What Is Unity?

by Steve | Oct 6, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Thomas Lambrecht-

In the wake of the September meeting of the Commission on a Way Forward in Berlin, I would like to reflect on the balancing act that the Commission is engaged in as it formulates its proposal for the Council of Bishops and the called 2019 General Conference. Any views expressed here are my own and do not reflect the thinking of the Commission as a whole.

The key to understanding the Commission’s work is the Vision statement that describes what the Commission is trying to accomplish. “The Commission will design a way for being church that maximizes the presence of a United Methodist witness in as many places in the world as possible, that allows for as much contextual differentiation as possible, and that balances an approach to different theological understandings of human sexuality with a desire for as much unity as possible.” Please observe that the phrase “as possible” is repeated three times.

A Missional Purpose

The first thing to note is that the Commission seeks to “maximize the presence of a United Methodist witness in as many places in the world as possible.” Our work has a missional imperative. We acknowledge that different groups can best reach different types of people. Those who respond positively to a progressive expression of United Methodism would probably not respond well to a more traditional expression, and vice versa. Right now, the conflict in our denomination is hindering both progressives and traditionalists from fulfilling our mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Whatever proposal the Commission recommends ought to be aimed at freeing us for Christ-based mission and enhancing the missional potential for all parts of the denomination.

Balancing Differentiation with Unity

The crux of the Commission’s work, however, is found in the word “balance.” We are trying to balance the need for “as much contextual differentiation as possible” related to the “different theological understandings of human sexuality” with “a desire for as much unity as possible.” Contextualization requires space and a loosening of the connection. Unity requires a tightening of the connection. As Bishop Ken Carter put it in a September 21 press release, “We know that members of our denomination want space from each other — because of theological differences from each other and the harm we have done to each other — and at the same time connection — because this is in our DNA.” Where is the balance point between as much space as is needed to accommodate the different theological understandings and as much unity/connection as possible? That is what the Commission needs to discern.

It is important to understand that no proposal from the Commission is going to be the magic wand or ideal solution. We deal with a political reality in terms of coming to an agreement that will satisfy many diverse groups of people, both in the U.S. and in the 60 nations around the world where Methodism is present. It has been said that politics is the art of the possible, not a search for the ideal. Sometimes, the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. Holding out for the ideal solution (from our perspective) may mean that nothing gets accomplished, and the impasse remains. So the Commission is seeking to balance competing interests to come to a workable solution.

It is a given that our current denominational structure does not achieve this balance. For progressives who want to perform same-sex weddings, there is too much connection that is inhibiting their ability to do ministry as they believe they are called to do it, in that their ministry is prohibited by the general church. At the same time, there is not enough connection in that the rest of the church has not agreed to endorse the progressive vision for ministry with LGBTQ persons.

For conservatives, there is not enough connection in that there is little accountability or adherence to the actions of General Conference defining our parameters of ministry with LGBTQ persons. At the same time, there is too much connection in that the actions of progressives to perform same-sex weddings and ordain practicing homosexuals cause the community to think all United Methodist churches do so and alienates traditional United Methodists from the denomination.

Redefining Unity

Since the current structure is untenable, what might we move toward? The Commission’s Scope declares, “We should be open to new ways of embodying unity.” It adds, “We will fulfill our directive by considering ‘new forms and structures’ of relationship.” Further, “We will give consideration to greater freedom and flexibility to a future United Methodist Church that will redefine our present connectionality, which is showing signs of brokenness.”

All of this means that we will need to redefine what “unity” means for United Methodists. We can no longer have unity with one another on the same basis as in the past. To move forward, we will have to reach a new understanding of unity.

First, we must acknowledge that the unity of the church is not at stake here. In the press release, Bishop Carter said, “We are the one Body of Christ with many members, and God uses this diversity to offer grace and healing to the world.” With all due respect, United Methodism is not “the one Body of Christ.” That distinction belongs to the whole worldwide Christian Church. United Methodism is only a part of “the one Body of Christ” — a vital and personal part for those of us who call ourselves Wesleyans. In reality, however, that global body has been institutionally divided since the Great Schism of 1054 between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. It has been further divided by the thousands of Protestant denominations that have arisen over the past 500 years.

The unity that “the one Body of Christ” is able to have is not institutional, but spiritual. We can acknowledge each other as believers in Jesus Christ and work together in ways that stem from common agreement. By that mutual acknowledgement and respect, along with common efforts in ministry, the worldwide Christian Church can indeed express “diversity to offer grace and healing to the world.” Whether The United Methodist Church stays together in one denomination will have minimal impact on the unity of the worldwide Christian Church. That unity can best be preserved in our part of the Body by our treating each other with mutual acknowledgement and respect, while working together in aspects of ministry that stem from common agreement. Perhaps that is a new definition of unity.

Second, we must acknowledge that the unity of The United Methodist Church is broken beyond repair. This is difficult and painful for us to admit. However, we must face the fact that many progressives who want to be able to perform same-sex marriages and ordain practicing homosexuals cannot live much longer in a church that prohibits them from doing so. And we must face the fact that many conservatives who believe that same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals is contrary to God’s will could not live for long in a church that allowed and even advocated for such. As the prophet Amos put it, “Can two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?” (Amos 3:3).

A New Unity

We could reestablish unity in The United Methodist Church on the basis of agreement only by seeing either progressives or evangelicals leave the church in large numbers. The recently formed Uniting Methodists group cherishes the hope that many United Methodists could remain united in a body that gave a “local option.” Under this previously rejected plan, pastors could individually decide whether or not to perform same-sex weddings, but would not be forced to do so. And annual conferences could individually decide whether or not to ordain practicing homosexuals, but would not be forced to do so. Such a scenario would only be acceptable to progressives as a way station en route to eventual full endorsement of homosexuality. And many evangelicals would feel a need to depart once their annual conference or local church moved toward LGBTQ affirmation.

Alternatively, we could reestablish unity by restructuring The United Methodist Church into something looser, where progressives and traditionalists would not have a say over each other’s ministries, and where financial ties would be limited to those common areas of ministry that all agreed upon. This would be the type of redefining “unity” and considering “new forms and structures of relationship” that the Commission’s Scope envisions.

The question comes down to how much space is necessary between progressives and traditionalists. Can they share bishops? Can they be bound by a common set of membership qualifications? Can they support the same list of seminaries? Can they both continue to support all the same general boards and agencies we now have? How do congregations and clergy determine which part of The United Methodist Church they identify with? How do local churches obtain a pastor who is theologically compatible with the congregation’s views on LGBTQ ministry? How do congregations identify or “market” themselves as distinctively progressive or traditionalist or something else? Are we all still part of the same denomination or are we different denominations? How do the central conferences outside the U.S. continue to receive support from The United Methodist Church? With what part of the UM Church (if any) do central conferences identify? And the list of questions goes on.

The balancing act comes in because there is a desire for as much unity and connection as possible among many United Methodists. But the level of connection desired varies from person to person. What is too much connection for one person is not enough connection for another. And the more connection we maintain between progressives and traditionalists, the more traditionalists may decide to withdraw from United Methodism altogether, thus defeating the goal of preserving unity with those congregations and clergy.

These questions and issues will test the Commission, and ultimately the whole United Methodist Church, as we seek to balance differentiation and unity. There will not be a proposal that pleases everyone. Some will want more unity, while others will want more differentiation. All we can hope for is to strike a balance that will satisfy the greatest number of people, while providing a way for those who cannot live with that proposal to exit from the denomination with pension, property, and assets. This approach is the only way to end the conflict that is tearing our church apart and distracting us from our main mission of disciple-making.

Please continue praying for the Commission as we seek out the optimum balancing point.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.

Another Complaint, No Consequences

by Steve | Sep 29, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Thomas Lambrecht

As has become all too common, another complaint against a pastor for celebrating a same-sex wedding has been resolved without any discipline. In other words, the case has been “resolved” without any form of authentic resolution.

The Rev. Ben Marshall, a retired clergy member of the North Texas Conference, performed a same-sex wedding on April 22, 2017, in violation of the Book of Discipline, which forbids such services. A complaint was filed against him by the Rev. Fred Durham, also a retired clergy member of North Texas. According to a statement released by the annual conference, the complaint was mediated by Bill Waddell, the legal consultant for the Council of Bishops.

Durham also filed a complaint against the Rev. Eric Folkerth, the pastor of Northaven United Methodist Church in Dallas, a Reconciling Congregation that hosted the April wedding.

Both Marshall and Folkerth stipulated that they are “sorry for any harm … caused to those who disagree with our understanding of our pastoral calling and covenant.” (The full text of their statement was not publicly released.) There was no regret or repentance for breaking the church’s teachings and requirements, just an “I’m sorry if you feel hurt” response. There was no commitment not to repeat the violation, nor was there any mention of consequences suffered for breaching our shared commitment to “support and maintain” our “Church government and polity” (Discipline, ¶ 336.12-13).

The fact that there were apparently no consequences for this breech of covenant is doubly galling because it is a direct affront not only to the general church and our Book of Discipline, but also to the actions of the North Texas Conference. Bishop Michael McKee specifically outlined in a letter to clergy in 2015 that they would be unable to “preside over the ceremony, give the vows or the exchange of rings, pronounce the couple married, or sign the marriage license.” The fact that Marshall did so was in direct defiance of his bishop.

In addition, the 2016 session of the North Texas Conference adopted a resolution “stipulating that, until the Commission on a Way Forward completes its work, members of the North Texas Conference would be bound to uphold the Book of Discipline.” Marshall and Folkerth’s actions directly contradicted the will of their annual conference as expressed in this resolution.

The “just resolution” of the complaints against Marshall and Fokerth continues a pattern of clergy in various annual conferences performing same-sex weddings and receiving no consequences for their act of disobedience. Most complaints are settled with a “just resolution” that apologizes for any harm that people feel because of the violation, with some resolutions giving the offender a platform to promote their views in opposition to the church’s teachings. Other complaints are simply dismissed without action.

This is one very dramatic reason that laity and clergy alike have so little regard for episcopal leadership in the UM Church.

The longer these acts of disobedience are ignored or rewarded, the harder it will be to restore accountability. In general, most bishops have shown an unwillingness to hold clergy accountable for these actions. We are grateful for the isolated instances where UM bishops actually uphold our mutually-agreed upon covenant. This situation in Dallas, however, demonstrates how unlikely it is that the 2019 General Conference will be able to maintain the church’s current teachings on marriage and sexuality in a way that gains the compliance of all, or even most, U.S. United Methodists.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. 

New Room Renewal

by Steve | Sep 29, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

United Methodists and other Christians in the Wesleyan family attended the New Room Conference on Sept. 20-22 in Franklin, Tenn. Photo by Heather Hahn, UMNS.

“Great periods of Christian revival in the U.S. need not be consigned to the church’s circuit-rider past,” writes Heather Hahn of United Methodist News Service. “Even without the saddle sores and sawdust trail of yesteryear, a new generation of Christians can be just as fired up with the Holy Spirit.”

Hahn was filing her news story from last week’s New Room Conference in Franklin, Tennessee – an annual gathering of United Methodists and other believers in the Wesleyan tradition to “sow for a Great Awakening.”

The phrase “is so much more than a tagline to us,” the Rev. David Thomas, a United Methodist elder and one of the event’s organizers, told UMNS. “We really believe that’s the only honest expression of our need.”

The more than 1,500 participants worshipped and heard presentations on the “importance of praying, relying on the Holy Spirit, engaging in Wesleyan-style small groups and multiplying churches,” writes Hahn.

Thomas called the gathering “the fellowship of the frustrated.” “We believe this restlessness is a sign of the Spirit,” he said. “We are frustrated in a holy kind of way. It’s an early indicator of awakening.”

To read Hahn’s entire report, click HERE.

To read the article on New Room from Dr. Timothy Tennent of Asbury Theological Seminary, click HERE.

Uniting Methodists Leaning Left

by Steve | Sep 25, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Walter Fenton

Uniting Methodists is a new caucus group that has entered as a “new voice” in the battle over the United Methodist Church’s sexual ethics, teachings on marriage, and its ordination standards. It joins a long roster of groups formed by concerned United Methodists over the years to lobby official church bodies like the General Conference, the Council of Bishops (COB), and now the COB’s special Commission on a Way Forward.

One of the more peculiar claims from Uniting Methodists is its belief that it is not like any of these other groups. As it states on its website, “We are not another combatant in a denominational tug-of-war.” (One supposes, without naming, they want to convey they are not like Methodist Federation for Social Action, Good News, Reconciling Ministries Network, or The Confessing Movement.) They’re just trying, as their tag line says, “to be a unifying and clarifying voice in a divided conversation and a polarized culture.” In other words, they want to convey they are not combatants, but nice people.

And of course, they are nice people, some of the nicest in the whole church. But as Bishop Will Willimon once said, one of the UM Church’s problems is its unspoken “conspiracy of niceness.” The denomination is already full of nice leaders who like to style themselves as facilitators, bridge-builders, and conveners of round-table discussions. Given the crowded table, one does wonder how much more room there is for another group dedicated to be a “clarifying voice in a divided conversation.” (By the way, everyone already at the table thinks they are “a unifying and clarifying voice in a divided conversation.”)

 Uniting Methodists certainly say all the right things.

Its homepage says the movement is “Christ centered, hope filled,” and committed to “make disciples for the transformation of the world.”

 In its mission statement, it puts itself forward as a voice “that clarifies and unifies our church, [and] urges holiness.” It calls for “cooperation with Christ-like love and honest, humble conversation, and desire[s] spiritual and structural unity in the church.”

 In a section entitled “A Shared Commitment,” it professes to follow a God who reveals through Jesus Christ that He is both “fixed and free.” So they are a people who “seek to keep [their] hearts and minds centered on Jesus,” and “open to wherever the catholic spirit of God’s love might lead [them].”

 Of course, The United Methodist Church already says all of these things. They are embedded in our Wesleyan heritage, and are rooted in our church’s constitution, doctrinal standards, theological task, social principles, and our polity. So what gives? Why another caucus group, especially one professing not to be “another combatant” in our perennial struggles?

Let’s be straightforward: Uniting Methodists, despite its protests, has its own agenda when it comes to the church’s sexual ethics, teachings on marriage, and its ordination standards. It would like to liberalize all of them. The group wants to eliminate the church’s statement on the “practice of homosexuality,” redefine Christian marriage as “a covenant between two people,” and give UM clergy the freedom to preside at “same-sex weddings.”

While studiously avoiding terms such as liberal or progressive, its members simply want to be known as people trying to secure a peace for a denomination beleaguered by combative groups. They haven’t shown up to take sides; in fact, they don’t even claim to be a side. They’ve arrived, as they put it, to help “clarify” things and bring “unity.” (Long time church observers should be forgiven for finding this kind of rhetoric mildly exasperating.)

But Uniting Methodists is, in fact, another caucus group, and there’s no shame in that. In time, the group might come to realize being combative for their cause can be an honorable and noble thing. But for now, they run the risk of appearing to be a group of reluctant combatants. They’re willing to allow for the ordination of LGBTQ people, but if there is push back from an annual conference, then they’ll retreat. And if a lesbian or gay couple can find a UM pastor willing to preside at their wedding, great. But if another one refuses to preside at such a service, then they’ll side with the pastor.

This “local option” approach, which has been floated before, is more likely to antagonize than unify the church. Uniting Methodists run the risk of appearing to be muddled and half-hearted, and it’s likely both LGBTQ advocates and many United Methodists will see them as such.

LGBTQ advocates are all in; they’re advocating for full inclusion in and unfettered access to the church. The timidity of Uniting Methodists will neither impress them nor deter them from their ultimate aims. They will quietly pocket the gains Uniting Methodists would be willing to cede them, and then continue their fight for full inclusion in and unfettered access to the church.

And the vast majority of United Methodists across the global connection, who support the church’s teachings, are firm in their convictions that those teachings are grounded in Scripture and the teachings of the church catholic. They’ve watched what has happened to other mainline denominations that adopted the approach Uniting Methodists are pedaling, and they will want none of it.

The new organization’s laudable tag line, “called to be a unifying and clarifying voice,” does succeed in clarifying that its members lean left, but that’s not a winning strategy if they also hope to be a voice for unity

Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergyperson and an analyst at Good News. 

At the Center of What?

by Steve | Sep 18, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Walter Fenton-

In his recent respectful, but critical appraisal of so-called United Methodist “centrism,” Dr. Kevin Watson, Assistant Professor of Wesleyan and Methodist Studies at Candler School of Theology, says he has “no idea to what extent [the Rev. Adam] Hamilton desires to be seen as a leader of… the United Methodist Centrist Movement.”

Question asked, question answered. Hamilton has quickly responded with an essay of his own entitled “In Support of United Methodist Centrists.” 

Watson’s critique and Hamilton’s response are well worth reading, particularly with the launch of a new caucus group called “Uniting Methodists” (Hamilton has openly identified with it).

But here, we want to consider whether self-identified “centrists” are actually at the center of the worldwide United Methodist Church.

For Hamilton, a centrist is a compassionate, faithful United Methodist who recognizes that other compassionate, faithful United Methodists “disagree on how to interpret the Scriptures cited as relevant to the questions of same-sex marriage.”

The centrist caucus appears to promote a new UM infrastructure where some pastors preside at same-sex weddings and where some annual conferences ordain openly gay clergy, and, at the same time, some pastors only miles away decline to preside at same-sex weddings and some annual conferences refuse to ordain openly gay clergy. 

Presumably, the centrist caucus would also promote legislation where some annual conferences could discipline a pastor who declined to receive an openly gay person as a church member, and, at the same time, would defend a pastor’s right to decline administering the membership vows in a different annual conference. 

For a moment we will set aside this rather novel approach to a Christian church’s sexual ethics, teachings on marriage, ordination standards, and even its membership vows to consider how Hamilton arrives at his definition of a centrist. For him, if two Christ loving, warm hearted, passionate United Methodists reach different conclusions regarding a given ethical issue, it most likely means the issue in question requires us to see gray even if what we want is a clear cut answer (see his book Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White and also Dr. Bill Arnold’s Seeing Black and White in a Gray World). This philosophy comes to the conclusion that the ethical issue is gray. In response, the best approach appears to be to sit loosely on the matter, allowing plenty of room for faithful people who have legitimate differences.

This is often a fair-minded, generous, and practical approach to some thorny ethical issues, and the church has decided to handle some of them in just this fashion. However, as Hamilton himself acknowledges, there are some ethical issues that cannot be handled this way. And that is the crux of the matter when it comes to the church’s sexual ethics, teachings on marriage, and its ordination standards.

Both LGBTQ advocates and the UM Church (through the General Conference) do not think we can sit loosely on these matters. The former believe justice is at stake and therefore there is no room for compromise. They are so fervent in their convictions that they have defied the church of which they are members.

The UM Church believes its standards are firmly rooted in Christian teaching and are reflective of what the church universal has taught at all times and in all places. With compassion and grace, it calls on Christ followers to do the hard work of warmly and compassionately engaging with people who feel – often justifiably – marginalized and mistreated. However, it maintains it cannot yield on an issue that has paramount ramifications for the community of faith, for some of its core theological and ethical convictions, and for families and society in general. As challenging as it can be, the church believes it must speak the truth with grace and charity. And it believes this is done most effectively at the most basic level, where pastors and lay people open their doors, befriend others, listen, and speak kindly and warmly at the right time.

Judging from the declarations on the new centrist website, it seems as if it is advocating that the theological and ethical issues surrounding same-sex marriage, ordination, and church membership are not of paramount importance and that global United Methodism can move forward where some pastors joyfully preside at same-sex weddings, and others are firmly convinced such weddings are contrary to Christian teaching. This version of centrism appears to neither warmly promote the church’s teachings, nor will it wholeheartedly advocate for the full and unfettered inclusion of LGBTQ people. While no one would question the sincerity of their beliefs, the centrist caucus errs in believing that this puts them at anything approximating the center of the church. It does not; it puts it at odds with the church.

Wittingly or unwittingly, the centrist caucus is attempting to usurp the center of the church from the duly elected delegates who are sent to represent United Methodists at its General Conferences. This global body – representing people from Africa, Europe, The Philippines, and the U.S. – either reaffirms or modifies our Book of Discipline, and it alone constitutes the actual center of the church. Those who want the church to adopt a novel, laissez faire approach to its sexual ethics, its teachings on marriage, and its ordination standards may well be sincere, good-hearted people, but it’s a stretch to call this centrism.

To be fair, the new centrist caucus – complete with high-profile clergy as well as the past and present top executive from the United Methodist Publishing House – are not completely indifferent to the teachings of the church or the demands of LGBTQ advocates, but they are apparently willing to champion an exotic approach that is almost certainly a recipe for disaster.

For example, the centrist caucus would have us believe the UM Church could function as a healthy and vibrant denomination where two ministers, in the same community, teach diametrically opposite things about marriage and sexual intimacy.  One teaches same-sex marriage is morally unacceptable, while another maintains LGBTQ marriages are to be celebrated. One teaches sexual intimacy is meant to be monogamous, heterosexual, and expressed in the confines of a marriage; the other warmly approves of LGBTQ understandings of sexual intimacy and marriage. This is not a credible way forward.

Practically speaking, particularly for bishops and district superintendents who have to appoint pastors to local churches, it’s a train wreck in the making. But even more importantly, their exotic plan of accommodation will solve little or nothing.

Previous versions of this “local option” plan were met with contempt by some ardent LGBTQ advocates. It was seen as an unacceptable vision of “gradualism” or “accommodationalism” – institutional leaders willing to sell them out whenever this or that annual conference has the votes to deny them full inclusion.

 To those who find themselves in the center of the global United Methodist Church – those who actually support the church’s teachings, abide by its polity, and respect the will of the General Conference – the centrist caucus looks like it is willing to perpetuate an on-going division because they continue to see only gray.

Both sides – LGBTQ advocates and the UM Church – want the centrist caucus to take a stand on an issue where the church cannot have it both ways. Do they support LGBTQ advocates’ cry for full inclusion? Or do they stand with the center of The United Methodist Church, which believes what Christians at all times and in all places have taught regarding our sexual ethics and teachings on marriage. 

Seeing only gray is no longer a luxury LGBTQ advocates or the UM Church can afford.

Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergyperson and an analyst at Good News.