by Steve | May 5, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Bishop Elaine JW Stanovsky, UMNS
By Walter Fenton-
“The ruling is long and complicated,” wrote Bishop Elaine JW Stanovsky in a statement on behalf of the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops.
Stanovsky was of course commenting on the Judicial Council’s recent decision regarding the Western Jurisdictional Conference’s election and assignment of the Rev. Karen Oliveto as a United Methodist bishop. When she was elected and assigned, it was widely known she was married to another woman.
We certainly join Stanovsky and her colleagues in their assessment that the decision was “long and complicated,” but their statement goes on to make some claims that are misleading.
First, they claim the Council’s decision “reinforce[s] the reality that the church is not of one mind about the inclusion of LGBTQI people and sexual practices outside heterosexual marriage.” No, it does not.
It is not the role of the Judicial Council to read the “mind” of the church. Anyone who reads the decision plainly sees it studiously avoids doing so. Never once, in its 19 page decision, does it say something to the effect of, “the church is not of one mind so we decided to issue a long and complicated ruling to acknowledge that reality.”
On the contrary, in its decision the Council repeatedly reinforces the reality that the church “prohibits the consecration as bishop of a self-avowed practicing homosexual;” that “[a]n openly homosexual and partnered bishop is in violation of [the Book of Discipline],” and “[a]n openly homosexual and partnered bishop may be charged with being a self-avowed practicing homosexual.”
The Council’s decision firmly upholds church law regarding its ministerial standards, sexual ethics, and teachings on marriage. And while the Council maintains it cannot declare Oliveto’s election and assignment null and void, it does instruct the Western Jurisdiction’s Committee on Episcopacy to handle complaints filed against her, and to do so according to the standards it repeatedly cites in its decision.
So contra Stanovsky and her episcopal colleagues, no one should read the Council’s decision as if it is meant to be an indicator of the church’s conflicted nature on the matter.
Stanovsky goes on to write, “We thank the Judicial Council for allowing the Commission on A Way Forward to do its work.” Again, a statement like this gives the impression the Council considered a factor it never references in its entire decision.
Llewelyn Pritchard and Richard Marsh, legal representatives for the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops, UMNS.
Richard Marsh, the attorney who represented the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops at the public hearing in Newark, New Jersey, gamely made the case that the Council should defer to the commission. But it was fairly obvious this line of reasoning persuaded none of the Council members. And if it wasn’t obvious then, the 19 page decision made it abundantly clear. Neither the Commission on a Way Forward nor its work is referenced anywhere in the decision, and properly so.
The Judicial Council fulfilled its responsibility to render a decision in the case irrespective of any hypothetical plans the commission will share with the Council of Bishops, and that in turn will be presented to the called General Conference scheduled for February 2019.
Finally, conspicuous by its absence in Stanovsky and her colleagues’ statement, is perhaps the most important decision the Council reached. The Council clearly stated, “It is not lawful for the college of bishops of any jurisdictional… conference to consecrate a self-avowed practicing homosexual.”
This was the very reason the Council determined it had jurisdiction in the case. And it went on to instruct the Western Jurisdictional Conference, its committee on episcopacy, and its college of bishops to review and act on complaints filed against Oliveto.
In Stanovsky and her colleagues’ defense, they said they would have more to say on the ruling. We trust they will help people in the Western Jurisdiction understand the Council’s decision had nothing to do with “reinforcing the reality that the church is not of one mind about the inclusion of LGBTQI people,” or about deferring the matter to the Commission on a Way Forward.
The decision was about Stanovsky and her colleagues. It was about their willingness to consecrate as a bishop a person who, if the instructions of the Judicial Council are sincerely followed, must vacate that office.
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
by Steve | May 3, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Tom Lambrecht-
Last week’s decision by the Judicial Council regarding the election and consecration of an openly lesbian bishop in a same-sex marriage was very complicated and not entirely consistent. The Council strove to tailor its decision as narrowly as possible and delved into many legal technicalities. In the midst of all the complexity, it would be easy to lose sight of several positive aspects of the ruling.
1. The Judicial Council clearly and forcefully upheld the principle that a jurisdiction’s bishops, acting on behalf of the whole United Methodist Church, cannot legally consecrate as bishop a person who does not meet the qualifications for office. The Western Jurisdiction had maintained that it could elect and consecrate whoever it thought would be an appropriate bishop in light of their particular context, and that the rest of the church could say nothing about their choice. The ruling recognized that bishops are bishops of the whole church and that jurisdictional bishops are acting on behalf of the whole church when they consecrate a bishop. No jurisdiction or annual conference is completely autonomous. We are part of a connection that is responsible and accountable to each other.
2. The Judicial Council clarified that “a same-sex marriage license issued by competent civil authorities together with the clergy person’s status in a same-sex relationship is a public declaration that the person is a self-avowed practicing homosexual.” This important ruling will put an end to games that some openly homosexual clergy have been playing by living in a same-sex marriage, yet declining to acknowledge that they are practicing homosexuals. Rather than requiring church authorities to ask intrusive questions about the personal lives and practices of clergy, all that is now necessary for a person to be brought up on a complaint is the public record of being in a same-sex marriage. The Judicial Council recognized that being in a marriage assumes a sexual relationship, and that it would then be up to the clergyperson under complaint to give “rebuttal evidence” during a complaint process to refute that assumption in an individual case. This should make it much easier and more straightforward to hold accountable some clergypersons who are living contrary to the moral teachings of the church.
3. This decision also puts the spotlight on the Western Jurisdiction to make a decision about the future of The United Methodist Church and its participation in that future. The jurisdiction will have to decide between equally unsatisfactory alternatives. Either it will have to remove from office (and from clergy status) a person that it unanimously supported as bishop, or it will have to openly acknowledge that it can no longer be part of The United Methodist Church as it is currently configured.
Judicial Council, UMNS
“This ruling really does nothing to resolve the tension and impatience and anxiety in our system. It’s not clear-cut enough,” Bishop Bruce R. Ough, president of the United Methodist Church’s Council of Bishops, told the New York Times. “One of the tensions that will play out now within our denomination in the next few months is people will be watching carefully whether the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops will in fact follow through and do the due process, and do it well.”
The leadership of the jurisdiction may seek to draw out the process as long as they can, putting off that decision by as many as six months to a year. Delay tactics in themselves will send the message that the Western Jurisdiction wants to play by its own rules, unconnected from the rest of the church. But the time clock on the complaint process will run out long before the special General Conference in February 2019.
The jurisdictional leaders may seek some kind of “just resolution” that leaves Bishop Karen Oliveto in office. But unlike the cases of clergy performing same-sex marriages, there is no middle ground here to find compromise for a resolution. Either Oliveto meets the qualifications for continuing in her clergy status or she does not. And if she does not, the only option is to remove her as bishop and revoke her credentials. No 24-hour suspension consequence is available as a “just resolution.” The Western Jurisdiction’s decisions over the coming months will speak volumes about the ability of progressives and traditionalists to live together in the same church body.
As expected, the Judicial Council decision did not resolve the impasse in our denomination over the role of LGBTQ+ persons in the life of the church. The only bodies with the authority to resolve the impasse are the Commission on a Way Forward, the Council of Bishops, and the special General Conference. As I understand it, the Commission’s final plan needs to go to the Council of Bishops for approval in May 2018. The Council of Bishops then needs to submit it in legislative form by July 2018 in order to meet the deadlines for the February 2019 General Conference. So we will know a year from now the final proposal that will be put before the called General Conference. Until then, we encourage United Methodists to remain steadfast in prayer and continue as members of their local churches, so that the evangelical voice is undiminished in helping to form whatever comes next.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergy person and the vice- president of Good News.
by Steve | Apr 27, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Observers and demonstrators at Judicial Council hearing. Mike DuBose, UMNS
By Walter Fenton-
The Judicial Council of The United Methodist Church heard oral arguments this past Tuesday in the matter of the Western Jurisdictional Conference’s nomination, election, consecration, and assignment of the Rev. Karen Oliveto as a bishop of the church. Oliveto is openly gay and married to Ms. Robin Ridenour, a deaconess in the UM Church.
At a Newark, New Jersey, hotel, over 200 people turned out to witness what many regarded as the most controversial case ever to come before the Council. Typically, Judicial Council meetings are closed, but in rare cases it does grant requests for oral arguments and opens its proceedings to the public. The wide interest in the case required the Council to secure overflow space and request heightened security for its Tuesday morning session.
The vast majority of the observers were LGBTQ+ advocates who were there to support Oliveto and protest the church’s sexual ethics and its teachings on marriage. Some wore clerical robes and rainbow stoles, while others wore black t-shirts emblazoned with the message, “United Methodist QUEER CLERGY #calledOUT.” Their demonstrations were made before and after the oral arguments. There were no disruptions of the proceedings.
Richard Marsh and the Rev. Keith Boyette presented oral arguments to the Judicial Council. Mike DuBose, UMNS
The Rev. Keith Boyette, a UM clergy member and attorney from Virginia, asked the nine-member Council to rule the Western Jurisdictional Conference’s election of Oliveto null and void. Conversely, Mr. Richard Marsh, the chancellor of the Rocky Mountain Annual Conference, sought to defend the jurisdictional conference’s right to elect her and Oliveto’s right to serve.
The arguments revolved around varying interpretations of the church’s constitution as it pertains to the rights of jurisdictional conferences, a clergy member’s good standing and rights to due process, and when it is appropriate for the Council to exercise judicial review in a given controversy.
According to Marsh, the church’s constitution does not permit the Council to interfere in jurisdictional conferences’ episcopal elections. He argued jurisdictions have sole and unfettered authority to elect and assign whomever they wish. The constitutional grant of jurisdictional autonomy in episcopal elections and assignments is so expansive, he said, that it bars the General Conference or another jurisdictional conference from asking the Council to exercise its power of judicial review.
Boyette countered that the Book of Discipline clearly grants the Judicial Council the right of review and the authority to issue declaratory decisions regarding the actions of jurisdictional conferences. He cited several instances where the Council has asserted its authority in prior instances, and maintained the Western Jurisdictional Conference’s election and assignment of a person clearly in violation of the church’s definition of marriage warrants the Council’s review.
While never yielding the point that the Council did not have jurisdiction in this case, Marsh further argued it would be improper to rule Oliveto’s election null and void. He pointed out that when she was nominated, elected, consecrated, and assigned, she was a clergy member in “good standing,” and therefore an eligible candidate. He maintained any attempt to declare her election null and void would negate her constitutional rights to a fair trial and the appeals process.
Bishop Karen Oliveto greets Dixie Brewster, the lay woman who petitioned the Judicial Council for a declaratory decision. Mike Dubois, UMNS
Boyette countered the case was not about Oliveto’s standing as a clergy member, but about the legality of the Western Jurisdictional Conference’s election and assignment of her. Her election, he said, would negate, ignore, and violate the Discipline. He noted that in prior decisions the Council has ruled similar actions out of order.
He also argued basic facts in Oliveto’s ministry necessitate judicial review. Although her supervisory authorities (i.e., bishops, district superintendents, and conference boards of ordained ministry) have been aware of her marriage and admission of presiding at approximately 50 same-sex marriages, all failed to hold her accountable to the church’s standards for ordained ministry. Furthermore, the Western Jurisdictional Conference elected and assigned her fully aware of her marital status and her admission of presiding at same-sex marriages. The Judicial Council, Boyette said, is now the only body left to enforce the church’s law.
Council members had sharp questions for both Boyette and Marsh, with most of their inquiries revolving around the autonomy of jurisdictional conferences and whether it was appropriate for the Council to assert its power of judicial review in the case. Marsh steadfastly defended jurisdictional autonomy and claimed the Council would be “legislating from the bench” if it decided to rule Oliveto’s election null and void. Boyette said the details of the case warranted the Council’s review and cited previous decisions indicating its right to rule on its merits.
Last year, delegates to the 2016 General Conference voted to approve a special commission to address the long running debate over the church’s sexual ethics and its teachings on marriage. Many believe that debate has undermined the church’s health and vitality, and now threatens its unity. The delegates granted the Council of Bishops authority to appoint commission members, lead a discernment process, and to convene an unprecedented called General Conference in 2019 to consider any plan or plans proposed by it.
Marsh noted the importance of the commission’s work in his argument, and encouraged the Council to steer clear of issuing a ruling that would likely infringe upon or undermine the commission’s work. In a brief rebuttal, Boyette said the Council should not refrain from fulfilling its duties based on uncertain proposals from the commission and what may or may not happen at a subsequent General Conference. He countered that a decision from the Council would actually bring clarity to the commission’s work.
The Council gave no indication of how it will rule in the case. It is expected to issue a decision within the next few days.
To read Boyette’s oral argument, click HERE.
To read the principal briefs and replies submitted before the hearing, click HERE.
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
by Steve | Apr 20, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
The United Methodist Church’s Judicial Council, essentially its Supreme Court, will hear oral arguments on Tuesday morning, April 25, 2017, regarding the legality of the Western Jurisdictional Conference’s election of an openly lesbian and married clergywoman to be a bishop in the church. After deliberations, the Council will share its decision with the general church several days later.
What is the nature of the case before the UM Church’s “Supreme Court”?
On Friday, July 16, 2016, delegates at the UM Church’s Western Jurisdictional Conference elected the Rev. Karen Oliveto, an openly lesbian clergywoman in a same-sex marriage, to be a bishop in the church. She was consecrated by other bishops and then assigned to serve as the leader of the Mountain Sky Episcopal Area (an area encompassing the states of Colorado, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and parts of Idaho).
Since the UM Church defines marriage as between one man and one woman, requires its clergy to either exhibit “fidelity in heterosexual marriage” or “celibacy in singleness,” and finds the “practice of homosexuality to be incompatible with Christian teaching,” the Judicial Council (the Church’s “Supreme Court”) is being asked whether it was legal for the jurisdictional delegates to nominate, elect, consecrate, and assign Oliveto as a bishop of an episcopal area.
To be clear, the case is about the legality of the actions of those who elected, consecrated, and assigned Oliveto to her episcopal office. The Judicial Council is not being asked to render decisions about the church’s sexual ethics, its teachings on marriage, or its ordination standards. Furthermore, it will render no decision regarding Oliveto’s ministerial credentials.
(To read Good News’ analysis of the leading legal briefs filed in the case, click HERE.)
How do people become members of the Judicial Council, and how many people serve on it?
Laity and clergy are nominated by bishops and General Conference delegates to serve on the Council. Every four years they are elected or re-elected by the General Conference delegates. Nine members serve on the Council and, unlike U.S. Supreme Court justices, they have term limits. To read about the current Council members click HERE.
Ordinarily, the Council does not hear oral arguments, why is it doing so in this case?
At its discretion, the Council can decide to hear oral arguments. It typically does so when a particular case’s outcome will have major ramifications for the whole church.
What are the most likely decisions the Judicial Council could reach in this case?
There are only two likely decisions.
The Council could decide that since Oliveto was at her election and assignment in a same-sex marriage (and still is), she was not an eligible episcopal candidate, therefore, her election and assignment were invalid. Just as the Judicial Council has overruled other acts of non-conformity recently emanating from defiant annual and jurisdictional conferences, it could decide the Western Jurisdictional Conference was knowingly engaging in an act of ecclesial disobedience when it wittingly elected, consecrated, and appointed a person widely known to have defied church teaching with regard to same-sex marriage.
Alternatively, the Council could hold that since Oliveto was a clergy member in “good standing” at the time she was nominated, elected, consecrated, and assigned as a bishop, she is entitled to serve as such. That is, even though it was widely known she had presided at same-sex weddings and was in a same-sex marriage herself, none of the boards of ordained ministry, district superintendents, or bishops who had oversight of her ministry ever filed a complaint against her, and therefore she was never found to be in violation of the church’s ordination standards.
In the case of the latter decision, Oliveto could be charged in a separate action with violating UM Church law by marrying a same gendered person herself, and for presiding at same-sex weddings (she has admitted to presiding at approximately 50 such ceremonies). If someone were to bring charges against her for either of those offenses, the UM Church has a process for charging a clergy member for violating its ordination standards, and trying him or her if necessary. According to church law, every clergy member is guaranteed the right to a trial and appeal. Any complaints against Oliveto would be handled by the Western Jurisdiction’s College of Bishops (composed of active and retired bishops in the jurisdiction). The complaints could be resolved or referred for a church trial under the supervision of the president of the Western Jurisdiction’s College of Bishops.
If the Judicial Council upholds Oliveto’s election, the Council would essentially be remanding the case to the Western Jurisdiction so the complaint process could be followed. The Council could reserve the right to review any outcome in the event of a just resolution or a verdict in a trial.
If the Council rules to invalidate the election and assignment of Bishop Oliveto, what would happen next?
Rev. Karen Oliveto accepting her election, UMNS
She would have to vacate her office and the Western Jurisdiction Episcopal Committee would then select an interim bishop to preside over the Mountain Sky Episcopal Area until a new election could be held. Oliveto would remain a clergy person in the UM Church and be entitled to an appointment. Any complaints filed against her would have to be handled according to procedures outlined in the Church’s Book of Discipline.
If the Council rules that Bishop Oliveto’s election was valid, what would happen?
She would remain as the bishop of the Mountain Sky Episcopal Area. Any complaints filed against her (and reportedly complaints were filed in August 2016) would be handled according to the Discipline. A variety of things can happen with a complaint. In an effort to avoid a church trial, the church would first work to reach a “just resolution.” Among other possibilities, such a resolution could leave Oliveto in place as a bishop or alternatively lead to her voluntary resignation. If no just resolution is reached, Oliveto could face a church trial. If she were found guilty, she could be removed from office and lose her ministerial credentials. However, she could also reach some agreement (e.g., involving admission of fault and a demonstrated willingness to abide by the Discipline) that would allow her to retain her credentials and office.
If Oliveto’s election and assignment is upheld, would this mean the UM Church has changed its sexual ethics, teachings on marriage, and standards for ordination?
No. The Judicial Council is not being asked to rule on the validity of the church’s sexual ethics, teachings on marriage, or requirements for ordination. They would all remain in force regardless of any decision in this particular case.
Where does Good News stand on this matter?
Good News believes our church’s sexual ethics, teachings on marriage, and standards for ordained ministry are rooted in Scripture, confirmed by nearly 2,000 years of church tradition, and endorsed by the vast majority of Christian denominations worldwide. Furthermore, our General Conference, composed of a global and diverse body of United Methodists, has affirmed and reaffirmed its decisions on these matters for the past 45 years. Based on the evidence presented, we believe the Judicial Council should invalidate the Western Jurisdictional Conference’s nomination, election, consecration, and assignment of Bishop Karen Oliveto. For the sake of the church’s principled teachings, its good order, and its future health and viability, we believe it is imperative for the Council to stem the rampant acts of ecclesial disobedience that are undermining our church’s mission.
by Steve | Apr 17, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Walter Fenton-
Good Friday
Sometimes the sordid episode is almost too hard to believe. The fear, the hatred, the rage, the brutality, the blood, and the death – sometimes it is too horrible to fathom. But there is Jesus, on the cross, bleeding and dying, right at the very center of our faith.
And what is more, we read in the Old Testament it was the will of the LORD to crush him with pain (Isaiah 53.10). We try to turn away from that staggering truth to the consolation of the New Testament, but then Peter preaches to us, this man [was] handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2.23).
Why? Perhaps the only way to answer that great question is with other questions. Can we bear the weight, the burden, and the cursed death of our sins? Can we intercede by ourselves with the righteous God of all creation? Can we make ourselves clean? Often reluctantly, we must truly confess, no, we cannot.
On the cross, Jesus poured out himself to death, and he was numbered among the transgressors; he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors – for us. Amazing love! How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
It is, in the most paradoxical way possible, a very Good Friday for us.
Holy Saturday
What a quiet and strange day. We know that Jesus lives, and yet this day we are invited to ponder that Jesus died and was laid in a tomb. As the most ancient version of the Apostles’ Creed puts it, “he was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead.”
Sometimes we want to speculate and talk about where Jesus was, and what he did on that day. But on this day before Easter, it is probably best to be quiet. Perhaps it is a day to be as silent as the grave.
We don’t need to be excessively morbid, but we do need, for or at least some part of this day, to join with the fearful and dismayed disciples. We need to draw close to those women who saw the tomb and how his body was laid. We are so familiar with the living Jesus, but they saw the dead Jesus. And it was those same women, with fear and grief still in their hearts, who would go to his tomb to tend to his lifeless body.
Low in the grave he lay, Jesus, my Savior.
Easter Sunday
Up from the grave he arose, with a mighty triumph o’er his foes!
In a great prayer of the church, we are regularly reminded that in Jesus’ death and resurrection we are liberated from our slavery to sin and our fear of death. That is good news, great news!
For people who have a nagging suspicion death might have the last word and so tend to live life too timidly and too frightened, the victory of God, made known in Jesus’ glorious Resurrection, is liberation indeed! It frees us from all that ensnares us and keeps from an abundant life. It empowers us to live obedient, disciplined, sacrificial, and joyful lives in the knowledge that Jesus leads us through even the darkness of death and brings us to everlasting glory!
Christ the Lord is risen today! Alleluia!
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and vice president of the Wesleyan Covenant Association.
by Steve | Apr 11, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Walter Fenton-
“The Holy Spirit had swept across the room; its power and presence real and obvious. It was a sacred moment on holy ground,” wrote the Rev. Kent Ingram and Emily Allen about the election of the Rev. Karen Oliveto, an openly married, lesbian, as a bishop of The United Methodist Church.
Ingram and Allen were two of the 88 Western Jurisdictional (WJ) delegates who voted for Oliveto in July 2016. Later this month the Church’s Judicial Council will rule on whether or not it was proper for the delegates to elect such a candidate.
Recently, other United Methodists have added their voices to the delegates’ claim that the Holy Spirit was not only behind Oliveto’s election, but is also validating her short tenure as leader of the Mountain Sky Episcopal Area.
“Bishop Oliveto’s election was a momentous movement of the Holy Spirit,” says a call to prayer on the Rocky Mountain Annual Conference’s website. It goes on to say, “Western Jurisdiction delegates believe something sacred took place in Scottsdale, Ariz., as they responded to the movement of the Holy Spirit and elected Bishop Karen.”
The Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN), the leading LGBTQ+ advocacy group in the UM Church, writes in a resource guide in support of Oliveto and preparing people for the Judicial Council’s decision, “Who can deny that the Spirit has produced such fruit through the election and ministry of [her]? Who would dare stand in the way of God’s work of producing fruit?”
“The Spirit is moving,” answers the guide in a suggested prayer, “and wherever we are willing to join in her work, she will birth fruit through us… Holy One, you have assured us that though we cannot see the Spirit herself, we can see the fruit of her work in one another, in our lives, and in the world. We know she is there wherever we see love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against these things, you have told us, there is no such law.”
And finally, Oliveto herself, in a video released earlier this week, testifies to the Holy Spirit’s movement in her ministry.
What one of us does not want to invoke the Holy Spirit as the guiding power behind our cherished plans and hopes for the future? But these invocations of the Spirit as the guiding force behind Oliveto’s election and her ministry demonstrate just how deep the fissures are between many progressives and the UM Church.
For just as the WJ delegates claim the Holy Spirit “swept across” its meeting in Scottsdale, so a global and diverse church claims the Holy Spirit was guiding its deliberations and decisions at General Conference. It received no word from the Holy Spirit compelling it to overturn its sexual ethics and teachings on marriage. Instead, it heard just the opposite: the Holy Spirit’s reaffirmation or reconfirmation of ethics and teachings rooted in Scripture and 2,000 years of church history.
Anyone who has been party to disruption in a local church can attest that once a faction begins to claim the Holy Spirit’s guidance in contradiction to the wider community of faith, it is time for the parties to go their separate ways. The faction becomes convinced it alone truly discerns the will of the Holy Spirit. Its clash with the church is no longer a matter of differing interpretations and choices, but their superior claim to rightly discern the voice and will of the Holy Spirit.
The United Methodist Church, since its inception, has vested its authority in the will of the General Conference. It has adopted a fair and open polity that allows for a wide degree of give and take in the process of discernment. And yet, by faith, it believes the Holy Spirit is in its midst when it gathers, as a global body, to reaffirm, change, or adopt new teachings for the whole church.
Given the long and acrimonious debate, and now the progressives’ claim that the Holy Spirit is leading them to not just contest, but to defy the teachings of the UM Church, they need to fully embrace where they believe the Spirit is leading. For the sake of comity, and the larger mission of the church, it is time for them to create a new denomination in order to follow the Holy Spirit to a place where the UM Church does not believe it is leading.
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
