A recent newsletter published by Mainstream UMC argues that, just as the church changed its understanding and teaching about slavery, the role of women in the church, and divorced clergy, the church can change its understanding and teaching about marriage and homosexuality. The church got it “wrong” in the past, and now the church can get it “right.” Leaving aside the validity of comparing the past historical issues of slavery, the role of women, and divorce with the contemporary controversies surrounding marriage and homosexuality, I do not think this argument supports the One Church Plan.
To me, this is an argument for the Simple Plan, which removes all prohibitions against same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. If the church’s interpretation of Scripture is wrong on marriage and sexuality, then we ought to mandate a change in our interpretation.
The One Church Plan, however, envisions staying united in “one church” but having two different understandings and two different teachings about marriage and homosexuality that will supposedly be equally valid and affirmed by the church. That is not what the church did with regard to slavery, the role of women, or with divorce.
Essentially, the Methodist Episcopal Church in the early 1800s operated under a “One Church Plan” approach to the issue of slavery. Southern annual conferences condoned (and some even defended) slavery, while many northern annual conferences became increasingly opposed to slavery. The church stayed “united” in this way until the crisis of 1844, when the northern delegates outnumbered the southern delegates and voted to suspend a slave-holding bishop. That action precipitated a month-long General Conference that culminated in the North-South split in the Methodist Episcopal Church that foreshadowed the Civil War 17 years later.
In the example of slavery, the moral imperative to end the practice overwhelmed the desire to preserve church unity, and the church split. A “One Church Plan” approach proved untenable in the long term (it lasted less than 50 years).
When the Methodist Church removed the prohibition against ordaining women in 1956, it did not make provision for some annual conferences to ordain women while allowing other annual conferences not to ordain women. Instead, it removed the prohibition and expected that every annual conference would ordain women. There were central conferences outside the United States that would have preferred not to ordain women because of their cultural situation. The Judicial Council ruled that they did not have that option (see Decision 155).
When the church changed its understanding and teaching regarding women’s ordination, it mandated that all annual conferences follow the new interpretation. It did not adopt a “One Church Plan” approach to women’s ordination.
It is more difficult to pinpoint the timeline of how divorced clergy became accepted in The United Methodist Church. The bishop who ordained me, Bishop Marjorie Matthews, was the first divorced person elected bishop (she was also the first woman elected bishop). Nevertheless, divorce per se is not a barrier to ordained ministry today, whereas a generation ago, there was such a thing as a “divorce review committee” whose purpose was to determine if a clergy person’s divorce was biblically justified. (See Judicial Council Decision 497).
Here again, the idea of having two different standards regarding divorced clergy in the church at the same time has not proven to be tenable. A 2016 attempt by the Liberia Annual Conference to bar divorced clergy from being nominated for election as bishop of Liberia was not approved by the West Africa Central Conference.
All these historical examples demonstrate a change in the church’s position on an issue. However, none of them shows the viability of a “One Church Plan” or “local option” approach to the issue. Rather, the church came to a united understanding of a new position that was then enforced throughout the church.
But that may be what supporters of the One Church Plan intend. Many of them have said that they favor complete affirmation of same-sex relationships but regard the OCP as an interim step on the way to such full affirmation. History would tend to support the idea that the move toward a One Church Plan would ultimately result in a change of teaching and practice for the whole church, without exception.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. He is a member of the Commission on a Way Forward.
En mai 2018, une majorité des évêques Méthodistes Unis
ont convenu de donner leur appui au Plan d’une Église Unique (en sigle PEU). Ce
plan consiste à supprimer les termes restrictifs dans le Livre de Discipline de l’Église Méthodiste Unie concernant la
pratique de l’homosexualité. Si ces changements sont approuvés à la Conférence
Générale de 2019, les congrégations pourront alors décider de permettre ou non la
célébration de mariages entre personnes de même sexe dans leurs églises. Cela
donnera également aux conférences annuelles le pouvoir de décider si elles
veulent ordonner ou non des personnes LGBTQ en tant que membres du clergé. En
d’autres termes, le Plan d’une Église Unique (PEU), s’il est approuvé, pourrait
mettre fin au débat acrimonieux de longue date sur la sexualité humaine à la
Conférence Générale en transférant la prise de décision sur cette question aux
congrégations locales et aux conférences annuelles.
Ainsi, c’est avec beaucoup d’enthousiasme que les
partisans du PEU le considèrent comme le plan qui va nous « unir »
tous car ils croient qu’il va permettre la coexistence des deux courants dans
l’Église Méthodiste Unie, traditionnel et progressiste, en ce qui concerne la
sexualité. En conséquence, ils argumentent également que le plan traditionnel
(en sigle PT) est le seul plan qui divisera l’église. La vérité, c’est que l’un
ou l’autre de ces deux plans, le PEU ou le PT, mènera à la division. Si le PEU
est approuvé, les traditionalistes quitteront. De même, si le PT (sous sa forme
modifiée) prévaut, nous assisterons à un exode de progressistes de l’ÉMU. Mais
pas tous quitteront. Certains
progressistes envisagent de continuer à se battre pour le changement des
valeurs dans notre dénomination, même si le PT est adopté. Cela implique que le
PT mènera à une division moins formelle que ce que les promoteurs du PEU
voudraient nous le faire croire.
Pour attirer la majorité des Méthodistes Unis non
américains qui ont une perspective traditionnelle en matière du mariage, les
partisans du PEU leur garantissent que rien ne changera dans les conférences
centrales. Ils prétendent également que les églises et les conférences
annuelles dans les conférences centrales ne seront pas en mesure de se
prononcer sur la question en raison des restrictions légales au mariage
homosexuel dans les pays où elles sont situées. Toutefois, ce que les
défenseurs du PEU négligent de reconnaître, c’est que toutes les conférences
centrales ne sont pas monolithiques ou homogènes – il y a des conférences
centrales qui ont des traditionalistes et des progressistes dans leurs rangs. Les
Philippines en sont un bon exemple. Bien que la majorité des Philippins Méthodistes
Unis aient une position traditionnelle sur le mariage, il y a parmi eux un
nombre considérable de progressistes. L’examen des discussions en cours sur
plusieurs pages Facebook des Philippins Méthodistes Unis révèle une
polarisation accrue concernant cette question. Cette discorde croissante s’approfondira
si, par exemple, la Conférence Générale se prononce en faveur du PEU. Contrairement
à ce qui est communiqué par les promoteurs du PEU, la Conférence Centrale des
Philippines sera profondément affectée si le PEU est adopté.
Dr. Luther Oconor
Si le PEU est approuvé, les conférences centrales qui ne
sont pas monolithiques devront clarifier leur interprétation des révisions
issues de ce plan dans le Livre de
Discipline à leurs membres traditionnels et progressistes. Vont-ils adopter
une position qui ne satisfera que les traditionalistes ou vont-ils prendre le
parti des progressistes ? Ce processus ne conduira qu’à des querelles amères et
à des divisions plus profondes. Par ailleurs, le PEU pourrait encourager les
pasteurs progressistes dans les conférences centrales à célébrer les unions
homosexuelles, même si elles ne sont pas reconnues par la loi. Dans un tel cas,
il sera d’autant plus nécessaire que les conférences centrales apportent des
éclaircissements en la matière. Même les conférences centrales conservatrices ne
n’en sont pas pour autant épargnées. Elles aussi devront éventuellement
clarifier leur position pour se distinguer de l’Église américaine. Elles devront également se donner la
peine et assumer toutes les dépenses nécessaires pour composer leur propre
version du Livre de Discipline afin
de conserver le langage traditionnel sur la sexualité humaine. En termes
simples, si le PEU est approuvé, ce ne sera pas comme si de rien n’était pour les
conférences centrales, qu’elles soient monolithiques ou non. Une grande partie
de ce qui est affirmé par les promoteurs du PEU au sujet des conférences
centrales doit donc être examinée attentivement par tous les délégués des
conférences centrales qui ont encore une conception traditionnelle du mariage mais
auxquels on demande d’être « généreux » aux impulsions des Méthodistes
Unis progressistes des États-Unis. Ils ne peuvent pas voter en faveur du PEU en
se fondant uniquement sur des affirmations que cela ne les affectera pas. Ce n’est tout simplement pas vrai. Ils
doivent, comme tous les autres délégués, voter selon leur conscience et selon
la direction du Saint-Esprit. En tant que membre du clergé Méthodiste Uni d’une
conférence centrale, je me sens obligé de vous apporter des éclaircissements
sur une question beaucoup plus importante. Le PEU, s’il est approuvé, éliminera
en fait l’influence des Méthodistes Unis des conférences centrales,
généralement plus conservateurs, sur l’avenir de notre dénomination mondiale. Les
efforts visant à réduire au silence la voix croissante des délégués des
conférences centrales ne sont pas une nouveauté. Au cours de la dernière
décennie, les progressistes, probablement alarmés par l’augmentation constante
du nombre de délégations africaines à la Conférence Générale, ont commencé à
plaider en faveur d’une forme plus régionalisée de processus législatif sous
prétexte d’accorder aux conférences centrales une plus grande autonomie. En
réalité, ces efforts de régionalisation visaient principalement à dissocier les
conférences américaines de l’influence croissante des conférences centrales
plus évangéliques dont la croissance a permis à l’ÉMU de maintenir les normes
bibliques sur la sexualité humaine. Providentiellement, ces tentatives de
régionalisation ont été rejetées à maintes reprises par les Conférences Générales
précédentes.
Néanmoins, cet effort pour régionaliser la législation
dans l’ÉMU a fait un retour en force sous l’apparence du PEU, et il est
regrettable que la majorité de nos dirigeants le soutiennent. Comme les
précédentes tentatives de régionalisation, le PEU, je le crains, perpétue la
présomption impérialiste séculaire que les Occidentaux sont supérieurs et plus
instruits (ou devrais-je dire, plus « civilisés »). Par conséquent,
ceux qui se trouvent dans les conférences centrales doivent rester entre eux
parce qu’ils n’ont rien à enseigner, et certainement pas sur la sexualité
humaine.
En outre, le PEU tente d’inverser la tendance inévitable
qui s’est produite au cours des dix ou vingt dernières années – le centre de
gravité du christianisme est désormais déplacé du « Nord global »
(Amérique du Nord et Europe) au « Sud global » (Afrique, Asie et
Amérique latine). Nous avons vu le même changement dans l’ÉMU. Aujourd’hui,
toute sa croissance et une grande partie de sa vitalité se trouvent dans les
conférences centrales, plus particulièrement en Afrique. Entre-temps, nous
constatons un déclin aux États-Unis et en Europe. La Conférence Générale
témoigne de ce changement. D’ici 2020, environ 43 % des
délégués proviendront des conférences centrales (dont 32 % d’Afrique et 6 % des Philippines). D’ici
2028, les délégués des conférences centrales seront probablement plus nombreux
que leurs homologues américains. Ce scénario inquiète les progressistes de
notre dénomination, dont la version de leur foi ” à tout vent de doctrine
” (Éphésiens 4:14) n’a jamais produit un grand nombre de convertis pour
l’Église, mais explique au contraire une grande partie de son déclin.
La plupart des chrétiens du Sud global croient fermement
que la Bible est la parole de Dieu et l’autorité primordiale de la pratique
chrétienne. Ils prêchent sans aucune
honte la repentance et le salut en Jésus seul, et la puissance de l’Esprit
Saint pour transformer les vies. Sans hésitation, ils considèrent les miracles
et le surnaturel comme des éléments normatifs de la vie chrétienne. Je suis
reconnaissant qu’un tel témoignage persiste dans l’ÉMU. Les voix de nos frères
et sœurs du Sud global sont, par définition, nécessaires à notre Église
mondiale et sont notre meilleur espoir pour l’avenir. De nombreux partisans
occidentaux du PEU cherchent à supprimer ce témoignage ou à définir (voire à
imposer) à quoi ce témoignage devrait ressembler. Pourquoi ? Parce qu’ils
voient les valeurs mêmes, que j’ai décrites ci-dessus, comme un obstacle à leur
conception du christianisme. Certains préféreraient considérer les Méthodistes
du Sud global comme des fondamentalistes parlant toujours de la Bible, plutôt
que de tirer humblement des leçons de leur expérience. En vérité, nos frères et
sœurs du Sud global ont préservé pour nous « la foi qui a été transmise
aux saints une fois pour toutes » (Jude 3:3). Si nous voulons comprendre
le Méthodisme qui a répandu la sainteté scripturaire sur les îles britanniques
et le continent américain, nous n’avons pas besoin de chercher plus loin parce
que nous le trouverons en Afrique et, dans une certaine mesure, aux
Philippines.
Dans leur désir de se détacher de ce que le Sud global offre, de nombreux partisans du PEU se retrouvent par inadvertance complices de l’héritage malheureux des missions coloniales en poursuivant une relation avec des Méthodistes Unis non Américains, principalement selon des conceptions paternalistes. Au lieu d’embrasser les bénédictions que le Sud global apporte, beaucoup préfèrent créer une sous-culture séparée qui porte malheureusement les marques de l’individualisme occidental. Plutôt que de considérer leurs homologues des conférences centrales du Sud global comme des égaux, ils préfèrent limiter toute leur influence. Si le PEU l’emporte, l’Église américaine pourra faire ce qu’elle veut (comme cela a toujours été le cas dans le passé) sans avoir à rendre compte à ses frères et sœurs en Afrique et ailleurs dans le Sud global. Plus tragique encore, l’ÉMU aura manqué l’occasion d’être une Église mondiale véritablement connexionnelle.
Luther Oconor est professeur agrégé d’études méthodistes unies au United Theological Seminary à Dayton, dans l’État d’Ohio aux États-Unis. Il est un ancien ordonné dans la Conférence Annuelle de Pampango Philippines
Bishops and leaders of the United Methodist Korean Caucus gather to discuss the current issues of the special General Conference. The meeting took place Dec. 2 at Calvary Korean United Methodist Church in East Brunswick, N.J. Photo by Thomas Kim, UMNS.
“If the One Church Plan passes, KUMC would have difficulty in accepting an LGBT bishop assigned to the Korean UMCs due to its cultural and moral traditions,” said the Rev. Paul Chang, executive director of the denomination’s Korean Ministry Plan. “The new definition of marriage also would be something KUMC would be struggling with in the future, too.”
According to a United Methodist News Service article by Thomas Kim, many clergy within the Korean Caucus specifically raised concerns about the One Church Plan during a Dec. 3 meeting at Calvary Korean United Methodist Church in East Brunswick, New Jersey, between five bishops and 25 other church leaders.
The One Church Plan is one of the proposals heading to the special General Conference on Feb. 23-26. It allows congregations to host same-sex weddings, and conferences to ordain openly gay clergy.
Bishop John Schol of the Greater New Jersey Conference made the case for the One Church Plan, which he claimed “gives us an opportunity for all of us to move on and to focus on the mission and on the other greater ministries.”
According to the news report, many of the bishops’ listeners were skeptical.
The Rev. Kwangtae Kim from the Chicago First Korean United Methodist Church asked the bishops whether they are aware of the impact of the One Church Plan upon Korean churches. “Those who want to break a church are using the issue of homosexuality as a good justification for their behaviors,” he said. “The crises that the Korean Presbyterian Church (USA) have now could happen to the KUMC.”
The Rev. Timothy Ahn of Arcola United Methodist Church in Paramus, New Jersey, asked for wisdom and advice from the bishops. “If the One Church Plan is passed, then how should I explain the meaning of a marriage to my congregants as a local church pastor?” he asked.
The Rev. T.J. Kim of Salem Korean United Methodist Church in Schaumburg, Illinois, shared his concern about the plan. “Protecting the family is one of the core values that the Korean church has. Maintaining this value is an important ministry. The One Church Plan can eliminate the foundation on which Korean churches stand.”
Thomas Kim’s entire news article can be read HERE.
Glide Memorial United Methodist Church in San Francisco. Photo courtesy of Google street view.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
New action has taken place by the California-Nevada Annual Conference filing suit against Glide Memorial United Methodist Church over Trust Clause issues. Such action shows what might happen in the event other congregations try to leave the denomination.
In a previous post, I described the conflict going on between California-Nevada Annual Conference Bishop Minerva Carcaño and the 89-year-old Glide Memorial Church, on paper one of the largest congregations in our denomination. The conflict revolved around the fact that Glide no longer conducts Christian worship and is not faithful to United Methodist doctrine and practice. Instead, they have embraced a form of interfaith “worship” that encompasses atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, and many others in addition to Christians (and one assumes, some United Methodists).
The crisis erupted when the pastor at Glide resigned because he was not able to exercise full leadership of the church, unhindered by the Glide Foundation’s board of directors. Longtime Pastor Cecil Williams, while long retired, still appears to be making the leadership decisions for the church. Bishop Carcaño attempted to appoint a new pastor, but the Foundation board rejected the person. She then appointed all the pastoral staff to different churches, leaving Glide without a regular pastor.
Six months of negotiations between the conference and Glide have not yielded a fruitful resolution to the disagreement. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the conference recently filed suit against Glide in order to protect the Trust Clause and the conference’s ownership of Glide’s property.
The Glide Foundation board maintains that the conflict is about the conference trying to gain control of the millions of dollars held by the Foundation, 95 percent of which goes to support social service ministries in the community. Carcaño assures that the conflict is about making Glide accountable to United Methodist doctrine and processes and honoring the original intent of donor Lizzie Glide, who established the foundation in order to provide for a Methodist Church in San Francisco.
There have been conflicting decisions about church trusts in California, but the most recent decisions have favored the denomination. The controversy will potentially now play out in a courtroom that will determine the obligations of the Glide Foundation in relation to The United Methodist Church.
One hopes that this high-profile lawsuit is not a precursor to what might happen in the future if congregations try to leave The United Methodist Church. General Conference can alleviate this concern by passing a fair, equitable, and standardized exit path for congregations as a part of its actions at the February special session.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
Pacific Northwest Conference Communications Team Photo, UMNS.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
It is refreshing to discover that, for at least one very progressive bishop, there is a limit to how progressive a church can be before it ceases to be Methodist. Bishop Minerva Carcaño of the California-Nevada Annual Conference has been in the news for the last several weeks because of her confrontation with the leadership of Glide Memorial United Methodist Church in San Francisco, a church with a well-established reputation for being the largest United Methodist church in the Western Jurisdiction and among the largest in the United States.
Carcaño has refused to appoint any pastor to Glide this year in a dispute with the church that may even lead to the congregation’s attempting to leave the denomination. The church’s last senior pastor, the Rev. Jay Williams, lasted less than a year before resigning to return to his previous appointment in Boston. The two associate pastors on staff are being reappointed to other churches. No new pastors are being appointed to the church at this time, and the district superintendent is arranging for weekly pulpit supply and pastoral care.
The concerns that have led to this situation are theological, as well as financial and related to power and control.
The Rev. Cecil Williams served the church as lead pastor from 1964 until his “retirement” in 2000. In 1967 he removed the cross from the sanctuary in an attempt to make Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, and atheists/agnostics feel comfortable attending the church. According to Bishop Carcaño, however, it appears that in attempting to reach out to non-Christians, the very basis of the gospel was compromised.
In an open letter, Carcaño stated, “Leaders from these [non-Christian] constituencies are quick to publicly state that they do not want the Celebrations, or the church, to be United Methodist or Christian in any form. Sunday Celebrations are uplifting concerts, but lack the fundamentals of Christian worship. Baptisms are conducted periodically but in the name of the people rather than from a Christian understanding of Baptism. Holy Communion was done away with some time ago and only introduced back into the life of the congregation this past Spring, but outside of the Celebration gatherings and with much resistance. We seek to be in good and loving relationship with persons of other faiths and beliefs, and those who claim no faith. However, this should never cause us to lose our own faith.”
According to Carcaño, “the great majority of the participants at Glide’s Sunday Celebrations claim other faiths.” If Baptism has not been administered as a Christian sacrament, one wonders whether membership has been faithful to the vows mandated by the Discipline and found in the Hymnal. It’s possible that many of the over 13,000 members reported by Glide are in fact not even Christian and have not taken vows affirming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Additionally, “there are also serious concerns about the governance and financial administration of the church,” Carcaño declared. “The church has no organizational structure to fulfill its responsibilities as per The Book of Discipline, and has not had a United Methodist organizational structure for decades. The only body that functions in any leadership capacity is a group of congregational leaders hand-picked by Cecil Williams who have never been elected or recognized by the congregation.”
Glide Memorial United Methodist Church.
The question here is who really runs Glide Church? It appears that the Glide Foundation, formed by Williams in 2000, is really the governing entity for the congregation. The Foundation receives millions of dollars a year for the social outreach ministry of the church, housing and feeding the homeless, providing ministry related to HIV/AIDS, and many other worthwhile projects. In a guest editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle, Williams stated: “The Glide board of trustees controls the foundation’s resources, of which 95 percent support social programming, and 5 percent go toward church activities.”
Responding also in a guest editorial in the Chronicle, Carcaño wrote, “In May, I attempted to appoint a senior pastor to Glide Memorial who was welcomed by the congregational leaders, but rejected by the Board of Trustees of the Glide Foundation.” So the Foundation apparently controls the church.
Behind all of this lies the former lead pastor, Williams, and his wife, Janice Mirikitani. Despite the fact that there have been four lead pastors appointed to the church since 2000, including now-bishop Karen Oliveto, Williams has continued to maintain leadership of the church and the Foundation. Carcaño described it this way: “No pastor has been allowed to exercise their rightful authority or responsibilities while serving at Glide. To this day, Cecil Williams and his wife, Janice Mirikitani, make all decisions in the background at Glide.”
“The Glide Foundation runs the business of the Foundation under the church’s 501(c)(3), yet renders no financial reports through United Methodist disciplinary processes,” Carcaño went on. “Appointed pastors are left to alone protect the resources of the church yet have no access to the full financial records of the church, nor do they have any say over the use of the church property.” In fact, pastors did not even receive keys to the church building, nor has there been a recent audit of the Foundation’s books. While the Foundation shelters its finances under the church’s tax-exempt status, there appears to be little or no independent financial accountability.
Bishop Carcaño should be applauded for attempting to bring Glide back into compliance with the United Methodist Discipline. I’m glad she stated in her editorial, “As United Methodists, we respect all faiths, love all people, and are committed to working with persons of other faiths and goodwill to make the world a better place. We also want to sustain our beliefs as Methodists.”
This is exactly the kind of accountability and supervision that has been lacking from many of our bishops in recent decades. One wonders where the seven bishops were who presided over the California-Nevada Conference prior to Carcaño, while all of this was developing. Since 2000, Bishops Beverly Shamana and Warner Brown should have at least stopped Williams from continuing to exercise pastoral authority when no longer the appointed pastor to the church. Indeed, in many parts of the country, a pastor who retires from a congregation is not allowed to even participate in his or her former congregation for a period of at least a year and in some cases never.
At this point, it is impossible to say how this conflict might turn out. It will be interesting to see if Glide can be brought back under the umbrella of United Methodism, or whether they have departed so far from the doctrine and governance of our church that restoration is impossible. But reasserting the denomination’s discipline and reestablishing healthy theological and structural boundaries are struggles worth having.
No one ought to confuse Bishop Carcaño with being a card-carrying evangelical or even a consistent upholder of the order of the church. There are many other ways in which Carcaño is not abiding by the Discipline. And this act of attempted accountability does not mean revival is around the corner. Even if Glide is restored to the church, it will never be conservative in theology. However, Carcaño’s willingness to exercise the accountability expected of her office as bishop demonstrates that it is possible to hold one another accountable in love for the sake of the mission of the church. If all our other bishops were willing to consistently and fairly follow her example, it would go a long way toward restoring the trust in the Council of Bishops that has been so thoroughly shattered.
“While the cross was removed from the Glide Memorial United Methodist Church sanctuary in 1967, the cross still stands on the tower of the church, at the corner of Taylor and Ellis streets, as a beacon of hope to the people of the Tenderloin and the greater San Francisco area,” Bishop Carcaño wrote in the Chronicle. “Glide Memorial United Methodist Church must remain true to the mission of the United Methodist Church to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. There are no enemies here. There is only good work to be done.”
For the sake of the gospel and the reputation of The United Methodist Church, we should all pray for her endeavor.
You can read more extensive coverage of the Glide situation here and here.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
“Here we are today, unable to face the reality of a deeply divided church that can no longer function in a healthy way in unity. And we are unable to consider an option that graciously and respectfully allows congregations and clergy to go their separate ways to pursue ministry that they believe honors God,” said the Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, vice president of Good News, in his address to the Wesleyan Covenant Association of the Iowa Annual Conference.
“Instead, we have a proposal for separation within the church, which is the Connectional Conference Plan. And we have two proposals for separation from the church – a “One Church Plan” that separates out evangelicals and a Traditional Plan that separates out progressives.
“So we are left with no choice but to fight – and fight to win. Our battle is not against people, but for the Gospel. We fight for the faith once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 3). We are not in this battle alone,” said Lambrecht, a member of the Commission on a Way Forward.
“There will be a Traditional Plan put forward at General Conference. It will retain our current biblical position on marriage and sexual ethics, and it will make it easier to enforce that position across the church. And the Traditional Plan will graciously open the door for those who because of conscience cannot live within the boundaries set by our church, setting them free to follow the leading they have from God.
“This plan is a faithful way forward,” Lambrecht concluded. “It is faithful to the Bible. It is faithful to 2,000 years of Christian teaching. It is faithful to the more than seven generations of men and women who built the church that we now call home. It is faithful to a global church that overwhelmingly holds to a traditional understanding of morality and biblical interpretation.
“We can and we must fight for this faithful way forward. We owe it to ourselves and to those who come after us to take our stand on the truth of the Gospel.”
Click HERE to watch Rev. Lambrecht’s complete address.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
