Power Narratives
It’s awful right now to be a progressive or an LGBTQ-inclusive conservative or moderate in The United Methodist Church. Not only do we have to explain we are “Not Those Methodists” to a more inclusive secular world, but we also have to endure the gloating and crocodile tears of the Traditionalists within the church.
The language from the Traditionalist wing of The United Methodist Church is: we won, you lost, now get out.
- This is conveyed in looooooooong articles by academics who prop up Traditionalist perspectives.
- We see Orwellian mucking with the truth in texts like the Wesleyan Covenant Association’s claim to “welcome” LGBTQ+ persons.
- And we see it in the ALL CAPS post by the Liberian pastor and Africa Initiative leader Jerry Kulah.
“This is our church now, here’s the door.”
All of these things are triggers for me as a progressive that lead me down the emotional rollercoasters until I just want to rage-quit everything.
And then after that moment passes, I have to ask…is this really me? Or are my emotions being manipulated by people skilled in marketing savvy?
Let’s step back and look at the data.
A Manufactured Moment
Since “amicable separation” was first discussed by General Conference in 2004, Traditionalists within the conservative wing of United Methodism have sought to exit United Methodism. We now know that after the 2004 General Conference, a strategy document revealed the profound distaste they felt at actually leaving because:
“It may require some congregations to leave their property behind (although one hopes a large enough critical mass of those departing could work around this problem). It also leaves the United Methodist denomination somewhat intact, with the accumulation of resources to potentially continue for decades on a progressively revisionist track.”
To leave the UMC intact is so offensive to this group that leaving was not enough—they would rather it be destroyed.
So since 2004, efforts had to be made to get the progressives to be the ones who left, to leave the denomination in the hands of the Traditionalist minority. That is the ultimate goal of the Traditionalists.
But how would they do it? How would they set the trap and encourage progressives to take the bait and leave?
The Traditional Plan’s Pyrrhic Victory
The Traditional Plan’s purpose was to set the pH balance of the Methodist pool to such a level that it was harmful and hurtful to progressives and LGBTQ-inclusive evangelicals that they would leave. They would do that through the drumbeat of ever-constricting polity, and when the moment was right, set the bait out so that progressives would leave.
This seems to be that moment. So why aren’t progressives leaving right away?
What happened is that the General Conference 2019 (specifically the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters) killed the exit provision of the Traditional Plan, which it itself claimed was the “heart of the Traditional Plan.” It meant that churches, pastors, and entire annual conferences could not be exited by Church or self-select to exit. The stick and carrot approach would be the capstone to almost 15 years of strategy to finally get us to leave. And then it was struck down and won’t be possibly brought back by the Judicial Council in April (it’s not even being considered by them).
So all of this frenzy is building up because they lost the exit ramp they wanted for progressives to leave. And the progressives aren’t leaving yet because the exit ramp is the same terrible one that conservatives have chaffed under for years where they would have to give a lot of money and property to leave, even in a friendly annual conference.
In summary, the purpose of the Traditional Plan was to set the pH of the Methodist pool to levels unacceptable to progressives and inclusive evangelicals. It is working and progressives are taking the bait. But there’s no outlet yet, so for the next year, we sit in the Mean Time of United Methodism.
So how are progressives to respond rather than wading in this toxic pool?
The vote spread isn’t widening despite changes in demographics
Some would say the Methodist pool is impossible to save, and that taking the small amount of bait we would get is our only way forward due to vote spreads widening.
The data doesn’t quit tell that narrative clearly. I’ve seen the claim that because the demographic changes in 2020 make LGBTQ-inclusion even more difficult (USA losing 20 spots, Africa gaining over a dozen, Philippines gaining a few), that means hope is lost.
To respond to that claim, it’s important to see that the Traditionalist 2004 strategy came about after the Conservatives began to fear that their hegemony in The United Methodist Church was at risk.
The 2004 General Conference had the closest vote in our history on adding or removing LGBTQ-related language. It was 455-445 in favor of adding “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” language to the Book of Discipline. Yes, it was 50.6%! Every vote before 2004 had been over 60% in favor, so you can imagine the fear that grasped Traditionalists’ hearts when their key legislation could have failed by only 6 votes switching sides.
Since then, the key moments of the LGBTQ debate have been very consistent with a slim majority:
- 2008 – reject majority “agree to disagree” final vote 501-417 54.6%/45.4%
- 2012 – Not of one mind (Slaughter/Hamilton) – 55% – 45%
- 2016 – AWF Proposal – 428-405 – 51.4%/48.6%
- 2019 – Traditional Plan – 438-384 – 53.2%/46.8%
The vote percentages haven’t changed as much over the years, even though the demographics and global character has significantly.
I wonder if the 2019 vote feels worse because the secular world was in a different place in 2019. 2008-2016 were during Democratic majority eras in society, so even if the church sucked we saw that civil society was becoming more progressive. But the drumbeat of conservatism that had been rising in pockets of society exploded in late 2016, leading to the Trump moment, and continued in United Methodism as well, leading to the 2019 General Conference moment. The twin moments have left us stronger in our Resistance, but also stronger in our desire to Exit.
Sheep are welcome in Wolf Households
There are good people in progressive and moderate circles who are working to Leave United Methodism and start a more inclusive form of Wesleyanism. I’m in favor of such work and efforts and support them. And some of those elements want to negotiate with the WCA and Traditionalists because they know they want that too.
But I must warn about that because there is an ever-present desire by the Traditionalists to “own the liberals” when it comes to separation, and I worry what negotiations with the wolves might mean for the sheep.
In 2004, the proposal made by Bill Hinson for amicable separation said that progressive churches could leave and keep their buildings, but the UMC structures and the name “United Methodist” would stay with the conservatives. Not very amicable or just, and if that negotiation table had been laid out, that’s exactly what would have happened, given the tone of society at that time. It was amicable expulsion not separation.
In 2016, the Traditional Plan’s negative effect on clergy pension improvements was a surprise to everyone in United Methodism (WesPath included) when it was revealed by this blog (and then supported with the follow-up). Also in 2016, the Boyette exit ramp (which did not pass 2019 GC) included a raid on reserve funds. So both of the seemingly reasonable legislation included “kill switches” for progressive movements to be hampered before they even started.
Progressives and LGBTQ-inclusive moderates/conservatives should beware that the track record for reasonable compromise is fraught with these moments, and should have their eyes wide open for arrogance to take hold among the victors.
Darkest Before the Dawn
The good thing is the “raise the toxic levels of everything” approach by the Traditionalists is only effective in the short term. While all the hand-waving and prancing about with power narratives coming out online feels awful to us now, the 2019 General Conference has awakened the moderates and LGBTQ-inclusive conservatives to their antics and started to nullify their effects. People see there is toxicity in the pool and we must work together to figure it out.
There are two paths forward:
- Do we plan to EXIT, to begin to separate and create something new, even though it has been planned for the whole time by the WCA, and seize this moment to start a movement?
- Or do we see the movement as energy within to REMAIN and to keep on the work to build a fully inclusive church that has a global perspective, a rarity in the Christendom world, and exactly the future the WCA and Traditionalists will vicious oppose?
The choice is yours. This blog will continue to resource both movements for their good work ahead until it is clear that only one path is viable.
Your Turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
I am torn. Though this issue does not affect me personally it is very important to me. My current church is very welcoming and has both conservative and progressive members, though I am probably one of the most if not most progressive one, but none of the conservative members are hateful. We have a trans youth, who no one has treated with anything but love and acceptance. For the most part the conservative members are older and this is what they have been taught all their lives; we also have many members from other denominations who are bringing that baggage with them. Without being overbearing I do try to lead them from their conservative position to a more loving and accepting position.
Love my church and have been a Methodist and United Methodist all my life. But I am torn. For whatever reason, let’s say naivety, I was really thinking that this time love and full inclusion would triumph. I think I am still numb.
Progressives press for vote. Don’t like vote. Doubling-down in defiance.
Especially due to complications in leaving for a congregation that is divided, I tend to believe staying and resisting is the better choice. If a sizable portion of our congregation chose to try to leave and take the building with them, we might have to pay such a sizable amount to those staying in the UMC that the building would have to be sold. Per Jeremy’s previous article, there are effective ways to resist and live to fight another day. And perhaps the extreme traditionalists will leave.
The successful model that Methodism was born out of was a movement hoping to change the denominational system. Heck, Protestantism came about the same way. The Spirit seems to act through movements, so I say we follow Her lead. However we divide (because we will), I think the most important part is that we go where the Spirit has lead and goes before us. Regardless of when or if this movement propels us to leave, I believe we should first begin with that movement. Let the Spirit shape it, molding us in the process. If that movement grows into something that is best lived outside of the UMC, we’ll cross that bridge. If it transforms the UMC from within, that’s great, too. My hunch is that the former will happen because that’s the historic pattern. Regardless, we start with the movement.
The WJ has some time to come up with a plan forward. If we do not break as a jurisdiction, a good chunk of our congregation will leave. Loyal opposition is no longer an option. The children of the WJ will leave for college and never return to the pews if this stands.
Other than an initial communication that they won’t abide by these changes, I haven’t heard much about the plans of the WJ. Can you bring us up to speed a bit on what’s going on?
Most UM churches, conferences and jurisdictions are already dying. The WJ has been one of the leaders of the pack. Given another 20 to 30 years, the question will be moot. There will be no United Methodist Church left. God will still be around though. And so will God’s Word. After all, “the grass withers and the flowers fade, but the Word of God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter:1:24-25). This is absolute truth that is completely independent of what I think, believe or feel.
Yep.
I have read a lot of your articles. There is a common theme that runs throughout each one. The theme is; you are not seeking or encourage a sense of hope, but of one of doom and gloom. You have a tendency to blame others for the situation we are in. All this does is inflame the situation. We progressives need to be as loving toward our conservatives brothers and sisters as we are our LGBTQIA+ brother’s and sisters. We don’t have to agree, but we do need to own the reality that the Traditionalist Plan did pass. We need to be realistic with ourselves about possible scenarios for the 2020 General Conference. We need to be looking at our future with hope and a sense of excitement. We need to look at this not from the perspective of maintaining unity with conservatives. We need to look outside the box at the possibilities that God has in store for us. We also need to trust God and remember that God is in this. Have you considered that perhaps we needed the Traditionalist Plan to pass so that we could be accepting of a plan of possible plan of separation. Perhaps God’s plan is for us is to leave and form a new Methodist movement. At this point who really wants a broken denomination. If the One Church had passed, with or without a gracious exit for conservatives, it is estimated that countless conservatives would have left, leaving the denomination in financial turmoil. Did we really want that. The conservative can have it if the want it. I would just ask you to consider writing with a sense of hope and joy for the future!
Very interesting reply. I have read you often Jeremy and appreciate the writing passion you display.
The quote that stuck out to me in this reply is , “Who wants a broken denomination?”
That is a fair question for us all no matter where you stand. I live in Texas and like to consider myself in the strong middle but of course the lines get deeper and it is hard to be in the middle. With little hope of compromise, I turn my attention to the local churches in my region and their mission. I am concerned about Methodist Institutions such as Lydia Patterson, Methodist Home, JFON and so many others who are doing good work in the name of Christ. Our fussing has hurt our witness…..I regret that so much and since change is the only real constant in our lives, look forward to the new paths that are developing for the Wesleyan Movement.
A few thoughts:
1. A semantic point, I admit, but important. This is not a struggle against conservatism. I’m theologically conservative, but I’m not a fundamentalist. All fundamentalists may well be conservative, but not all conservatives are fundamentalists. Therein are the swing votes.
2. The conclusion that I hear around goes something like, “The reality is that the Traditional Plan is what passed. This is our system of democracy, and all those in opposition to that vote just don’t like that they lost. Get a majority for yourselves, or else shut up.”
The problems with this are many. First, just because a law is passed by a majority does not make it just. The Central Jurisdiction came into being by a majority vote, remember. St. Augustine (who was a Bishop during a very turbulent time, even a time when bishops were expected to also be pastors to their parishes) put it plainly in my opinion by saying, “An unjust law is no law at all.” Second, it seems odd to me, the assumption that the One Church Plan would have resulted in a conservative (again, I would say fundamentalist) mass exodus when it didn’t require them to do anything different. They didn’t have to marry same-sex couples. They didn’t have to lead their local churches into being inclusive. They didn’t even have vote “yes” to ordain gay clergy. There was nothing punitive for them by keeping their wrong opinions. The One Church Plan was far from perfect, but the fundamentalists weren’t going anywhere because they had nothing to gain by leaving and nothing to lose but staying.
3. This is really about money and property. But let’s get real. The Rush Limbaugh of Liberian Methodism, Jerry Kulah, behaving as if his seminary can float without the US Church or even a fraction of it, is foolhardy. His own Annual Conference and Central Conference continue to exist only because of the money that flows from the US and Europe, from where, let us not forget, an overwhelming majority of delegates voted for change.
I don’t understand the progressive parliamentary resistance to the exit plan. A generous exit plan would have helped either side. If you didn’t like the one proposed, you could have helped to craft one that would work.
There are going to be exits; it’s just a matter of how it is done. If you progressives “win” in the short term, you will find yourselves in the same situation as the ELCA – vastly diminished in size, and continuing to shrink. (The 2009 ELCA resolution was pretty much the One Church Plan. Since then the progressives have totally dominated the ELCA, top to bottom. It’s a perfect example of an observation made by Richard Neuhaus: “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.”)
Despite a difficult road to exit, many orthodox ELCA congregations did leave. But I think the major diminishment of the ELCA was and is due to orthodox individuals and families just walking away. Many of them made no announcement of leaving, so the official numbers (while dire) are probably very optimistic in terms of membership. There is no point in staying in an organization that officially hates you.
Judging by the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians, the idea that a welcoming “woke” church will gather up people in large numbers who are alienated from church and thus experience growth is not a rational assumption.
It’s a fundamental difference in goals. The ‘progressives’ you speak of are largely centrists, and those of us who are truly progressive still very much value being in communion with people who disagree with us-we value the big tent. Those progressives who couldn’t bear being in communion with people who think we’re wrong and/or going to hell left the UMC long ago-that’s a part of why our numbers in the US and Europe are declining.
However, I think 2019 changed that. Up until then, we thought that those committed to LGBT exclusion also valued the big tent, and were interested in continuing to walk with us, despite our disagreements. 2019 demonstrated how very wrong this assumption was. I think there will be very different proposals from progressives in 2020.
Also, I would keep in mind that much of the decline in the ELCA and TEC was caused by traditionalists leaving and starting their own churches-churches which, once established have also steadily declined. However, the most recent numbers suggest their populations are stabilizing.
Yes, the goal of conservatives has been to make the UMC too toxic for progressives to remain in the Church, and then give us a way out. Yes, their further goal has probably been to silence the UMC’s social witness, and to destroy this once-great bastion of the Social Gospel, as others have been destroyed before us.
Do you know what?
They’ve won. The numbers suggest they will continue winning. At some point, you can no longer save an infected limb, and trying to do so only allows the infection to spread further. There comes a time when it has to be cut off in order to save the whole.
Are we at that point now?
I don’t know, but I fear so.
Take the bait or seize the moment …. Carpe diem!
I think that progressives should stay. The world is becoming more inclusive in its LGBT attitudes and my hope is that the far-right people in the UMC will eventually be replaced by a younger generation that has more progressive views, even in the most conservative parts of the world.
Thinking about proposals for the future beyond our immediate reactiveness, I’d propose finding ways to fund the theological education of LGBTQ Methodist students–even those hiding ‘underground’ in Africa–with designated scholarship funds we decide to intentionally divert from undesignated giving within the United Methodist system.
This move would be just a tiny start toward recovering and developing the wisdom, energy, and spiritual resources in the LGBTQ community that have been denied and suppressed under our ‘heteronormative’ Discipline.
This could be done simply by providing one LGBTQ scholarship in each local church.
The other targeted move to crack the ‘heteronormative’ shell in our Methodist-related seminaries would be to fund named ‘chairs’ for full professors of Queer/Womanist/Liberation Theology.
Bottom line: if they don’t want to teach this, they don’t get the money!
There are at least a dozen E. Stanley Jones professors of Evangelism. So why not fund a dozen Bishop Karen Oliveto professors of Queer Theology?
Folks, it’s time to stop whining and sobbing and put our money where our mouth is to change/undermine the system from within!
If you want to do ANYTHING about the state of Methodist theological teaching in Africa, look to the examples of African scholars who were trained at our seminaries like BUST.
Fr. Kapya John Kaoma from Zambia has done extensive research and publications on exactly what we’re screaming about in Africa.
For example: “The Marriage of Convenience: The U.S. Christian Right, African Christianity and Post-Colonial Politics of Sexual Identity,” Global Homophobia: States, Movements, and the Politics of Oppression, Michael J. Bosia and Meredith L. Weiss eds., Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2013:75-102.
Fr. Kaoma is an Episcopal priest, but he should be teaching in a Methodist-related seminary. Asbury, of course, won’t have him. And it may not be SAFE for him to teach in Africa!
http://www.bu.edu/cgcm/research-associates/visitingresearchers/kapya-john-kaoma/
Jeremy- for some of us the possibilities are more limited than you imagine. There is no congregation in the District where I live that is a reconciling congregation. There are only a few reconciling clergy who have to hide our identities from the folks in the pew. If I stay, there is no avenue to fight for a change, there is no group that can work with me. As a retired Pastor- I don’t have an “in” with any congregation to make an impact, And after reading Rev. Jerry Kulah’s email- I don’t see any point in not separating into two different denominations or branches of United Methodist- perhaps by extending the One Church Plan so that each geographical region or country can adopt a BOD which best meets the needs of their particular situation.
Hi Linda,
Sounds like you have a networking issue, not a church issue.
I would suggest reaching out to those who you know would be agreeable to having ‘reconciling’ discussions. An intra-church group within your district. Get to know each other, invite others, etc.
Start a private Facebook group.
Start ‘underground’ – reach out to the Reconciling Ministries group, ask for advice and help.
Even those pastors who have to keep their views under wraps – I bet they know like-minded individuals.
JR–I’m thinking Linda wasn’t looking for advice, advice like your non-empathic response. Sometimes folks just want to be heard and seen in all the messy complexity of their lives, seen and held in love.
Jeremy, I very strongly suspect that your reference to “looooooooong articles by academics who prop up Traditionalist perspectives” intends to link to that looooooooong article by Billy J. Abraham @ https://um-insight.net/perspectives/the-birth-pangs/. Or maybe https://um-insight.net/perspectives/the-birth-pangs/. Certainly NOT to that diatribe by Keith Boyette @ https://wesleyancovenant.org/2019/04/04/lgbtq-people-are-welcome-in-the-united-methodist-church/. He’s not in any way an academic!
Linda,
I believe GC 19 spoke loud and clear Re the One Church Plan. We Traditionalists don’ want to have any association or ties with the secularists (aka progressives). Personally, I don’t want to share the Methodist name, properties, ministries or anything else with them. At this point, I have more in common and more respect for my Muslim, Hindu and Jewish friends than the secular social justice people of the UMC. They need to leave the UMC as quickly as possible and certainly before GC 2020 so that we can return to fulfilling our mission of spreading God’s word and his Devine grace to all the world.
Huzzah!
I would say we Progressives need to greatly increase our outreach to the Central Conferences. I have actually become Facebook Friends with some LGBT activists from Africa who are working to change things there. Africans weren’t born homophobic, but were taught to be this way by western imperialists and missionaries. I think there is some evidence that a massive outreach can have a positive influence. So we just to get as many to see that it is homophobia that is a western import, it isn’t homosexuality and transgenders. One African Facebook friend of mine is optimistic that African attitudes can be turned around. There was recently a positive Court ruling in Kenya for Gay Rights. There is also a Reconciling Congregation in the Philippines.
.
This is a vital point that needs to be said more often and louder. Many liberal American Methodists have written off the continent of Africa totally and seem inclined toward withdrawing into themselves as a purely US denomination. Some African-American United Methodists and are wondering if they want to be stuck in a denomination dominated by white liberals with whom they might have general agreement on principle but who retain plenty of unexamined racism and neo-colonialism. Watch this video to see what I’m talking about: http://bmcrumc.org/2019/04/29/general-meeting-recap-bishops-panel/
I have no more energy to fight against denominational forces seeking to control our spiritual consciences and our denominational resources. It’s time to turn to what truly matters: helping God create congregations of folks who want to follow our radically loving Christ. My institutional energy is gone. Let’s follow the Spirit into a new way of being Methodist, Wesleyan and radically loving.