Here we are
The United Methodist Church has reached the apex point of its future. While one might think that moment is reserved for the Special General Conference in 2019, the truth is that the tenacity of United Methodism rests on the integrity of the plan that comes from the Bishops as they meet this week in Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Without a strong plan that successfully navigates the tensions in United Methodism and blurs the fault-lines between the factions, plans will gain prominence that benefit those factions. In a vacuum of credible leadership, the most incredible/uncredible of plans will rise. In the interregnum, morbid systems arise. This is the last shot to deny other agendas a foothold, even the ones I personally agree with and support.
But a good plan can quiet the rumblings of the moderates and the average Methodist, laying bare the self-serving tendencies of the conservative megachurches just looking to escape accountability with their property, and encourage progressives to grudgingly accept evolution over revolution.
Will it happen? We don’t know. But here’s what I think will happen as we wait with bated breath.
1. The UMC will continue to discriminate
These conversations are solely about one thing: how can The United Methodist Church better discriminate against LGBTQ people? We’ve previously outlined how our Methodist history reveals what happened when the Church was confronted with unjust policies to its social groups:
- The debate over women’s ordination led to a structural solution to license women to serve an agreeable local congregation, while denying connectional authority to them. This was the case from 1924 until full clergy rights in 1956.
- The debate over African-American clergy led to a structural solution to have African-Americans serve only in the Central Jurisdiction, a non-regional jurisdiction consisting of only African-American churches and pastors. This was the case from unification in 1939 until the merger with the Evangelical United Brethren denomination in 1968.
Informed by our history, I predict some United Methodists will still be able to discriminate against LGBTQ people, either at the General Conference, Jurisdictional, Annual Conference, or Charge Conference structural level. At the very least, pastors will continue to have sole authority over marriage services—they can deny marriages to LGBTQ couples if they so wish. I personally hope that’s where the freedom to discriminate stops, and I can live in that church if it does.
The question on the table is what will be a new configuration of authority and flexibility that will allow some pockets of United Methodism to continue to discriminate against LGBTQ persons—and whether that will be palatable enough to gain conservative and moderate support (while obviously opposed by progressives who rightly oppose injustice anywhere, but we are a minority voice at this table).
2. It will be a moderate Course Correction
I was recently at a meeting where a UM Bishop relayed their belief that The United Methodist Church has no appetite for change. Our votes on LGBTQ inclusion have been in the same 55/45 range for decades. And only a couple dozen people changed their votes to approve the A Way Forward commission.
That aversion to change impacts the scope of the Bishops’ work. The Multiple Branches model floated by A Way Forward would require over 20 Constitutional Amendments that would require a higher threshold of support (2/3rds) and voting at the Annual Conference level who successfully defeated previous structural changes passed by General Conference. While there’s elements of the branches model that are intriguing, the politics and structure stand in the way of it being a viable option.
For this reason, the One Church model is more likely to be the basis for conversation because it doesn’t require Constitutional Amendments. With a low appetite for change, incremental decisions with far-reaching consequences are far more likely. What will be interesting is the constellation of the plan: what aspects does it address and how do they fit together?
I doubt the result will look like either plan. But I do think it will be more heavy on passable legislation (ie. not reliant on Constitutional Amendments, though they may be needed for some clarity) than on “fruit basket turnover” polity proposals.
3. The impetus for change will be Global, not US-only.
Ever since Christianity traveled on the trade routes through Asia, Christianity has followed economics. The global realities are moving the center of economic, cultural, and religious influence away from the West and Western-centric churches. Economics and trade are moving to the East towards China and India, and Christianity’s adherents and power struggles are increasingly coming from the Global South (Africa).
The United Methodist Church wants to be part of these economic and religious shifts as global church, not like the limited American-only denominations that many of the Seven Sisters of Protestantism became. But we can only do so if the global church sees value in remaining united with American entities that they may not be in alignment with over cultural values.
We are obligated to act now to remedy centuries of colonialism and majority rule. Since Christianity exported homophobia and persecution of LGBTQ persons to Africa, it only makes sense that we eradicate it from our United Methodist polity before it becomes enshrined in the rising power structure. By removing the language prohibiting LGBTQ persons from fully participating in the life of the church, we offer a globally connected church that cares about all human rights violations inside the church and outside in culture. It sets us against some cultural forces now, yes, but it positions us as the moral center to speak with authority against all injustices.
I can see the argument that flexibility with authority will allow the Church to be eased into full inclusion in a way that keeps us at the table as the balance shifts to the South and East away from the Western church. I lament it as MLK said “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” but I see why it could be supported by our leadership.
In short, a united Church has been derided as a lukewarm church. But if we do it right, we can have enough fuel for justice to keep up the heat on whatever the Empire is doing in whatever country it has infected. There’s always a Rebel church to support, and it needs a more just denomination to stand behind it for everyone’s sake.
I’m still standin’
I have 35 years until mandatory retirement, and I have served as a clergyperson in the UMC for 12 years. I’m invested in the church’s present and future, and I hope for a prophetic plan to transform the world. I am not blinded by dreams, but I’m informed by our history.
With my local church, I remind them that it took 30 years for women’s ordination and African-American leadership to move from incremental to full status in the UMC–and eventoday50ish years later, many congregations _still_reject women pastors and persons of color. But connectionalism has taken its toll and the vast majority of congregations now accept persons of difference as their pastors that would have been inconceivable a generation prior.
I wish for a revolutionary moment for the Church, one that captures the imagination and propels us forward through the divided culture and toxic politics. But I know evolutionary processes are more in the DNA of the people called Methodists, and we will see if nurture overcomes our nature, or if we truly do have a bold prophetic leadership that we have yearned for until this moment.
May we move forward together, better together, and leave no one sacrificed on the unjust alters of unity, for the sake of our mission to transform the world through disciples of Jesus Christ.
Your Turn.
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media, particularly with your Bishops at the Council this week.
This blog will have reporting and reliable commentary on the results when they are made known.
And remember: Flint still doesn’t have clean water.
I think you probably hit the nail on the head in the first point above regarding women and African-American clergy. Twice you point out that first…then later. It took time. Nothing happened immediately. So, if this is a first step–as there have been first steps in the past, will the LGBTQ+ folks be satisfied? Or do we suddenly have to do everything all at once? There is no historical precedence for ‘all at once’ in the UMC, so why would we expect that now? Either get ready for a long ride, a long process…or find another denomination, a “McChurch” that will serve what you want in five minutes or less. Cheers.
One thing did happen immediately, that is the acceptance and privilege of white male clergy.
For our LGBTQ siblings, it’s already been way, way too long.
Interestingly enough, I am using the idea of envisioning the future for an upcoming message/post (June 24). What I am thinking now is that 1) any view we may have of the future is predicated on what we see today and 2) what the future will be is determined how we find new ways to use the skills that we have. But when we view the history of the United Methodist Church, for the most part, we see that we have been a denomination of change. There have been snags, to be sure (and as you pointed out).
I am of the opinion that many people oppose change because they don’t want to change and they don’t want to deal with change.
If we are unwilling to see the world with different eyes, we cannot see the future that can be.
When the Central Conference and women’s right to preach were discussed, were members who stood up for their rights and inclusion threatened with exclusion and their membership canceled? That is what the WCA says about members who support lgbtq members and who are against their list of requirements. The question not being discussed is do members have freedom to have differing opinions without penalty. So far WCA says no.
The WCA does not say this. The current Book of Discipline states the denominations position on this issue. The WCA simply calls for scriptural authority and integrity in keeping with Wesleyan tradition.
During my younger years I was married to a UMC minister. After years of counseling we decided to divorce. In his sermon the Sunday after we separated he said that we believed divorce was sinful (or something like that), but he went on to say that we had decided the greater sin was to stay together and slowly die inwardly than to part ways and find new life. And so we did, and one of the ways I found new life was by going to seminary. I am now a retired Elder of the Western NC Conference.
I am far from naive about the consequences of a split denomination and the many complications that would ensure. It would be an administrative nightmare of humongous proportions. And yet…I for one cannot imagine asking our LGBTQ sisters and brothers to wait for our denomination to ease them into full inclusion. Asking women to wait happened in another time as did asking African Americans to wait. Even then it was wrong, but it happened. However, we are now in a new century, and we have been discussing LGBTQ inclusion for 40 years. Enough is enough.
And so, I ask us all: What is the greater sin? Is it to sacrifice the gifts and graces and perhaps even the lives of our LGBTQ members for the sake of what is, no matter how much we proclaim ourselves Church, a human institution? Or is it to follow the teachings of the One who called us into being, to love God with all our being and our neighbors – all our neighbors – as they are and include them fully in all aspects of United Methodism knowing that a split in our institution will surely come as a result?
There are times when doing the right thing takes courage and strength and a willingness to follow God even when we know the possible pain that is ti come. Micah said it clearly so long ago and stays it still: “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”
We know what that means we are to do. Unfortunately, many people simply don’t want the messiness of doing ig.
Beautifully expressed. Thank you.
We are already split. We are now involved in a process to make that split official. We have avoided this issue for nearly 50 years. Unlike past controversies we do not have another 30 to 50 years to truly face the LGBTQ issue. The UMC is my Mother Church. It is all I’ve ever known. Sadly, I may have to find a new faith community to remain in solidarity with KGBTQ folks whom i choose to love, honor and respect.
Dude, you need to be honest with yourself and others. The UMC is not on a path where it says that homosexual behavior (man having sex with a man/woman having sex with a woman . . . just to be clear here) is perfectly fine in God’s sight. You know that. The petitions to change the statement on homosexuality didn’t even make it to the floor to be recommended. If you want to pump yourself up to stay on by telling yourself that if you stay long enough it’s going to change, go ahead and do what you need to do. But don’t be blowing smoke to folks.
The church is not like the United States government. It is a voluntary association. If the discipline were to be changed, a huge number of churches and members would leave and the conferences in other countries would become autonomous. The whole thing would collapse so fast . . . and that might just happen anyways.
Right now, the connectional structure of the UMC is on the verge of collapse. Conferences are merging, districts are being reduced, churches are closing, and it’s getting hard to find pastors for the smaller churches. That is the currently reality for most of the UMC in the U.S. You say that people in the UMC are hesitate for change. You’re probably right . . . but change is coming whether folks like it or not. And the change will be good for everyone.
Hi Josh,
What change that you named above do you believe will be “good for everyone”?
Thanks for considering.
The change will be a “Way Forward” . . . that’s what the bishops were asked to provide, a way forward that puts a stop to this endless fighting. Folks are sick and tired of it. People are leaving the UMC right now. Something has to happen. Many different groups have said that kicking the can down the road or allowing for a “Local Option” are totally unacceptable. Something is going to happen (and who knows what that will be; I don’t) and change is going to happen, whether folks want it or not. The current status quo is unacceptable and is killing the UMC.
Like others, I do not want some Southern Baptist “inquisition” to happen that prevents alternate opinions from being voiced. But neither do I, or others, want to waste my time and life in an endless battle for a quickly deteriorating organization.
Caught in the crosshairs of an ancient and worn out faith and the biases we habitually harbor, Christianity and its Evangelical form are dying as its roots go unnourished by uninspired sermoneering and denominational infighting. If Christianity is anything at all, its a moral faith based on the Golden Rule and John’s inspired interpretation (! John 4). I don’t expect much from those who control the pursestrings for their major priority is “to control” the pursestrings.
You say, “If Christianity is anything at all, its a moral faith based on the Golden Rule and John’s inspired interpretation (! John 4).”
No. It is not an upgrade in philosophy. It is an invasion of history. If Christianity is anything at all — and I believe that it is — is the revelation that most important thing that happened in my life didn’t happen in my life. It happened in the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, coronation and impending return of Jesus. The moral faith of which you speak is the result of King Jesus’ invasion, not a replacement for it.
Everyone is making such relevant points I hesitate to submit this, but please next time write “bated breath” which is correct (derives from the same root as “abate”). No such thing as “baited breath.”
Thanks Laura! Fixed! I appreciate the help…even Grammerly didn’t pick that up.
While you’re at it, Jeremy, what about replacing “alter” with “altar”?
Or did you have some kind of ALTERnative pun in the back of your head?
Hang in there until those pastors and parishioners are retired or gone. 70 years and up I would say. Those younger one have grown up with the idea that LGBT are just a part of our society, our neighbors, our classmates and friends. And the younger generation are teaching us. Judy Desch. Just turned 70.
Judy,
Be of good cheer! You may not have to wait for the retirement or death of fuddy duddies. They may be gone anyway depending on how things go. Also, it’s not just the 60 and 70 year olds who are concerned about this. For many, this is a question of scriptural interpretation and authority. Those may seek a door anyway. From my part of the bleachers it looks like all sides are rooting for schism.
I really appreciate what you said about leading our African siblings into a more just and broad understanding of humanity. Our “Christian” forebears exported homophobia and narrow theology through our missions to Africa and throughout the globe (and there’s plenty of support for it here in the US)
. We need to “…eradicate it …before it becomes enshrined.” I call for a surgical strike – strike down the discrimination. There is no “taking it slow” for those who have been waiting for justice for a really, incredibly long time already.
Jeni,
All of your comments suggest that anyone but especially our “African siblings” lack the intelligence and understanding to reach their decisions on their own. I find that somewhat elitist and condescending. My assumption is that even if I disagree with someone, they were capable of arriving at their stance through prayerful consideration. If we differ, we differ. Discrimination comes in many forms.
Jeremy, you claim that the one church model is evolutionary. For conservatives such as myself (we represent the majority of the denomination) it is revolutionary. The majority of us will not stand for changing the book of discipline. We consider this stand removing the church from Biblical standards to one that conforms to society (ie contextualization). For those of you who think only older people are traditional you need to look again. 40% of our pastors are graduating from very traditional Asbury. Most locals who will soon be the majority of clergy in the church are also conservative. Also if evangelicalism is dead why are evangelical churches the fastest growing churches in the country. The only way to bring this impasse to an end is to give churches an exit from the trust clause and let the chips fall where they may, but this will almost surely end up with a very progressive UMC.
Looking at your blog, now in hindsight, I’d say you nailed it! Thanks for the prophetic prediction…how did you do predicting the Kentucky Derby?