what we need is clarity – what do the traditional bishops believe, what will they do, and how will they lead if the Council of Bishops fails to do so.
There is talk of traditional delegates boycotting the special General Conference to signify their dissatisfaction that the Protocol was not included on the agenda. If successful, they could prevent a quorum for the Conference being reached and no business could be conducted. I don’t want that to happen. It will not serve the church well and it will only make traditionalists look small and petty. But it may be the route some will take if they believe support for the Protocol is waning.
There are also discussions of delegates joining together to add the Protocol to the agenda and voting on its passage. This would require two-thirds of the delegates agreeing to suspend the rules of the Conference. Am I in favor of this path? Yes. There is no reason that an up or down vote could not be held on the Protocol. The Conference could vote to act on it as is with no amendments. The Protocol has been widely distributed; we have had more than ample time to consider it; and if paper ballots work for matters to be addressed in the special Conference called for May of this year, there is no case to be made that they cannot be used for the Protocol. Leaders of all the major factions within the church have previously supported it and we all expected it to be passed this August. We don’t need hours of debate, quibbling over details, or dealing with everyone’s better idea. We can and should vote on the Protocol on May 8.
If the bishops and the members of the Commission on General Conference believe we should wait until 2022, then they must provide what the church needs. Clarity about their commitment to the Protocol. An assurance that if we wait until 2022, the Protocol will be passed. Reason to believe that even if we disagree on important issues, we are not confused about the way forward.
by Steve | Jan 11, 2021 | Jan-Feb 2021, Magazine, Magazine Articles
Rob Renfroe
rrenfroe@goodnewsmag.org
As we begin a new year, I know many United Methodists are wondering, “Where do things stand regarding the protocol for separating the church? Is it still on track? Why haven’t we heard much about it lately?”
The Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation was created by a sixteen-member panel of leading traditionalists, centrists, and progressives, including several bishops. Advocacy groups spanning the theological spectrum, including Good News, the Confessing Movement, the Wesleyan Covenant Association, Reconciling Ministries Network, UMC Next, and Mainstream UMC all endorsed the Protocol.
It seemed certain the protocol would be passed at General Conference 2020 and we who want to maintain the Bible’s teaching on sexuality and those who wish to change United Methodism’s Scripturally-based standards would be able to go our separate ways. But the COVID pandemic caused General Conference to be postponed and the focus of the church has rightly been on helping those who are suffering during this difficult time. So, the protocol has taken a back seat these past several months.
General Conference is now scheduled for this coming August. There is some discussion about the possibility of holding a virtual Conference with delegates being able to participate online from home or gathered together in several regional centers across the world. Whether virtually or in person, the plan at present is for General Conference to convene in August and to take up the protocol. The protocol and the future of the UM Church will again take center stage.
So, what’s the status of the protocol and the likelihood of its passage? Despite some talk that the General Conference might again be postponed because international delegates may find travel restrictions due to the pandemic (see page 22), we believe it is still on track and will be passed by General Conference this year.
Not everyone agrees. Some bishops have reported to us privately that commitment for the protocol is waning among some of their colleagues. Due to our many years of division and the economic effects of the pandemic, general church apportionments are being paid at the lowest rate ever. More “institutional” bishops are concerned about the future viability of the denomination and what the departure of traditional congregations will mean for the UM Church going forward.
Nevertheless, we are optimistic that by this time next year, General Conference will have made a way for annual conferences and congregations who wish to depart to do so.
No one wants to repeat what happened at the General Conference in St. Louis. Earlier this year Bishop Cynthia Harvey, president of the Council of Bishops, stated her support of the protocol, “We could not continue the harm we were doing to each other; we needed a better way… it became very clear that [separation] was the next step we needed to take.”
The pandemic has changed many things, but it has not changed our need to put an end to the fighting and the division that has done so much harm.
The various advocacy groups mentioned above as supporting the protocol have been the ones in the trenches, strategizing, recruiting, organizing, and competing against each other to carry the day at General Conference. None of these groups has stated a change in their commitment to the protocol.
Recently, the Western Jurisdiction, the most liberal in the UM Church, issued a statement under the heading “Where Love Lives.” In their press release, Bishop Karen Oliveto, president of the Western Jurisdiction’s College of Bishops said, “The Western Jurisdiction is committed to living out our belief that God’s church is open to all. The Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation offers a way forward to begin easing the five decades of pain created by the wounds inflicted on LGBTQ persons by the church.”
It appears that the primary group that might work against the protocol’s passage is the institutional bishops, who are the same ones who have wanted to deny the depth of our division in the past. They are the ones who have offered the false hope that we could find a way to be one church with two different views of the Bible and competing sexual ethics. And they are starting to create the narrative that now is not the time for separation because the institutional UM Church cannot survive it.
We are optimistic. We believe the protocol is likely to pass. But we are also realistic. The battle is not yet over. Voices opposing separation are likely to surface. Progressives have already been to Africa telling bishops, pastors, and delegates they should remain within the continuing UM Church in order to continue receiving the financial support for their ministries they are accustomed to. (They conveniently ignore the fact that the dramatic decline in apportionment payments is already resulting in cuts to funding for African ministry, and that the departure of many traditionalist American congregations will further diminish the continuing UM Church’s ability to financially support ministry in Africa.)
The protocol was negotiated in order to avoid a contentious and litigious separation. Failure to pass the protocol or something like it could result in the acrimonious splintering of the denomination costing millions of dollars in legal fees.
After attending and working for our biblical views at seven past General Conferences, I know nothing is ever certain until the last vote has been taken. I also know how important it is that we remain vigilant and active as we prepare for General Conference.
Traditionalists will continue to reach out to our partners in Africa and in other parts of the world to keep support for the protocol strong. Additionally, we will be staying in touch with bishops who support the cause of a peaceful separation.
We are so close to creating a new future for faithful Methodists. Passing the protocol will allow Bible-believing churches and annual conferences to step into that new day with their property and congregations intact. One last push and the battle will be over.
by Steve | Jan 11, 2021 | Jan-Feb 2021, Magazine, Magazine Articles
“There are no doctrinal litmus tests in the movement. We are moving beyond the supremacy of a single belief system,” said the Rev. Janet McKeithen, a member of the Connexion.
By Heather Hahn –
A group of progressive United Methodists and other Christians launched a new denomination named the Liberation Methodist Connexion, or LMX. The new church aims to center on the voices of people of color as well as queer and transgender individuals — those the LMX organizers see as marginalized in The United Methodist Church.
“We are a grassroots denomination of former, current, and non-Methodist faith leaders working on the unfolding of the kin-dom of God,” the Connexion says on its website. “We intentionally invite the full participation of all who are living out their God-given identities and expressions.”
Organizers announced the new denomination’s formation with an online worship service, presentation, and after-party on Nov. 29, the first Sunday of Advent and the start of the Christian year. The new denomination’s organizers, a number of whom are LGBTQ, said they feel called to act now.
“The timeline of the Holy Spirit is driving our decision to launch the LMX at this moment, and we are following her call,” the Rev. Althea Spencer-Miller told UM News by email. Spencer-Miller, a New Testament professor at United Methodist Drew Theological School, is one of more than 40 collaborators who are helping to establish the new church. She and other collaborators declined to say how many congregations or people are part of the new denomination at launch. Organizers said by email they do not want to equate worth with volume.
Among the collaborators are both United Methodist pastors and lay people, including at least three church leaders elected to be General Conference delegates or reserve delegates. The new Connexion is not asking people to choose between the LMX and their affiliations with other faith communities, Spencer-Miller said by email and at the event.
Ian Carlos Urriola, another collaborator and veteran General Conference delegate, said at the event that the new denomination plans to work with The United Methodist Church’s official racial and ethnic caucuses, “ensuring that we remain in relationship with our forebearers in the struggle.”
At this point, the Liberation Methodist Connexion has obtained tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit status in the United States. The new church also is in process of applying for a group exemption with the IRS to simplify the administrative process for its congregations and ministries.
The new Connexion has no doctrinal litmus tests, said the Rev. Janet G. McKeithen, a member of the new denomination’s working group. The LMX focuses more on actions than beliefs, Spencer-Miller later added. “We seek not answers that lead us to correct doctrines as to why we suffer. We seek correct actions, correct praxis where God sustains us during the unanswerable questions,” Spencer-Miller said during the online event.
Such actions – the Connexion’s website notes – include reparations, caring for the earth, and freeing Methodist tradition of colonialism, white supremacy, economic injustice, sexism, ableism, ageism, and heteronormativity.
Heather Hahn is a multimedia reporter for UM News.
