by Steve | Feb 3, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
General Conference 2019. Photo by Kathleen Barry, UMNS.
By Tom Lambrecht –
The legislation that would implement the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation has been completed. It has been sent for formatting and will be forwarded to several annual conferences that are supposed to have special sessions in order to adopt the legislation and submit it to General Conference. Those sessions need to occur before the middle of March, so that the legislation can be submitted before the 45-day deadline prior to General Conference.
As the legislation is released publicly, probably within the next week, more details will be available as to how separation would work under the Protocol. Future articles will address various aspects of the Protocol plan in coming weeks. This article will look at how separation might affect churches in the United States. Note that nothing has been decided or will become final until General Conference takes action on these proposals in May. The delegates may choose to change some provisions of the Protocol Plan (although the mediation team hopes that it remains relatively intact as it is).
Annual Conference Action
The first decision regarding how churches will align, whether with a New Methodist Denomination or with the continuing United Methodist Church, will be made in some annual conferences. The Protocol requires a 57 percent vote by an annual conference in order to align with a New Methodist Denomination. If the conference does not vote (a vote is not required) or does not achieve 57 percent, it will remain in the post-separation United Methodist Church.
In order to be eligible for annual conferences and local churches to vote to align with a New Methodist Denomination, a leadership group that is promoting such a denomination must register with the Council of Bishops prior to May 15, 2021. The leaders of a New Traditionalist Methodist Denomination will be ready to register on the day General Conference adjourns (May 15, 2020), so that annual conferences and local churches can consider aligning with that traditionalist denomination very soon.
There is a reasonable chance that up to a dozen U.S. annual conferences could achieve a 57 percent vote to align with a New Traditionalist Methodist Denomination. There might be a few annual conferences that could achieve a 57 percent vote to align with a New Progressive Methodist Denomination, but that is less likely. A number of annual conferences have already tentatively scheduled special one-day sessions of annual conference to consider a vote on alignment. Since nearly all U.S. annual conferences meet within six weeks of the adjournment of General Conference, it would be wise to postpone the annual conference’s decision on this important matter until later in the summer or fall, in order to give members a chance to learn about the options and carefully consider their decision.
An annual conference must take a vote where a motion to take such a vote receives the support of at least 20 percent of the annual conference members. Alternatively, an annual conference can decide to take a vote by its own normal processes. Where an annual conference is clearly not going to achieve a 57 percent vote to align with a New Methodist Denomination, it does not make sense to push for a vote of the annual conference. That would only foster divisiveness and hard feelings to no purpose. Annual conferences in the U.S. have until June 30, 2021, to take a vote. Otherwise, they will remain in the post-separation United Methodist Church.
All annual conference property, assets, and liabilities would go with that annual conference into the new denomination. This includes all local churches within that annual conference, unless a church votes to remain in the post-separation United Methodist Church or align with a different New Methodist Denomination. The only local churches that would need to vote are those that disagree with the alignment decision (whether by vote or by default) of their annual conference.
Local Church Action
Local churches in the U.S. can begin voting on alignment by late summer of this year. They do not have to wait until their annual conference has voted. Where an annual conference will likely remain part of the post-separation United Methodist Church, a local church in that conference need not wait until the June 30, 2021, deadline has passed in order to take a vote to align with a New Methodist Denomination. Where an annual conference has a reasonable chance of achieving the 57 percent margin to align with a New Methodist Denomination, local churches ought to wait until after the annual conference has voted before they take a local vote. If the annual conference aligns the way the local church would, the local church then would not need to take a vote. And that local church’s representatives at annual conference would be needed to reach the 57 percent.
The local church decision would be made by a meeting of the church conference, which includes all professing members present and voting (no absentee ballots). The district superintendent must call such a church conference within 60 days of a request by the pastor or the church council (or equivalent leadership body). The church council would need to decide ahead of time whether the margin for a decision to align differently from the annual conference would require a simple majority or a two-thirds vote, based on that local church’s context. If the highest value in that local church is unity, it might choose a two-thirds vote. If the highest value is honoring the convictions of the majority of the congregation, it might choose a simple majority vote.
If a local church votes to align with a New Methodist Denomination, it would take its property, assets, and liabilities with it into the new denomination. The local church’s share of the annual conference’s unfunded pension liabilities would be transferred to the new denomination. The local church would not need to make any payments in order to align with a new denomination. Representatives of the local church and the annual conference would need to negotiate and sign a Separation Agreement that cares for the legal details, including the release of the trust clause. Terms of such an agreement would be strictly limited to impose no financial or other barrier to realignment.
Under the Protocol Plan, the earliest an annual conference or local church could effectively move into the new denomination would be January 1, 2021. Until then, local churches are expected to continue paying their apportionments and other obligations (pension, health benefits, etc.) to their current annual conference. As a matter of integrity, such payments should continue, since there would no longer be a need to use apportionments as a tool to leverage a desired outcome (for either side). On the agreed Separation Date, the local church would no longer pay apportionments to their UM annual conference and would begin paying apportionments at the level set by their new denomination.
Local churches would have until December 31, 2024, to take a vote on aligning with a New Methodist Denomination.
Churches that Become Independent
The Protocol Plan also contains provisions allowing local churches to withdraw from The United Methodist Church and become independent, not aligning with any New Methodist Denomination. These provisions are necessary because ¶ 2553 passed by the St. Louis General Conference last February is being challenged due to voting irregularities.
The provisions for churches to become independent are similar to what was passed in ¶ 2553. Such a decision would require a two-thirds vote of the church conference (all professing members present and voting). The local church would keep its property, assets, and liabilities. The local church would have to be current on the previous 12 months’ apportionments and pay an additional 12 months’ apportionments. It would also have to pay its share of the annual conference’s unfunded pension liabilities, an amount that can run anywhere from roughly three to six times their annual apportionment. Pension provisions adopted in St. Louis provide for the possibility of a payment plan for these liabilities.
Obviously, it is better financially for churches to align with a New Methodist Denomination than to become independent. However, churches should not believe that they could align with a new denomination and then change to become independent without paying anything. The new denominations will have provisions requiring at least the recovery of the church’s share of unfunded pension liabilities before allowing a church to exit and become independent.
Local churches would have until December 31, 2024, to vote to become independent.
Questions?
This article gives the basics of what the separation process would be in the U.S. There may well be additional questions that are not answered here. I invite you to send your questions via reply email, and I will try to address them in a future article.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jan 27, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Chappell Temple –
He’s not exactly a theologian, but we could perhaps call him a prophet of sorts. Six years before the United Methodist Church was even formed, Neil Sedaka got it right in his signature song of 1962: “Breaking Up is Hard to Do.” And that is so not only because there are numerous challenges as to how to divide the property and navigate all the relationships, but more so because if the marriage — or the church — was ever any good at all, there should indeed be deep grief when a separation becomes necessary.
Unfortunately, such is where we are as United Methodists. For it is now rather inescapably obvious that even if we might still have warm feelings for one another, we cannot all live in the same house any longer. I had hoped we would not come to this point. Forty-five years ago, I joined the Texas Annual Conference as a pastor and for thirty of those years I have had the chance to serve as a member of the Texas Annual Conference delegation to jurisdictional and then General Conferences.
But the entirety of my ministry as an ordained pastor has also been framed by the underlying tension of divergent views within the UM Church on not just human sexuality but also the authority of scripture, the nature of revelation, the role of missions, the application of social justice, and even the identity and divinity of Christ. And in the whole of it what we have discovered as a church is that for all of its merits, there are also limitations to the grand idea of pluralism.
To be sure, the famed dictum of “unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all things,” is a wonderful goal, though John Wesley was hardly the first person to espouse it. You can find the quote at least a century before him, in fact, in the writings of a Catholic Archbishop who ended up attacking both the papacy and the English church before eventually being declared a relapsed heretic unable to be in unity with anybody. As wonderfully aspirational as the motto might sound, thus, it simply does not work when people cannot agree on what the “essentials” actually might be.
All of which is why I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that fifty-two years after its founding, the UM Church must likewise now be reformulated. And though there is no perfect plan, the recently announced “Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation” would seem to be the best proposal that will come before the General Conference in May. For the Protocol will allow for those of varying theological and social understandings to follow their conscience without the continual acrimony and ideological struggle that has marked our denomination for decades.
Traditionalists, for instance, will be able to retain what have been the historic beliefs and practices of Methodism, though in a new wineskin that will also allow for a more local and lay-centered polity. Progressives, with the addition of a regional conference for the United States, will be empowered to pursue their vision of a church with a broader understanding of sexual ethics, identity formation, and ever-emerging revelation of God and God’s Word. Centrists will be free to embrace their pragmatic approach to ministry. And those in the central conferences outside of the United States will have liberty to decide which expression of Methodism best matches their own understanding, discerning whether simply retaining the current name and logo is important enough to remain organically affiliated with those espousing practices with which they may not agree.
Again, the Protocol is not perfect. Some on the progressive side may question why conservatives should receive twenty-five million dollars, forgetting that Methodists of many opinions contributed those funds in the first place over a rather long period of time. And others on the conservative side may think that the amount is not in any way commensurate with what traditional church members have poured into our collective life for decades.
Likewise, many traditionalists may wonder why they should be the ones to give up the denominational name and apparatus when they have, in fact, prevailed in every General Conference vote since 1972 and it is those within the progressive caucus who have not only defied our common Discipline but brought us to this brink of separation in the first place. Some have even said that it feels like we are being paid off just to go away.
But in the end, the more significant result of adopting this Protocol will be that churches, or even annual conferences, of any persuasion will be able to follow their conscience out of the UM Church should they feel the need to do so without the penalty of loss of any of their local properties and resources. And that is a provision whose value cannot be overstated. For relaxing the Trust Clause is like loosening someone’s grip around your neck and being free once more to not only breathe but to go where you may feel God is leading you.
In that regard, it will be critical for clergy, congregations, and conferences to clearly understand just exactly what the outlines of the emerging realities may be. In order to continue to support the understandings which the world-wide United Methodist Church has prayerfully and consistently embraced over its entire history it will probably be necessary to leave not Methodism but The United Methodist Church. For without doing so, all of us will remain stuck in an endless “Groundhog Day” of debate, dissension, disobedience, and disarray. The General Conference, bolstered by the growth of the denomination in Africa and elsewhere, may have the votes to retain the current stances on sexuality, for instance, but it will not have the power to enforce its decisions and so the resistance will only get worse.
On the other hand, should conferences and congregations be allowed to form a new expression of global Methodism, all kinds of exciting possibilities and ministry opportunities await us. Ideally, if annual conferences as a whole choose to make the shift, then the vast majority of our congregations will never even have to vote on the questions. But even if conferences do not change, local churches still can do so, choosing to align with a larger group that more closely mirrors their own convictions and aspirations.
All kinds of details still need to be worked out, of course. Pastors and congregations need to be afforded a transition period so that if clergy and churches choose separate paths there will still be a chance to make that shift more graciously without an immediate appointment change. And bishops too will have to determine their own destinies, with each of them honestly following their convictions no matter where they may lead.
There is still time, however, for those writing the specific language of the proposal to address such concerns, and at the General Conference there will still be the possibility of amendment. But if the gist of what has been proposed can be enacted, Methodists can do something rather remarkable which other Protestant bodies have been unable to accomplish: separating without all the acrimony and legal and financial fighting that has marked such divisions elsewhere.
My hope is that those of us who may leave the UM Church may go out as new missionaries to the world, ready to follow the original guiding vision of our movement, “to spread scriptural holiness” across the globe. And I genuinely wish that as these two new expressions of Methodism emerge, we will once again be able to look upon each other as brothers and sisters, or at least “cousins” in Christ, and not simply adversaries across a General Conference committee or assembly room.
Yes, if the Protocol is adopted, conservatives will walk away from much of what we have helped to build over the decades. But the words of Jim Elliot, the famed missionary of the last century, come to mind: “he is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.”
The truth is that we cannot keep going the way we have been. And we dare not lose the gospel with which we have all been entrusted. The Protocol is at present our best pathway to peace.
The Rev. Dr. Chappell Temple is the lead pastor at Christ United Methodist Church in Sugar Land, Texas. He has also served as an adjunct faculty member for Perkins School of Theology. This editorial was originally written for the Wesleyan Covenant Association and is used here by permission.
by Steve | Jan 20, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Tom Lambrecht –
Faced with the possibility of an impending split in the denomination, United Methodists are rightly worried about the financial impact of the newly proposed Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation. Giving to the denomination’s general apportionments fell immediately after the special St. Louis General Conference last February. A number of annual conferences are struggling to meet their budgets. The General Council on Finance and Administration has proposed an 18 percent cut to the quadrennial budget for 2021-24.
Pensions
Many clergy, particularly retired clergy, are worried about their pension. Just as some employees and former employees of major corporations that have hit financial problems have lost part or all of their pensions, what would happen to UM clergy pensions if the denomination separates?
The good news is that all the proposed plans of separation have made provision for continuing clergy pensions at the current level. Wespath has developed plans and legislative language that would allow clergy in any new Methodist denomination to continue participating in the clergy pension program. Earned benefits would continue at the same level as previously expected. Unfunded pension liabilities would be allocated between the post-separation United Methodist Church and the new Methodist denomination(s), with no payments for these liabilities required.
The only exception to the continuation of pensions at the current level would be for congregations and clergy who go independent and do not align with a new Methodist denomination. In that case, clergy pension amounts would be converted to a cash balance, and they would lose the ability to see further growth in some parts of their pension program. And congregations that go independent would have to make a pension withdrawal payment that has been averaging between three and six times their annual apportionment. The incentive really is to align with a new Methodist denomination, rather than going independent.
(Retired clergy health benefits are set separately by each annual conference. Annual conferences of the post-separation United Methodist Church and the new Methodist denomination(s) will need to determine what health benefits they will give to retirees.)
Financial Support for New Methodist Denominations
One of the aspects of the newly proposed Protocol agreement for separation that appears unfair is the allocation of $25 million to a new traditionalist Methodist denomination that forms and $2 million to any other new Methodist denominations that might form. Progressives complain that a denomination they believe unjustly discriminates against LGBTQ people should not receive any money upon separation. Traditionalists believe that the amount of money is just a drop in the bucket compared to the total assets of the general church.
It is important to note that the Protocol agreement is the only proposal that came to any agreement about the amount of funding for the new Methodist denomination(s). The Indianapolis Plan team was unable to agree on this point and individuals submitted different proposals for how much money should be allocated. The UMC Next Generation Plan has no specific amount to be given to new denominations, but stipulates that General Conference budget a suitable amount to help with transition expenses. There is little confidence that General Conference can easily reach agreement on an amount of money without it turning into a major point of conflict. The fact that it is already agreed to in the Protocol makes it much easier to come to an agreement at General Conference. (A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.)
Where did the $25 million come from? Here is how that calculation was arrived at. (Figures are taken from the General Council on Finance and Administration website – gcfa.org.)
Total assets held by the general church and its agencies amounts to over $1.536 billion dollars. But about half of that amount, over $753 million, is owed to others as liabilities. That leaves net assets of about $783 million. Of that amount, about $204 million is in buildings, property, and other fixed assets. Donor restricted assets total about $460 million. That leaves about $120 million in unrestricted assets that would be available for any kind of division of assets. (It proved unrealistic to expect to share in the proceeds of any buildings or property that might never be sold, and the mediation group did not want to cause the sale of buildings or properties. The legal complications that would be involved in trying to divide restricted assets proved to be too much to overcome, taking those assets off the table.)
The negotiation resulted in one-third of the $120 million being allocated for the new Methodist denomination(s), about $40 million. $2 million was set aside for potential other denominations that might form, while $38 million was set aside for a traditionalist denomination. Traditionalists agreed to forego one-third of their share ($13 million) to give it to fund ethnic ministry plans and Africa University. (The post-separation United Methodist Church agreed to set aside double that amount for the same purpose, $26 million, leading to a total of $39 million for ethnic ministry and Africa University. This represents continuing the current level of funding over the next eight years.) The goal with the ethnic minority funding is to ensure that some of the most vulnerable populations in our church are not harmed by the separation.
The $25 million that is left will be paid to the new traditionalist Methodist denomination over the four years 2021-24 in equal installments. It can come from apportionments paid to the post-separation United Methodist Church during that time, drawn from UM reserves, or come from other sources.
Apportionments
The General Council on Finance and Administration is looking at the possible impact on apportionments of a separation. It is undeniable that a significant loss of members and churches from the post-separation United Methodist Church would cause a decline in funding available to the general church agencies and programs. Since it is hard to forecast how many churches might separate, it is difficult for GCFA to budget for apportionments for the next quadrennium. The post-separation United Methodist Church will need to make adjustments to programs and denominational structure in order to account for reduced financial resources available.
By contrast, the new Methodist denomination(s) forming from this separation will be able to start with low overhead. For example, in its draft Book of Doctrines and Discipline, The Wesleyan Covenant Association envisions fewer and smaller agencies, capitalizing on partnerships with existing ministries. This would allow the denomination to care for essential functions, while preserving the ability to respond nimbly to changing needs of congregations and cultural circumstances. In addition, such denominational agencies will see their primary focus as resourcing local churches for mission and ministry. They should add value for the local church, not be a drain on its financial resources. The result should be dramatically lower apportionments in a new traditionalist Methodist denomination, with more money available for mission and ministry at the local level and beyond.
Is It Fair?
Talking about money is difficult. Money is often a symbol of our values, hopes, dreams, beliefs, and power. All of these non-monetary issues are drawn into discussions about money, particularly at fraught times in the life of a family or a church. Many traditionalist observers have voiced concerns that the amount of funding given to the new denomination upon separation is not commensurate with the resources that contemporary traditionalists and prior generations have contributed to the church over the decades. As legitimate as these concerns may be, the negotiated settlement was conceived in good faith based on the calculations and limitations shared above.
More importantly, this separation will test the faith of all of us – those who remain and those who separate. Do we really believe that “God owns the cattle on a thousand hills?” Do we trust God to supply our needs, both at the congregational and the denominational level? We will have a great opportunity over the next few years to step out in faith and trust the One who made us, who redeemed us, and who provides and cares for us.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jan 13, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Tom Lambrecht –
The recently announced separation plan called the “Protocol on Reconciliation and Grace through Separation” has aroused many reactions in and beyond the church. Some are satisfied and even hopeful that the long-running conflict in our church can finally be over and traditional and evangelical United Methodists will be free to pursue ministry without being hampered by discord or a dysfunctional denominational structure. Local churches will get to keep their buildings, property, and assets and will need to make no extra payments to move into the new traditionalist Methodist denomination.
Others are upset and angry over provisions of the agreement they believe are unfair. We have heard the criticisms of the plan. We understand them. Many of them are legitimate. Clearly, there are several unfair provisions. I will be addressing them in future articles.
The most common criticism I have heard of the agreement is that traditionalists are leaving The United Methodist Church, rather than it being an equal separation. The follow-up comment is that since traditionalists “won” the vote in the St. Louis special General Conference in 2019, it should be those who want to change the church who have to leave, not those who want to maintain the current doctrine and discipline of the church.
This is a perfectly valid point. In a perfect and just world, those who want to change the church’s understanding of marriage and ordination would leave and those who want to keep the church’s long-standing teachings could remain. We do not live in a perfect or just world, however.
This agreement did not come down from God on Mt. Sinai like the Ten Commandments. It is a negotiated agreement worked out between factions in the church that deeply disagree with one another and do not trust one another. The fact that there is an agreement at all is astounding and a testament to the dedication of the participants and the perseverance of the mediator.
In negotiated settlements, it is not what is right or fair that determines the outcome, but what is possible. I’m convinced this agreement is the best possible agreement that could be reached and is preferable to all other likely alternatives.
What happened in 2019?
At the 2019 General Conference, traditionalists made a good-faith effort to bring about unity in the church through compliance with the Book of Discipline, the governing document of the church. It maintained the current teaching and standards of the church, while attempting to increase accountability of bishops and clergy to live by those standards.
Since February, it has become readily apparent that this attempt at unity through compliance did not work. More than half the annual conferences in the U.S. declared their opposition to the provisions enacted in the Traditional Plan. A number of annual conferences and bishops have declared that they will not abide by the provisions of the Discipline. The Greater New Jersey Annual Conference is even trying to write its own Book of Discipline!
This widespread disarray indicates that the church cannot achieve unity through compliance. The gate-keepers on enforcing the Discipline are the bishops. If some bishops are unwilling to enforce the Discipline and plan to simply ignore its requirements, there is nothing the larger church can do about it. The accountability process for bishops envisioned in the Traditional Plan was ruled unconstitutional by the Judicial Council. The accountability process proposed by Bishop Scott Jones and others that relies upon the Council of Bishops to hold other bishops accountable depends upon having a majority of the Council willing to exercise that accountability. At this point and into the foreseeable future the majority of the Council favors changing the church’s requirements and will decline to hold colleague bishops accountable.
Since unity through compliance is not possible, and unity through allowing for “local option” (each annual conference and local church making its own rules about marriage and ordination) does not have the votes to pass General Conference, the only apparent way to resolve the conflict is some form of separation. The recent agreement recognizes this fact and provides a way for the church to go in two different directions. We should not discount the fact that, for the first time, some of our leading bishops and other church leaders have finally acknowledged that separation is the only viable way forward for the church.
How to Separate
The fairest way to separate would be to dissolve The United Methodist Church and create two or more new denominations with new names. Such an approach is unworkable because it requires changes to the constitution, which needs a two-thirds vote at General Conference and a two-thirds vote of all the annual conference members (which could take up to two years). Most self-described centrists and progressives are against dissolving the church, as are many Africans and Europeans. Dissolving the church and starting over would most likely not reach even a majority vote, let alone the two-thirds vote required.
So any form of separation that General Conference adopts will have to have a continuing United Methodist Church and a group or groups that form something new. The closest to an equal plan of separation under this precondition is the Indianapolis Plan. However, that plan did not resolve the contentious issue of a division of assets. Furthermore, it encountered fierce opposition from key leaders in the centrist camp, who believe it comes too close to dissolving the denomination. To pass the Indianapolis Plan would require a major fight at General Conference, which could degenerate into a repeat of the vitriol of St. Louis. And its passage is by no means certain, as the margin for traditionalists is projected to be very slim.
The leaders of the Renewal and Reform Coalition decided that it would be better to support a plan that is less fair, but promised a definitive end to the conflict, was much more certain to pass, and would give traditionalists a way to separate while keeping their buildings and property.
Throughout the last year, many progressives and centrists have vowed not to leave the church, but to stay and continue to fight to change the church’s teachings and standards. It is true that a few very progressive annual conferences and a few high-profile progressive leaders have announced plans to prepare to possibly leave the denomination. But the vast majority would stay, and the fight would continue. It is therefore unrealistic to hope that most centrists and progressives would voluntarily leave the church. No matter what good legislation General Conference adopts, if there is no way to obtain compliance, the Discipline is not worth the paper it is written on. Any attempt on traditionalists’ part to keep on fighting for the current teachings of the church would entail another 20 years of conflict, rebellion, disobedience, and vitriol that would destroy the church. While attempting to force out those unwilling to live by the Discipline, the church would also lose many traditionalists who are sick of the fighting and want to maximize their ministry of the Gospel rather than spend millions of dollars, time, and energy fighting a battle against those who will not be convinced.
If we were to fight to hang on to The United Methodist Church, traditionalists would also be saddled with trying to either maintain or reform an intractable bureaucracy that is often counterproductive to local church ministry. Every single general board or agency except United Methodist Communications endorsed the One Church Plan. Most of those boards and agencies are staffed by people who want to change the church’s teachings and do not share our traditional theological perspective. To reform and reclaim these agencies would be a monumental task that would again drain valuable resources from actual ministry. Better to walk away from these entrenched agencies and start something new that can be much more streamlined and oriented toward resourcing and empowering local church ministry. If we can drastically lower denominational overhead, we can pour more resources into supporting our central conferences outside the U.S. and engaging in innovative, effective ministry to the unchurched and marginalized people in our world.
The use of the United Methodist name and cross and flame logo has also been of great concern. Once again, we have heard the concerns. We understand them. I will be writing on that issue in a separate blog after the implementing legislation for the separation agreement is finalized. I will also be addressing in a future article the apparent unfairness of the amount of money traditionalists will receive from the general church assets that generations of traditional United Methodists have contributed to over the years.
It is understandable for some to see it as though traditionalists will be “leaving” The United Methodist Church. A better way of describing it is that traditionalists will be separating from a denomination that has left them theologically and seizing this opportunity to create a new traditionalist Methodist movement. No, this agreement is not as fair to traditionalists as we hoped it would be. But it promises a definitive end to the conflict in our denomination and provides an unparalleled opportunity for a fresh start that can create a new denomination that can go forward in unity of belief, vision, and mission. When we have had a chance to process our anger, frustration, disappointment, and grief, we can either choose to dig in our heels in an unrealistic hope for a better deal, or we can focus on the positives of what this deal makes possible for us. I, for one, am excited about what the Lord can and will do through a new expression of Methodism. We can walk into this new future together.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jan 9, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Rob Renfroe –
Responses to the proposed plan for separation could hardly be more divergent. Some are shouting “hallelujah” and others are feeling dismissed, even sold out.
There are several components of the plan that I do not like. In particular, I don’t like the perception it creates. When I was first told about it, I said, “It looks like we’re being paid off to walk away.” It doesn’t look like a separation or two new denominations being birthed. It looks like traditionalists lost, and now we’re leaving.
Having said that, I am in favor of the proposal. Let me tell you why I and most traditionalist leaders favor its passage.
First, I ask myself what’s our goal? What has been our goal, for at least the past 20 years?
For me, it was never about winning or taking over the UM Church. It has been to create a vibrant evangelical Wesleyan church that is fully focused on mission and ministry — a church that is not mired in a dysfunctional and divisive struggle over sexuality.
For me the goal has never been about keeping a name — a name that in many parts of the country is a negative because it has become connected with progressive theology and non-biblical practices.
And it has not been about getting our fair share of the assets. I want that. We deserve that. But that wasn’t the goal. I was not desirous of continuing this ugly, destructive battle so we could receive additional funds. As a matter of fact, in the Yambasu negotiations that brought about the protocol, our (traditionalists’) primary concern was about funding for the Central Conferences, not ourselves.
Most of the leaders in the evangelical renewal groups have long ago accepted that we need separation. We worked for that to be the result coming out of GC 2016 and 2019. However, when we realized separation was off the table, the only option was an enhanced traditional plan — but that was not our first option mainly because we knew it would not solve anything.
Liberal areas of the church would ignore it, progressive bishops would not enforce it, and we would remain where we were before the Traditional Plan was passed. This is exactly what has happened.
Then, new elections were held for GC 2020 delegates. And we suffered real losses. Plus, we continued to hear that some of the African bishops were willing to adopt a regional conference plan that would allow the UM Church in the United States to have its own Book of Discipline and its own sexual ethics.
So, even though we “won” in 2019, there was no guarantee we would win in 2020. And even if we did, it would not really change anything.
Looking at who was elected as jurisdictional delegates, it is unlikely that we will elect a single bishop who would be committed to the full enforcement of the Discipline. And our church structure and constitution have made it nearly impossible to remove a bishop who refuses to enforce the Discipline.
So, the question is: After 47 years, how much longer do we continue to fight the same battle with the same results — good legislation that doesn’t change the reality of the church? How many more years should we spend precious financial, emotional, and spiritual resources on this same issue?
The decision was made that what was most important was allowing churches and annual conferences (where traditionalists are in the majority) to step into a vibrant Wesleyan connection with all their properties and with no payments required to the UM Church or to their annual conferences.
In other words, it was time to move forward in a positive way for the sake of mission and witness.
In all honesty, I fully understand those who are upset about the use of the denomination’s name. I realize the name is important to many, but others view our brand as having been so tarnished that keeping it is not a long-term benefit.
I understand people who say, “The progressives and centrists want to change the UM Church — they should leave, not those of us who want to be who we have always been.” I get it when people say, “GC 2019 was called to resolve this matter and it did. Traditionalists won. Those who want to change the Book of Discipline should leave, not us.” People who say those things are right. That’s the way it should be.
But, these were political negotiations. And in politics, the question is not what should be but what can be. And this is about as good a “can be” as I can imagine.
This move into the future will be difficult for many of our congregations. I am deeply sorry about that. This is where many of our bishops have brought us. There will be pain for many of our churches and annual conferences. I wish I could change that, but this is where we are. What we can do is listen to everyone, acknowledge their very real concerns, and resource them in every way to make this transition less painful than it might be.
I hope people can focus on the positives. Churches will be free to join a new evangelical Wesleyan movement. They will have lower apportionments. They will have more say in who their pastor is. And we will be done with this battle.
One last thought: When we countered those who would move the UM Church away from the Scriptures, it was easy to be unified. But now we are going to create something new. The process will be painful for some and messy for most of us. And we will have real differences about how the new church is to be structured. But we must stay together. There’s something bigger than whether the new church will have bishops, and if so what their tenure will be, what the new name will be, or even agreeing on all the ins and outs of ordination.
We are being given the privilege and the responsibility of beginning a new denomination — one that we will share with people like you, one that will be committed to the Scriptures as God’s word and to Jesus Christ as Lord of all, one that will be led by men and women, black, white, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, Asian — whom we admire and respect.
This is a future we can look forward to. Let’s go there together.
Rob Renfroe is a United Methodist clergyperson and the president and publisher of Good News.
by Steve | Dec 30, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Screen shot from “Love Actually”.
By Steve Beard –
There is a grand Christmas tradition at our house on the evening of December 25: separating the crumpled wrapping paper from the bows that can be reused next year. For many families, Christmas Day signals the winding down of the holiday. Soon the decorations will be packed away and the Christmas tree will be at the curb.
For many Christians around the world, however, the Christmas season only begins on December 25 and is observed over the next 12 days until Epiphany (January 6) – marking the visit of the Magi to the Christ child and the revelation of God becoming flesh.
Remember the song “The 12 Days of Christmas,” with its Turtle Doves, French Hens, Swans-a-Swimming, and Pipers Piping? There are all kinds of theories about the song’s origin, including it being used as a catechism tool to teach theology. Among the Geese-a-Laying and the Maids-a-Milking, there was supposed to be a symbolic spiritual message generations ago.
In our modern era, the quirky British comedy Love Actually inevitably shows up on television at Christmas time. One of the more memorable scenes is when Daisy (Lulu Popplewell) proudly tells her mother Karen (Emma Thompson) about her role in the Christmas play at school.
Daisy: I’m the lobster.
Karen: The lobster?
Daisy: Yeah.
Karen: In the nativity play?
Daisy: Yeah, “first” lobster.
Karen: There was more than one lobster present at the birth of Jesus?
Daisy: Duh!
The nativity play ends up being the climactic conclusion to the film. Not only is the lobster on stage, but she is joined by an octopus, a few penguins, Spiderman, and an assortment of other peculiar creatures.
That scene came to mind several years ago while I was visiting the set of The Nativity Story — a charming film about the birth of Christ. As we were checking out the cave-like location in Matera, Italy, for the manger scene, a five-foot black snake slithered through as though he owned the place.
As alarming as it seemed, it should not have been terribly shocking. Matera is an ancient city known for its neighborhoods that are literally carved out of rock. It is an ideal home for slinky, slithering, and creepy animals of all varieties – perhaps a little like Bethlehem.
Like a lobster (or Spiderman), a snake is an unlikely character for a nativity scene. Nevertheless, its appearance seemed strangely fitting to the incarnational reality of Christmas. After all, at the precipice of hope and redemption, evil lingers and looks for a way to corrupt. Sometimes we lose sight of that reality when we watch our cute Christmas pageants with shepherds wearing bathrobes, the Three Wisemen draped in silk kimonos, and the Virgin Mary lugging around a vintage Cabbage Patch doll.
In reality, it is difficult to downplay the seemingly raw scandal involved with the birth of Christ; but somehow we have managed. Perhaps we have anesthetized the story’s sting since it took place long ago and far away.
At Christmas, we properly celebrate the birth of Jesus. What we don’t dwell on is the horror that surrounds it. No matter how elaborate our nativity scenes may be, they seem to have the antiseptic cleanliness of the crosses that we wear as necklaces. Just like you don’t see blood stains on sterling silver jewelry, you don’t really get a sense of how Christmas may have been anxiety-ridden, unsanitized, and vile – a little like real life.
We don’t often think about Herod ordering the infanticide of all little boys 2 years old and under after the Magi asked him about Jesus. With the slaughter of the innocent, Christmas ends up as gruesome as Good Friday.
We don’t often think about Joseph’s dilemma in discovering that his fiancée was pregnant. Would he divorce her? According to the law of that day, he would have been within his rights.
We don’t often think about a frightened, unmarried teenage girl who has been told she will carry the son of God in her belly. How could she explain that to her family and friends – let alone to the man to whom she pledged her faithfulness?
We don’t often think about an elderly religious man telling the teenage Mary, “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too” (Luke 2:34-35). Whoa. That’s a pretty heavy gothic trip for a young girl.
Holidays don’t suspend dark clouds. Not even Christmas can cancel out the tragedies and hardships of everyday life. Car accidents. Family disputes. Medical emergencies. Bad news slithers on despite the holidays.
Christianity does not pretend that hardships will not occur. All around the globe, believers face horrible circumstances and perilous persecution. “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,” said Jesus, “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:10).
Faith, hope, and love are the pivotal factors that sustain and strengthen in the darkest of seasons. Most importantly, we depend upon God’s abiding presence. “I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love,” wrote St. Paul. “Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow — not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love” (Romans 8:38, NLT).
Go ahead, sing “The 12 Days of Christmas” with gusto. Feel free to chuckle about the oddly-placed lobster and octopus and penguins and Spiderman in the nativity scene. But don’t dismiss the snake in the cave as a joke. At Christmas, the historic Book of Common Prayer intones: “Almighty God, you have poured upon us the new light of your incarnate Word: Grant that this light, enkindled in our hearts, may shine forth in our lives; through Jesus Christ our Lord….”
Even though a snake may slither through the manger, Christmas remains the only light sparked in a cave that can illuminate the human soul and bring peace in the midst of chaos.
Steve Beard is the editor of Good News.
