Bold…but False
Recently the Wesleyan Covenant Association, the authors and supporters of the recent enhanced anti-gay polity in The United Methodist Church, launched a WCA Central Conference Ministry Fund to fund missions and ministries in Russia, Africa, the Philippines, and other central conferences.
What they do with their substantial wealth is their business, of course, but their stated reason for doing so is incredibly suspect:
The 2019 special General Conference was hardly over before a number of leading moderate and progressive pastors and organizations either announced suspension of financial support for ministry initiatives in the central conferences of The United Methodist Church or expressed reservations about continuing with such support…
The Wesleyan Covenant Association Council is pleased to announce it has established the WCA Central Conference Ministry Fund as a means for those who are committed to supporting international ministries adversely impacted by the kinds of decisions and statements referenced above.
It’s an effective narrative: the progressives are considering their funding of anti-gay theology, and so the WCA will swoop in and create a separate entity that will fill in any gap (which doesn’t actually exist except in rhetoric).
It’s also a false narrative. It is important for the average Methodist to understand something:
- The supporters and elected leaders of the Wesleyan Covenant Association include individuals who have diverted charitable giving from official United Methodist causes and efforts.
- The churches that support the WCA (by their laity, clergy, or church membership) include churches that have withheld apportionments for a season or for many years.
Decades of Conservatives Withholding Apportionments
In the press release, the WCA makes this claim about withholding apportionments:
Such actions are a further indication of the deep division within the UM Church and an effort to hamper and harm ministries pursued by United Methodists in areas outside the United States because of disagreement over decisions of the General Conference. Unlike some UM leaders, the Wesleyan Covenant Association has refrained from calling on local churches to withhold apportionments and gifts as a political weapon.
While true as far as the WCA is concerned, since they were only created just before the 2016 General Conference, the same claim is not true of the other members of the Renewal and Reform coalition, which coordinates efforts to promote anti-gay theology in The United Methodist Church.
It is important to first note that the idea of withholding the church tithe is not a new thing. It is a regular tactic of those opposed to LGBT Inclusion in the UMC to withhold or threaten to withhold Apportionments. ( see previous post )
- In 1969, the United Methodist student magazine motive published an article on LGBT issues. Local churches withheld their apportionments in protest (or threatened to withhold) and eventually motive magazine was removed from the GBHEM and made into an independent entity. It lasted two more issues and then folded.
- In 1979, five Nashville-area churches withheld their apportionments in protest of the GBOD’s “Sexuality Forums” which included videos on LGBT issues. The forums were then dissolved at the 1980 General Conference.
- In 1990, Bethany UMC in Eastern PA conference withheld its apportionments in protest of a abortion-related issue , donating that money instead to a pregnancy crisis center for one or two years.
- In 1998, First UMC in Marietta, Georgia, at the insistence of the IRD’s UMAction rightwing advocacy, decided to withhold its apportionments to the general church agencies (ie. General Administration, World Service Fund, MEF, etc) in response to the Jimmy Creech trial and its own “special task force” in its church that researched and cataloged all the doctrinal breaches of the meta-church leadership
- They resumed their apportionments that same year after further review of the finances of the General Agencies and the news report includes a comment that “UMAction had their facts incorrect.” Now THAT’s a news flash! Ha!
- In 2004, St. Peters UMC in the North Carolina conference sent a letter to their new bishop threatening to withhold apportionments due to sexuality disagreements.
- In 2011, as a response to the clergy who pledged to offer same-sex marriages, the authors of the FaithfulUMC petition repeatedly threatened that if the Bishops did not condemn those clergy that the denominations’ largest churches will begin withholding apportionments.
- In 2014, among other churches, Mt. Bethel UMC in Georgia withheld over $200,000 of its apportionments and pledged to withheld the entirety of its 2015 apportionment in response to what it believed to be “wholly unsatisfactory” inaction on the part of the Council of Bishops to recent controversies within the denomination.
These are all precursors to the WCA, of course, given the dates. But if the supporters of the WCA and the Renewal and Reform membership were a Venn Diagram, it would just be a circle.
The hostage-taking and intimidation tactics of withholding apportionments have been refined and practiced by anti-gay Traditionalists for decades in The UMC…for them to point fingers at progressives and moderates for considering the same is laughable.
Decades of Conservatives Diverting money and energy
Further, in the press release, the WCA claims:
We have urged our members to be wise and discerning about the giving of their tithes and offerings, understanding that we each have many options available to support the Lord’s work.
This is true in that they believed in offering “many options” in order to give congregations the choice of supporting The UMC…or separate Traditionalist-ran entities.
Let’s turn back the clock for a minute. The 1980s were an explosion of traditionalist efforts to operate parallel denominational resources without oversight or accountability. Through the Mission Society ( 1984 parallel to the General Board of Global Missions), Bristol House Books ( 1987 parallel to Abingdon), and the RENEW network ( 1989 tiny supplemental parallel to UM Women), traditionalists created a parallel structure that provided books, women’s fellowship, and missionaries for congregations to support outside of United Methodist oversight, accountability, or connectional leadership. The parallel entities in the 1980s gave the narrative that they were to support the persecuted, downtrodden conservative minority.
After being quiet for two decades, during the past seven years, the ratcheting up of conservative alternative entities has intensified. The Methodist Crossroads ( 2014 ), Seedbed ( 2012 – which later took the ashes of Bristol Books under its wings), New Room Conference ( 2014 – to sell Seedbed books & promote their speakers), and now the Wesleyan Covenant Association ( 2016 ) all came about during this same period. The past seven years have consolidated the gains and efforts of the 1980s into a parallel network of missionaries, books, revival meetings, and seminaries, with the WCA to rule them all …and in the darkness, bind them.
For decades, the Renewal and Reform coalition has created a parallel infrastructure to The United Methodist Church, siphoning donations, talent, pastors and laity away from UMC causes and authority and to their own. To claim they are now appalled at divestment considerations is a rejection of their own history.
Investing in Central Conference events
Finally, in both 2016 and 2019, the Good News organization funded (along with other partners in the Renewal and Reform coalition) two special gatherings. Taking advantage of the fact that General Conference delegates’ flights would be paid for by The UMC, and that The UMC allowed delegates to arrive early, they sponsored two gatherings at camp and retreat sites close to General Conference that was closed to press and outsiders (even other Africans). To shuttle, feed, and facilitate the Africa Initiative agenda costs money, and that money comes from donations to the Renewal and Reform Coalition, of which Good News and the WCA are a part.
The drumbeat of divestment from The United Methodist Church and investment in Good News and other organizations has been going on for decades. Their funding comes from exactly the same diversion of gifts that they are now deploring. It’s an incredibly bold and inaccurate claim that they are now “appalled” by it, especially since their own 2004 strategy document names divestment as an approved tactic.
Fake It Until You Make It
The entire infrastructure of the Renewal and Reform coalition (except the Institute on Religion and Democracy, which has substantial outside funding and was originally heavily funded by Catholics intent on stopping Protestant social witness) has been built by diverted moneys, either in withheld apportionments or redirected gifts, that likely otherwise would have supported United Methodist Church missions and ministries in America and in the Central Conferences. That infrastructure provides the administrative support for this new Central Conference Ministry Fund.
As you can see, it is unbelievable that the Wesleyan Covenant Association, which is largely made up of supporters of those previous entities and actions, would deplore parallel investment actions—and then brazenly set up their own parallel administered fund!
It’s a perfect continuation of the above history, and the fact that they don’t explicitly say this fund is “above and beyond” giving to local church apportionments shows the Fund is more for conservatives to divert their money than it is to “fill in the gap” from progressives.
Hopefully supporters of Central Conference missions and ministries will see through the rhetoric to the reality: Traditionalists have operated a parallel, shadow alternative to The United Methodist Church for decades, funded by diverted funds and gifts, and now they have another fund to continue to do the same in Russia, Africa, and other countries.
Your turn
May we have eyes wide open as we consider how best to support missions and ministries worldwide, and encourage truth-telling in our caucus groups’ leadership.
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media
So let’s just split and go our separate ways. Isn’t that what the Majority wants at this point? I know you disagree, but I’m perfectly fine with my hard-earned is income that I am able to gift to ministry going to a WCA-run fund as opposed to, say, the Board of Church and Society which is but a left-wing apportionment-funded agency that supports causes and positions counter to the majority of delegates to GC. I really can’t fault Progressives for not wanting to fund causes to which they are morally opposed. Surely you don’t expect Traditionalists to blindly fund “official” UMC agencies that work against principals which we believe in just as strongly as you do yours? You take issue with funding a denomination that you see as working against LGBTQ+ people. I take issue with funding a denomination that has a portion of apportionment money funding the salaries of Bishops and clergy who have no intention in following GC policies/votes and who make a sham of their oaths to abide by our BOD and agencies like Church and Society that push for extending abortion rights or which advocate disobedience to rules about ordination and church weddings (in clear contravention of GC policy/votes). I realize you think me a right-wing extremist. Fine. I think you are a left- wing extremest. Where does that get us? Let’s just agree to disagree and have a rational and fair-spirited division into at least two Wesleyan faith traditions so we can all move beyond this. You have no power or influence to control my spiritual understanding of what God expects of me nor do I have any power or influence over your understanding. I really wish you and those that believe as you do the very best on your separate faith journey. I just hope and pray you can wish us the best as well. Perhaps the one point about which we can all agree at this point is that neither side seems confident in the Bishops, those who are Progressive and those who are Traditionalist, stepping forward with a rational plan for separation, as their loyalty appears stuck with the Denomination as is, as opposed to their flock who desperately need to move into at least two separate ways of Wesleyan worship.
Perhaps if one wishes to make their own rules of supporting separate agencies, etc., it would be wise to establish a separate organization/church rather than change the already established church to meet your needs. If I am not mistaken, that has been the suggestion of at least a few traditionalist folks/groups for the more progressive folks in the UMC. If that is not the case, maybe the One Church Plan is actually the most effective way to allow conservative folks to do what they want and allow progressives to do the same. When you suggest the progressive aspects of the UMC are breaking the rules, I find it very interesting. The conservative-inclined organizations are the ones who have in secretive meetings constructed manipulative plans to make the church become what they want it to be by continually changing the rules—contrary to where the UMC previously stood. When conservatives speak of splitting the church and everyone go their separate ways, I say, “You first.” I have spent all of my 68 years in the Methodist/United Methodist Church—as layperson and clergy. In my family are at least five generations of M/UM clergy, as well as dedicated and active members of the church. I don’t wish to leave and I don’t want to be pushed out, as I am certain other do not. It would seem more appropriate that we once again learn to accept the variety of thought of the various churches, Conferences and Areas, so we can find a way to embrace one another as grownups rather than establishing more and more excessive rules to force the hand of the other.
With all due respect – let’s put the truth out here – it is, and has been, the homosexual agenda that started this ball rolling. There would be no need for members to feel they are being pushed to conform to the belief of others, or have to fight for their beliefs, if the church hasn’t been challenged for years by those with the desires to see the change – which, as we know the past 40 years, hasn’t happened. In their effort to make it happen… simply look at who and what has been divided – families/neighbors/friends, the body of Christ, and churches. The Lutheran Church/Presbyterian/ Moravian/ Church of Christ, Episcopal – ALL have had to split their churches because of the demands from this one issue. You want to talk about hurt feelings, sit in my pastor’s chair and listen to the hurt that has happened to those affected by this issue. Sit in my chair when a mother and father cannot accept their daughter’s choice, and their entire household is divided, miserable, constant tears, yelling, and frustration. All the holidays will no longer be the family gathered together around the table. That is a lot of negative power wouldn’t you agree? One person and their determined need is bringing tremendous stress and anxiety. We all have stories – sad stories, people on both sides very hurt. My heart breaks to see the church I love pushed to make a choice of division. However, traditionalists say they are staying and seeking ways to honor God and bring His Word to the forefront again. Progressives say they are staying to change the church in the new generation . I’ve lived long enough to see history repeat itself. This isn’t our last battle the church will fight.
I struggle to believe that God’s will is all of this division – especially since Jesus prayed to God in John 17, that we may be one as He and the Father are One. Really? The church is showing the world we really are not so different – we have fighting within – seriously, we wonder why church attendance is declining. Who wants to be a part of this body of believers? I hear many UM members who are ready to leave the church – life is difficult enough, and they need to come to a Sanctuary and rest and find peace – not a boxing ring where each opponent is out to put the other out. Do we wonder why God says He will remove His candlestick from the church? Surely, God is sad. Pointing the finger at those that feel as strongly as the other – and yet say each is wrong – will get us nowhere. Judgement starts in the house of God – certainly, it has begun.
Rev. Youngman–I’m about as queer as one can be, and let me tell you about the so-called gay agenda. By the way, we prefer calling it the “gay agenda” as only church people still use the word “homosexual.” My gay agenda today includes work, where I lead an organization that serves the economically disadvantaged and those experiencing homelessness. I’ve been gayly helping fill food orders in our food pantry and doing gay administrative work. This afternoon, my gay agenda includes meeting with the youth leaders of eight churches to plan the mural the youth are going to paint on the back of our building this summer to bring hope to those we serve. Also this afternoon, my gay agenda includes gayly meeting with a local pastor who we hope can help us assist a group of senior citizens who are nearly homeless and living in horrible conditions in RVs. Later today I’ll go to our gay home, and greet my gay wife, gay dog, and two gay cats. We’ll eat a gay dinner together, sit and watch some gay TV, and pray together before going to bed. We love our straight neighbors and seek to do all the good we can in the world. I suspect we’ll get up tomorrow and pursue a similar gay agenda. On Sunday we’ll gayly go to church where we are loved and accepted for who we are. Rev. Youngman, there is no gay agenda. We are just trying to live our lives in peace and to share the Good News of the Gospel. That’s all there is to it. Blessings.
Jeremy,
Hmm. On reading the above, I went back and re-read the WCA article you quote. Perhaps you are projecting your own feelings into your conclusions.
You state, “It’s an incredibly bold and inaccurate claim that they are now ‘appalled’ by it” [the refusal to pay appointments to fund causes disagreed with]. I’ll grant you that the word “inaccurate” is correct; nowhere in the article is a feeling of “appalled” even mentioned.
Again, you refer to those of us who believe the traditionalist ethic to be Biblically sound as promoting an “anti-gay theology.” This is simply a lie. Our theology, as is hopefully true of any Christian’s theology, is not anti- anything. We are pro-humanity; while i cannot speak for all traditionalists, my theology is one of God’s love. That love is best expressed among us humans by heeding what our Lord in heaven has said, and abiding according to God’s will insomuch as we can. Thus, we believe, as our UM doctrine states, that sexual activity is holy and affirmed by God only in the context of a heterosexual, monogamous marriage.
Saying that one’s Gay Sexual Orientation is a fundamental flaw opposed to Christian teaching IS Anti-Gay. There is no way you can frame a belief that that Gay relationships are fundamentally wrong without opposing the person. One’s Sexual Orientation is a fundamental part of a person.
Whoa – keep in mind that traditionalists are not coming up with words that it is a fundamental flaw – the Word of God is where we read God’s will. Traditionalists are not making up their own words – the idea is to honor God’s Word. God’s Word is truth which sets all of us free. For years many clergy said their vows before God and man that they would uphold the Discipline – and it says the same thing now that it has for 40 years. They read it back when they were being ordained. They vowed according to these very words they would uphold them. The progressives are not keeping to their vow. They are seeking the change. What was once accepted by thousands of clergy, Bishops, DSs’, theologians, is now being challenged. Seriously, over 40 years do we actually believe every single one listed above has been wrong all along? That is quite a huge statement to say those that penned the Discipline many, many years ago all misrepresented the Bible. For many today, God’s Word hasn’t changed. So, why are we being crucified for still believing what thousands before us believed and lived.
“That love is best expressed among us humans by heeding what our Lord in heaven has said, and abiding according to God’s will insomuch as we can. Thus, we believe, as our UM doctrine states, that sexual activity is holy and affirmed by God only in the context of a heterosexual, monogamous marriage.”
Compare and contrast, UM teaching on divorce vs biblical references, to wit:
¶ 161 D), ¶ 1119 3)
vs.
Mark 10, Matthew 5.
Fascinating research!
And what of Reconciling Ministries–from my perspective they are a parallel shadow church working against the will of General Conference.
Face up to the reality that you do not understand traditionalists because we come at things from a completely different set of understandings than you do. When it comes to being a Christian of the United Methodist persuasion, traditionalists will never ever measure up to your expectations of what that means. So stop being mad at traditionalists and critiquing us because we do not think like a progressive. You might as well be mad at a dog because it is not a cat. All you are proving with this diatribe is that we are all equally broken and imperfect which means that we are all in equally desperate need of God’s amazing and unfathomable grace and love.
Reconciling Ministries is not funded from withheld apportionments. The Reconciling Congregation I go to paid its apportionments in full last year and has always made an effort to pay them in full. Now, we do give people the option not to pay for apportionments, but our Pastor isn’t that crazy about the idea. Most of our apportionments don’t go to fund anti gay activities. The WCA raises their own money.
“All you are proving with this diatribe is that we are all equally broken and imperfect which means that we are all in equally desperate need of God’s amazing and unfathomable grace and love.”
Except the “practicing homosexuals”.
They need it more, or deserve to be excluded, or something something gazpacho.
I’m not mad at Traditionalists about that. I’m disappointed.
Meh, doesn’t matter. I’m moving on. This debacle has turned me off of organized religion entirely.
Your examination of this topic is spot on. The outright hypocrisy exhibited by the “traditionalists” is appalling. Not only is this WCA program based on demonstrably false pretenses as you’ve shown, it’s also further bribery of those whose votes they’ve been buying for many years. The false equivalencies made by some of your frequent-flier conservative commenters are just that–false.
To those who think that an “amicable separation” is the answer, I’ll simply point out what should be obvious, that the vast majority of UM congregations aren’t anywhere near 100% one way or the other on the issue of full inclusion of and equality for our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters in Christ, and when forced into voting as a congregation to pick a side, many churches that are already on shaky ground financially or numbers-wise will crumble and die, prematurely. Splitting each congregation two or three ways isn’t feasible or desirable, in my opinion.
You conveniently forgot to mention the progressive Western jurisdiction bishop who is setting up an alternative appointment system or Adam Hamilton’s church withholding over a million. Hmmmm.
I long ago learned to not expect truth or fairness from this blog. However it is fun to see how someone can turn charitable giving in to an evil thing.
I am convinced that the WCA fully endorses every nickel that Progressives donate to charity but Progressives find any method possible to condemn WCA charity.
And just for the record, as an average church member, I do not need anybody to help me understand the mess the UMC is in; I have figured that out all on my own: It has degenerated into conflicting and contradictory theological factions jockeying for position and control. Isaiah 1:4-6 is a good description of the current state of the UMC:
4
Ah, sinful nation,
people laden with iniquity,
offspring who do evil,
children who deal corruptly,
who have forsaken the Lord,
who have despised the Holy One of Israel,
who are utterly estranged!
5
Why do you seek further beatings?
Why do you continue to rebel?
The whole head is sick,
and the whole heart faint.
6
From the sole of the foot even to the head,
there is no soundness in it,
but bruises and sores
and bleeding wounds;
they have not been drained, or bound up,
or softened with oil.
A well written and much needed expose of the “parallel” church the right has been sustaining for decades. IRD, Confessing Movement, Good News, and now the WCA are all complicit in undermining the mainline UMC. While I am loath to remain in a church that harbors such hypocrites, I am much more loath to give up my church to such holy rolling, bible thumping, self righteous zealots. When most of he American Methodist Church is willing to allow LGBTQ marriage and ordination, why should we yield the high ground and our resources to these fundamentalists. That’s always been the core issue here, fundamentalism vs modernity. Will the Methodist Church or any organized Church progress into the twenty-first century tackling the social issues that Jesus would have been in the middle of and professing the good news of his love that the world so desperately needs, or will we hide behind a view of scriptural inerrancy that binds us to the 19th century? If we serve a living God, why not act like it.
Whoa – keep in mind that traditionalists are not coming up with words that it is a fundamental flaw – the Word of God is where we read God’s will. Traditionalists are not making up their own words – the idea is to honor God’s Word. God’s Word is truth which sets all of us free. For years many clergy said their vows before God and man that they would uphold the Discipline – and it says the same thing now that it has for 40 years. They read it back when they were being ordained. They vowed according to these very words they would uphold them. The progressives are not keeping to their vow. They are seeking the change. What was once accepted by thousands of clergy, Bishops, DSs’, theologians, is now being challenged. Seriously, over 40 years do we actually believe every single one listed above has been wrong all along? That is quite a huge statement to say those that penned the Discipline many, many years ago all misrepresented the Bible. For many today, God’s Word hasn’t changed. So, why are we being crucified for still believing what thousands before us believed and lived.
Whoa – keep in mind that traditionalists are not coming up with words that it is a fundamental flaw – the Word of God is where we read God’s will. Traditionalists are not making up their own words – the idea is to honor God’s Word. God’s Word is truth which sets all of us free. For years many clergy said their vows before God and man that they would uphold the Discipline – and it says the same thing now that it has for 40 years. They read it back when they were being ordained. They vowed according to these very words they would uphold them. The progressives are not keeping to their vow. They are seeking the change. What was once accepted by thousands of clergy, Bishops, DSs’, theologians, is now being challenged. Seriously, over 40 years do we actually believe every single one listed above has been wrong all along? That is quite a huge statement to say those that penned the Discipline many, many years ago all misrepresented the Bible. For many today, God’s Word hasn’t changed. So, why are we being crucified for still believing what thousands before us believed and lived.
I especially like it when you copy and paste the same response multiple times in the same set of comments, particularly as a response to different comments from different people.
“What was once accepted by thousands of clergy, Bishops, DSs’, theologians, is now being challenged.”
Yes. It has before (slavery, women in the pulpit, etc) and it is now.
Why do you think New Room has practically doubled in attendance every year since it started? It isn’t about speakers promoting their books. It isn’t about years of withheld tithes looking for an outlet. It’s about movement of the Holy Spirit and sowing for a great awakening. It’s about prayer. It’s about desperation for what God has done before to see God do again. Come and see!
When I moved from the Midwest to the South, I attended a UMC that allowed you to direct your personal giving to the church specifically so that you were not funding any apportionments beyond the Annual Conference. It was on our multiple choice pledge card so it was completely overt. This was back in the late 1980s. And it wasn’t about the General Church supporting full inclusion. It was about the belief that the World Methodist Council was supporting communism globally and a portion of our general church apportionments went to the World Methodist Council. This was a deeply divisive issue in the 80s. I think it is important to understand that our division within the UMC goes far deeper than our different Biblical interpretations around human sexuality. When I was a GC delegate, I was in a subcommittee dealing with accusations against the General Board of Church and Society and questionning whether it had the right to the building it is housed in because of its “agenda”. GBCS advocacy agenda is set by each General Conference approved by a majority of delegates (same process that approved the Traditional Plan) and yet continually it faces accusations that it promotes only a liberal agenda. You can see this line of argument surface in your responses to your original post. Jeremy, I appreciate you lining out this historical timeline. It is critically important for us to understand. We might want to pair it with all the divisive issues connected to each point in history. That might help us with the critical decisions we have to make in the very near future.