by Steve | Nov 6, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
The Rev. Tom Lambrecht (left) and Bishop Kenneth H. Carter visit prior to the start of oral hearings before the United Methodist Judicial Council meeting in Evanston, Ill. Lambrecht is vice president and general manager of Good News and a member of the Wesleyan Covenant Association leadership. Carter is president of the denomination’s Council of Bishops. Photo by Mike DuBose, UM News.
By Tom Lambrecht –
The Judicial Council has rebuffed several challenges to the implementation of the Traditional Plan as adopted at the 2019 General Conference in St. Louis. These decisions mean that the provisions adopted can take effect January 1, 2020, as planned. The provisions will take effect in the central conferences outside the U.S. as of February 26, 2020.
In one request for a declaratory decision, the Council of Bishops challenged several provisions adopted by the special General Conference.
Expanded Definition
The General Conference expanded the definition of the term “self-avowed practicing homosexual” to include a person “living in a same-sex marriage, domestic partnership or civil union, or is a person who publicly states she or he is a practicing homosexual.” This definition clarifies that someone who lives publicly as a practicing homosexual cannot evade accountability to the church’s standards by simply refusing to state under oath in a trial that they are indeed engaging in same-sex practices. The bishops challenged this provision as being unfair to persons who had already entered into a same-sex marriage, union, or domestic partnership before the definition was expanded.
However, this definition merely made explicit what was already implied in the previous requirement. At no time in the church’s history have same-sex marriages, unions, or domestic partnerships been allowed for clergy. Persons in these relationships still have the right to rebut the charges by stating that they are not engaged in a sexual relationship.
Bishops Not to Ordain
The General Conference added language explicitly prohibiting a bishop from commissioning or ordaining persons as deacons or elders if the Board of Ordained Ministry determines the individual is a self-avowed practicing homosexual or if the board has failed to certify it has carried out the disciplinarily mandated examination of the candidates, even if the individual has been recommended by the board and approved by the clergy session. The bishops challenged this provision as requiring the Board of Ordained Ministry to certify that a requirement has been met, when the Discipline does not require them to certify it. But of course, the language of the new provision is itself a requirement to certify the full examination of candidates, so the bishops’ argument is without merit.
Mandatory Minimum Penalty
The General Conference added a mandatory minimum penalty of a one-year suspension without pay for any clergy person found guilty in a trial of performing a same-sex wedding or union. The bishops challenged this provision by saying the penalty could not be applied equally to all clergy. Some clergy serve in appointments beyond the local church, and the church does not control their employment or their compensation. Some countries outside the U.S. do not allow employees to be suspended without pay. In both these instances, the bishops argued, a trial court could suspend the person without pay, but the penalty might not take effect.
However, the trial court would know these circumstances before imposing a penalty, and could take the circumstances into account in tailoring a penalty to fit the circumstances. Without a specific case that has facts upon which the Judicial Council can base judgment, these questions are premature.
The Judicial Council agreed. In Memorandum 1390, the Council declared that it did not have enough votes to declare any of the provisions unconstitutional. Instead, the provisions will go into effect. The Council stated, “Our rulings on the constitutionality, meaning, application, or effect of the various provisions will await the specific facts of applications of these provisions in cases to come before the Council after January 1, 2020.”
Disaffiliation Provisions
The General Conference added a new ¶ 2553, which contains a process whereby local churches may withdraw from The United Methodist Church and keep their property.
In a different request for a declaratory decision, the Council of Bishops questioned the effective date of the new process, stating that there were different interpretations of what the General Conference enacted. The Judicial Council ruled that the General Conference adopted the new paragraph to be effective immediately upon the adjournment of the General Conference. Thus, the new process is now in effect and has been since February.
The Council of Bishops also raised the question of whether the possibility of alleged improper voting in St. Louis had nullified this paragraph. The Commission on the General Conference carried out an investigation that reportedly identified four person who voted at General Conference when they were not entitled to vote. Since the initial vote for ¶ 2553 only passed by two votes, the Commission ruled the vote null and void. They then referred the matter to the Council of Bishops to present to Judicial Council for a ruling.
In a somewhat passionate oral hearing, the Judicial Council questioned why the Commission did not bring the case to Judicial Council itself and why members of the Commission were not present to answer questions about the allegations of vote fraud. Under questioning, it came out that only two bishops had seen the report of the results of the Commission’s investigation. One wonders how the whole Council of Bishops could refer the matter to Judicial Council without even seeing the facts behind the matter. Questions arose about whether the Commission even had the authority to investigate or to declare the vote null and void.
The Judicial Council postponed consideration of this matter until its spring meeting. This means that ¶ 2553 as adopted by General Conference is still in effect. Only the Judicial Council can nullify an act of General Conference, and it has not done so. In a related case, an action by the New England Annual Conference to add requirements to the process in ¶ 2553 remains in limbo. Judicial Council has postponed consideration of that question until it decides whether the paragraph was legally adopted.
Annual Conference Resolutions
A number of annual conferences adopted resolutions responding to the 2019 General Conference actions. Most of the resolutions disagreed with the decision by General Conference to adopt the Traditional Plan.
In three annual conferences, the bishops ruled the resolutions (in part or in whole) to be an illegal contravention of the Book of Discipline. Such resolutions attempted to limit the annual conference from spending funds on complaints, trials, and other disciplinary procedures. They also committed the annual conference to disobey the standards of the Discipline when it comes to the ordination of gay clergy.
The annual conferences where resolutions were ruled null and void by bishops and affirmed as such by the Judicial Council were:
- Mountain Sky (Bishop Oliveto)
- California-Pacific (Bishop Hagiya)
- Upper New York (Bishop Webb)
In the past, the Judicial Council has ruled that resolutions that simply disagree with a General Conference action and “aspire” to a different outcome are acceptable because they do not bind the annual conference to take any specific action and they are merely an expression of opinion.
The annual conferences where resolutions were challenged but validated as acceptable by the bishop and Judicial Council were:
- Central Texas (Bishop Lowry, two resolutions)
- North Texas (Bishop McKee)
On all of the decisions analyzed above, the Judicial Council acted as we expected and hoped that they would. The Traditional Plan is firmly in place and set to go into effect in January. The disaffiliation process for local churches desiring to leave The United Methodist Church is still in place.
Possible actions by the 2020 General Conference could dramatically change the landscape in our church. New, less expensive disaffiliation processes are proposed for local churches and annual conferences. Changes in the way pension liabilities are handled would make the process of disaffiliation much less onerous. A plan of separation would create new denominations that would function under different rules than our current Book of Discipline.
Annual conferences and local churches will have decisions to make in the coming few years. The Judicial Council will play an important role in ensuring that the actions of General Conference fall within the parameters of the Discipline. Stay tuned, as we try to illuminate the process, the talking points, and the decisions that the Council makes.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Nov 4, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Bishops confer over the issue of whether the legislative committee can refer items to the denomination’s Judicial Council for review during the 2019 United Methodist General Conference in St. Louis. Clockwise from lower left are Bishops Thomas Bickerton, John Schol, David Bard, Julius C. Trimble, and Cynthia Fierro Harvey. Photo by Mike DuBose, UMNS.
By Tom Lambrecht –
In conversations and emails, I have frequently heard frustration and confusion regarding the situation in The United Methodist Church. Perhaps a succinct overview of our conflict will be helpful to people who are lost in the details or new to engaging with it. Naturally, this summary is offered from the point of view of a traditionalist, and others may see events differently.
Last week, we discussed the history and evolution of the conflict and identified the players. Today we examine the strategies of the different players and the plans to be considered in Minneapolis.
The Strategies
Up until the late 2000’s, many centrists voted with traditionalists because they thought it was the best way to keep the church together. Due to increased cultural acceptance and changing church political calculations, nearly all centrists are now siding with the progressives in pushing for change in the church’s position. Some progressives (most notably RMN) are willing to work with centrists to create a “big tent” church that allows, but does not require, same-sex weddings and ordination. Other progressives, however, are impatient with this approach and desire immediate affirmation and “liberation” of LGBTQ persons in the church (primarily the UM Forward group).
Some centrists and progressives believe that “history” is on their side and are committed to staying in the UM Church indefinitely to fight for changing the church’s position, while perhaps allowing traditionalist congregations to leave with their property. Other centrists and progressives believe that the only way to resolve the conflict and move forward is for separation to take place or to withdraw from the church (if it continues a traditionalist position). While 57 percent of centrist and progressive leaders voted for some form of separation at a spring meeting, some were encouraged to stay and fight by the increased success of centrist and progressive clergy being elected as delegates to General Conference 2020.
Some traditionalists believe that we should continue to fight to preserve the current stance of the UM Church indefinitely, while providing a gracious exit for annual conferences and local churches who cannot live with that stance. Most traditionalists, however, are in favor of some form of amicable separation plan that ends the fighting and allows traditionalists to come together in a new denomination that can carry out the church’s mission and ministry unhindered by opposition from an incompatible theological perspective.
A wild card in all of this is a conversation convened by Bishop John Yambasu of Sierra Leone (Africa). In a series of meetings currently ongoing, progressive, centrist, and traditionalist leaders, central conference representatives, central conference bishops, and U.S. bishops are meeting with a professional mediator to explore the possibility of a “grand bargain” that all could agree to. If successful, this group could propose new legislation for 2020 or modify proposals that have already been submitted. Although the deadline for submitting proposals to the 2020 General Conference has passed, the Book of Discipline allows an annual conference to submit a new legislative proposal no less than 45 days before General Conference (¶ 507.6). A special annual conference session could be called to submit such a new plan. It remains to be seen whether this mediated conversation will reach agreement on a new proposal.
The Plans
A number of plans to resolve the crisis have been submitted to the 2020 General Conference, many of which have not been publicized. Below are the three most public and viable plans.
The Traditional Plan seeks to pass most of those parts of the plan that were found unconstitutional by the Judicial Council or were not passed in St. Louis. Provisions mainly enhance the accountability of boards of ordained ministry, create a new accountability process for bishops through the Council of Bishops, and create a pathway for annual conferences and local churches to withdraw from the church with their property in a less expensive way. The Renewal and Reform Coalition views this option as our “Plan B” in case a plan of separation does not pass General Conference.
The Indianapolis Plan was developed by a working group of progressive, centrist, and traditionalist leaders. It is a plan of amicable separation that would create two or more new denominations birthed out of the UM Church based on theological perspective, including a centrist denomination that continues the current structure and polity of the UM Church. The denominations would have no organizational link with each other, but could work together on clergy pensions and benefits (Wespath), UMCOR, and the Publishing House. Annual conferences and local churches could decide by majority vote with which of the new entities to align. General church assets would be equitably divided among the new denominations. The new denominations would begin organizing immediately and be fully up and running by January 1, 2022. (See indyplanumc.org for more details.) The Renewal and Reform Coalition supports this option as its preferred plan, and it has been formally endorsed by the WCA Council. Other progressive and centrist leaders have also endorsed the plan.
The Next Generation UMC Plan was developed by the UMC Next leaders, including centrists and some progressives. The plan would repeal the parts of the Traditional Plan that were passed in St. Louis. It would also change the church’s position by deleting the teaching that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching,” allowing same-sex weddings, redefining marriage by removing the idea that there be two spouses and that they be a man and a woman, and allowing persons in same-sex relationships to be ordained and appointed as clergy. The plan creates a moratorium on all complaint processes related to sexuality and would allow church money to be spent to promote the acceptance of homosexuality. The plan provides for local churches (but not annual conferences) to withdraw from the church with their property by a two-thirds vote of the church conference in a less expensive way. Rather than an equitable division of general church assets, the plan envisions the General Conference making grants to departing churches from apportionments paid during the 2021-24 quadrennium. (See https://umcnext.com/legislation/ for more details.) This plan is supported by UMC Next, Mainstream UMC, Uniting Methodists, and Reconciling Ministries Network.
Amidst all the confusion and maneuvering, United Methodists should pray for God to bring clarity and some degree of consensus on a positive way for our embattled denomination to move forward in ministry.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Oct 28, 2019 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Tom Lambrecht –
Protesters against the United Methodist Church’s stance on sexuality prepare to serve Holy Communion inside the bar of the 2012 General Conference in Tampa, Florida. A UMNS photo by Mike DuBose.
In conversations and emails, I have frequently heard frustration and confusion regarding the situation in The United Methodist Church. Perhaps a succinct overview of our conflict will be helpful to people who are lost in the details or new to engaging with it. Naturally, this summary is offered from the point of view of a traditionalist, and others may see events differently.
The Conflict
The conflict in our church dates back to 1972, when the Board of Church and Society proposed the very first Social Principles for the new United Methodist Church (founded in 1968). One of the provisions in the proposal indicated a sympathetic affirmation of lesbians and gays and same-sex practices. Traditionalist delegates at General Conference were concerned that the biblical position regarding same-sex behavior was disregarded, and the conference voted to add words clarifying that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” Those words have remained in our Social Principles ever since.
Almost immediately, those who disagreed with a traditionalist position began lobbying to remove those words and change the church’s position to one of affirmation of same-sex practices. The church was not able to effectively deal with instances of high-profile disobedience through the normal accountability channels. This led to the addition of language in subsequent General Conferences mandating “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness” for clergy, prohibiting the candidacy, ordination, or appointment of “self-avowed practicing homosexuals,” or the performing of same-sex weddings. Each time language was added, it was to close a loophole in the accountability process in order to maintain conformity with the church’s teaching.
Over the past 47 years, there have been several church-wide studies, many annual conference task forces, and numerous dialogs between persons with opposing perspectives, seeking to come to some common ground. Often, these experiences were heavily weighted toward a liberal understanding of affirmation and were seen by traditionalists as a way to try to manipulate the church into changing its position. Regardless, the outcome at every General Conference has been to affirm the current teaching of the church.
The closest the church came to changing its position was in 2012, when a motion to say that the church is “not of one mind” on these concerns failed 54 to 46 percent. At the 2016 General Conference, efforts to reinforce the long-standing position of the church were in the process of being passed by a greater margin than before, and there was talk that the church might split over this conflict.
In response, the Council of Bishops proposed forming a Commission on a Way Forward (COWF) to find a way to resolve the conflict. The 2016 General Conference agreed, and all proposals regarding sexuality were put on hold. The Commission came up with three proposals: a Traditional Plan to strengthen accountability to the church’s current position, a One Church Plan to allow annual conferences and local churches to determine their own stance on same-sex marriage and ordination, and a Connectional Conference Plan to create three new “jurisdictions” within the UM Church, based on viewpoint on ministry with LGBTQ persons.
A special General Conference was held in St. Louis in February 2019 to address the COWF proposals. The Traditional Plan passed by 53 to 47 percent. However, about half the provisions of the Traditional Plan were declared unconstitutional by the Judicial Council. More problematic than the actual voting were the vitriolic rhetoric and personal attacks in speeches from the floor, particularly by some centrist and progressive delegates.
Following the special General Conference, some bishops and as many as 28 annual conferences in the U.S. declared that they would not abide by the Book of Discipline on these matters. They declared that they would operate as if the One Church Plan had passed. This has thrown the UM Church into a constitutional crisis. When a sizable portion of the church is unwilling to live by our duly adopted policies, there is a stalemate.
It is this constitutional crisis that has led most leaders in the church to come to believe that some form of separation is necessary (or is inevitable) in order to resolve the conflict. Various proposals for separation are on the docket for the 2020 General Conference, to be held in May in Minneapolis.
The Players
Traditionalists are persons who believe that the biblical teaching is that sexual relations are to be reserved for a marriage between one man and one woman, ruling out same-sex relationships. Most traditionalists would see the allowing of same-sex weddings and ordination in the church as a violation of the authority of Scripture, view it therefore as an essential issue, and could not continue in a church that allowed it. Organizations that promote a traditionalist view are Good News, The Confessing Movement, UM Action (a program of the Institute on Religion and Democracy), and the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA). The WCA was formed in 2016 to prepare for a “next” Methodism in case a separation should occur. The other organizations have been devoted to reforming and renewing The United Methodist Church through the governance process of General Conference and annual conferences. These four organizations work together as part of the Renewal and Reform Coalition.
Centrists are persons who are “compatibilists” on the question of LGBTQ ministry. They believe that various opinions and practices can co-exist in the same church body because this is not an essential issue. A few centrists are traditionalists who can live in a church that allows same-sex weddings and ordination, as long as they themselves are not forced to violate their own principles. Some centrists have not made up their mind on LGBTQ ministry. Most centrists favor the church allowing same-sex weddings and ordination, but are willing to also allow in the church those who disagree and do not practice these things. Organizations promoting a centrist viewpoint are Uniting Methodists, Mainstream UMC, and UMC Next (which is really a coalition of centrist and some progressive leaders).
Progressives are persons who affirm same-sex relationships, weddings, and ordination. Some are willing to push the envelope by engaging in ecclesiastical disobedience to the Book of Discipline in order to promote change in the church’s position. Demonstrations by some progressives have shut down portions of every General Conference meeting since 1992 (except for 2016). Cultural changes in the U.S. have prompted progressives to become impatient with the slow rate of change in the church, contributing to their willingness to violate the Discipline, particularly since 2011. Organizations promoting a progressive viewpoint include Affirmation, Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN), the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA), and UM Forward. MFSA is a social justice organization that has been in existence for over 100 years that promotes liberal positions on social and political issues. RMN promotes local churches and small groups becoming Reconciling Congregations or Ministries in support of LGBTQ persons. These and other groups work together in the Love Your Neighbor Coalition. UM Forward was recently formed to give priority to persons of color and other marginalized people by using “intersectionality” to link together the struggle for social justice across many issues (e.g., racism, sexism, and LGBTQ). They prefer the term “liberationist” to progressive.
The Role of Central Conferences
Central conferences are jurisdictions of The United Methodist Church located outside the United States. The U.S. has 7.1 million members, accounting for 57 percent of the church’s membership and 56 percent of the General Conference delegates. Three central conferences in Africa have 5.3 million members, accounting for 42 percent of the membership and 32 percent of the delegates. Three central conferences in Europe and Eurasia have 53,000 members, accounting for 0.4 percent of the membership and 5 percent of the delegates. The Philippines has 140,000 members, accounting for one percent of the membership and 6 percent of the delegates.
The African church is over 95 percent traditionalist in perspective. Their voting strength is sometimes diminished, however, by delegates unable to obtain visas to attend General Conference. This reduced the vote total of Africa by over 30 votes in St. Louis on a proposal that passed by only 54 votes. (It would have been 84 had all the delegates been present and voting.)
The Philippines is normally about two-thirds traditionalist and one-third centrist. But each General Conference delegation is made up of totally new people, so it is hard to predict. Europe is about half traditionalist and half centrist/progressive. Germany and much of northern Europe tend to be centrist/progressive, while Eastern Europe, Russia, Eurasia, and southern Europe tend to be traditionalist.
Traditionalist delegates from Africa, Europe, and the Philippines have been a consistent voting block added to traditionalist delegates from the U.S. Together, they have often formed a solid majority at General Conference. That majority is somewhat weakened for 2020 by the loss of a number of traditionalist delegates in the U.S., partially offset by an increase in traditionalist delegates from Africa.
Traditionalist delegates from the central conferences have consistently supported the current position of the church regarding LGBTQ persons. They voted solidly for the Traditional Plan in St. Louis, which is why it passed. These delegates can be counted on to continue voting for the Traditional Plan (and against attempts to repeal it) in 2020. Whether they would be willing to vote for an amicable separation plan is uncertain, but we have received positive input from leaders in all three geographic areas.
Next week, we will discuss the strategies being pursued and the plans to be considered by the 2020 General Conference.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
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).
