Is the new organization a mere reaction to a General Conference that should have gone 100% Traditionalists’ way, or a gathering coalition marching towards schism? Context matters–and history indeed repeats itself.
Echoes of 1843
In 1843, a group of Methodists broke from the Methodist Episcopal Church because it was not moving fast enough from slavery. They renamed themselves the Wesleyan Methodist Church. These folks broke off only one year before the Methodist Church broke up into the MEC and the MEC South over the issue of slavery in 1844. The North and South segments of Methodism would remain apart until a 1939 merger. The Wesleyan Methodist Church never rejoined the Methodists and is now called The Wesleyan Church. They were ahead of their time–affirming women’s rights many decades before civil society affirmed them–but did not grow into the societal influence of their parent denomination.
I share that story because whenever a smaller segment of a larger denomination makes strides towards schism, it would be good to remember our history and not move quicker than the following years would have been kinder to.
In 2016, a mere 2 years before a major denominational showdown over LGBTQ Inclusion, we see that a new association has begun, called the Wesleyan Covenant Association. The WCA is an organization that solicits congregational and individual affiliation in order to claim support for their belief that LGBTQ persons are not to be fully included in the life of The United Methodist Church.
And the question being asked is whether this group is a prelude to schism…or something else entirely.
History Repeats Itself
When I heard about the Wesleyan Covenant Association, I shrugged and said “It’s more of the same.” That’s not to say it is harmless or not something for progressives to pay attention to. Rather, all I’m saying is it is expected because it fits within our history and current context.
The 1980s were a time of great power-building and great expressed discontent by traditionalists in The UMC. 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 small, counteractive group to UM Women), traditionalists created their own parallel alternative structure that provides books, women’s fellowship, and missionaries for congregations to support outside of United Methodist oversight, accountability, or connectional leadership. (see more here)
But the odd thing is that these concentrations of resources and divestment from official structures came about at the same time that they gained legislative control of The UMC. Why would these alternative structures form and siphon traditionalist dollars, missionaries, and energies away from The United Methodist Church that they were beginning to control?
The same situation is happening today. The 2012-2016 period has also been a time when Traditionalists have been very busy organizing alternative organizations–at least on paper. 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), some other group that lasted only 2 years (what was it?), and now the Wesleyan Covenant Association (2016) all came about during the same time period that the support for LGBTQ Inclusion stayed at the same minority status or fell slightly lower in United Methodism.
Why are these organizations cropping up just as it is becoming more clear that the Traditionalists are running The UMC? Why wouldn’t they be throwing their resources into The UMC now that they can no longer hide that they run it?
Incompatible with United Methodism
For one answer, I appreciate Rev. Tom Berlin’s articulation that there’s a break within Traditionalists in The United Methodist Church. He uses the distinguishing term “compatibilist” to determine how likely a Traditionalist is to live with people who do not believe as they do:
Traditionalist Non-Compatibilists: People in this zone are satisfied with the current restrictive wording of the Book of Discipline on same-sex marriage and the ordination of people who are practicing homosexuals. They want to see the church live out what they feel are obvious prohibitions in Scripture regarding homosexual acts. For them it is an issue of personal holiness. They are concerned that if these passages are compromised, all passages related to practices of sexual ethics and personal holiness will be compromised. Their concerns about change are of such importance to them that they would rather be in a church where all agree on these matters than feel personally compromised by a church with a diverse view on human sexuality.
Traditionalist Compatibilists: These people hold traditional views on human sexuality but understand that other pastors or churches would like to have the option of offering marriage ceremonies to same-sex couples. Some Annual Conferences want to have the ability to ordain people who are practicing homosexuals. While they do not want to be forced into performing such a marriage, they can live in a denomination where this occurs, understanding that there are many issues beyond this where they find unity in our connection.
By this articulation, we see that the 1980s alternative structures and the 2010s alternative structures both have diverse means and goals but share (intentionally or not) a common message: “true” traditionalists are Non-Compatible and cannot be part of the Methodist Middle anymore. As Tom Berlin has articulated, this WCA group would attract the “Traditionalist Non-Compatibilists” while putting pressure on Compatibilists to come over their way or else they are accepting UMC apostasy of “big tent” or “life in diversity” hogwash.
So while the rest of the denomination is looking for ways to live together, these organizations are encouraging, resourcing, and amplifying the one segment of United Methodism that doesn’t believe they can live together.
Traditionalist RMN? Nope.
“If there hadn’t been a Reconciling Congregations Program movement, there would not have been a Transforming Congregation Program movement.” – Robert Kuyper, founder of TCP
While some have drawn parallels between the WCA and Reconciling Ministries Network, they have several distinct differences in structure alone that negate any comparison between them.
- Membership fees. The WCA charges membership fees, whereas RMN merely asks for donations. Since the first missional responsibility of a congregation is to pay their apportionments, criticism is justified of a church that pays WCA membership fees but is not 100% paid on its apportionments (or withholds them entirely like a North Georgia congregation).
- Creedal Belief Structure. The WCA requires assent to a creedal list of beliefs, whereas RMN does not, trusting that diversity of theological beliefs lead to a reconciled church open to LGBTQ persons.
- Voting Delegates. The WCA functions more like an annual conference gathering with voting delegates from member churches, whereas RMN operates as a professional non-profit with a board of directors, audits, etc.
These three differences negate any comparison between the two organizations. Finally, using Berlin’s categories, RMN supports the full spectrum of Compatibility, whereas the WCA is firmly in support of Traditionalist Non-Compatibilists.
An Unclear Future
Will the WCA be successful? I don’t see why not, numerically at least. There are many more churches that are conservative than progressive in The UMC (since 1984, 782 communities and 33,000 individuals have affiliated with RMN), though many will choose to be more big-tent than non-compatible. And since the WCA people have the same names from the 1980s structures to today, there’s little question this group may come up with significant numbers by the 2018 special Conference or the 2020 Conference.
But my word of warning for Wesleyan Covenant Association is don’t push too hard too fast. Whenever I work with churches to join the Reconciling Ministries Network, I encouraged them to initiate the conversation only when it is clear they have 60% support. Else, if a vote is 51/49%, that leads to a lot of hurt feelings and perhaps lessens the membership/attendance of that church that hadn’t done the heart-changing work beforehand. I’d hate for congregations to be harmed by WCA advocates who only get 51% vote and see their congregations, like 1843 Wesleyans, become purer of heart but lesser in spirit.
As for me, I’ll be watching how this organization shapes up leading up to their October 2016 meeting, and then we’ll see if they are a gathering storm of strength, or a reactive aftershock from a General Conference that inexplicably sought a way forward together, compatible or not.
Thoughts?
The very existence of Asbury Theological Seminary is a schismatic “seedbed”, carrying the spirit of the former Methodist Protestant Church. I also recall, for example, William Abraham’s Romanian church plant being a non-United Methodist church. Don’t know if this was under the auspices of our Confessing friends/Mission Society, but am very curious how many missionaries and churches planted by the Mission Society are today United Methodist and how many are autonomous.
A couple of thoughts:
– “Why are these organizations cropping up just as it is becoming more clear that the Traditionalists are running The UMC? Why wouldn’t they be throwing their resources into The UMC now that they can no longer hide that they run it?” I would say that having a majority (even a strong majority) of GC delegates does not equate to “running” the UMC. While it does mean that certain more progressive legislation has been blocked, that some more traditionalist legislation has been passed, and that the changes to the BoD regarding human sexuality have not been approved. I am guessing, but I think it is a fair guess that if you asked a “Traditionalist” such as you describe whether the Traditionalists “run the UMC,” the answer would be “no” and likely accompanied by a chuckle. They do not possess the sort of power to empower them to make wholesale changes to UMC bureaucracy (both in personnel or structure). Perhaps you can show me how they do, but I just don’t see it. And I would imagine that is one of the reasons behind the growth of these parallel organizations (i.e., “we don’t/can’t control the UMC Board of ________, so let’s just set up __________ instead”). I’m not arguing the merits of this approach. I just don’t think it lines up with the “schism-in-waiting” hypothesis.
– I appreciate the analysis on “Traditionalist Non-Compatibilists” vs. “Traditionalist Compatibilists.” I think you’re on to something with the former. However, I do think there are “Traditionalist Compatibilists” who nonetheless do not want to see the BoD changed. I think they are sensitive to LGBT concerns, but to them, the Progressive approach goes too far and is not supported by the Bible. I think that while they support the status quo on the issues of marriage and ordination would nonetheless be willing to entertain different approaches to engagement and inclusion (and not simply “pray the gay away” nonsense). I do think there’s middle ground to be found here, it’s just not in the issue binary the UMC has created over the last 44 years.
– I do think it will interesting to watch the WCA, but through a different lens. A common problem for groups organized around a single issue is that lack of uniformity in (i) approach to arriving at the shared conclusion regarding the single issue and (ii) other issues once that single issue is “resolved.” For instance, as we’ve seen in this year’s GOP primary, the various factions of the Republican Party were united in their opposition to President Obama (and, by extension, Secretary Clinton). However, their specific reasons/approaches to that conclusion could not have been more different between Kasich, Trump, Cruz, Paul, etc. etc. A Traditionalist’s opposition to changing the BoD might be on theological terms closer to the Roman Catholic view, or on theological terms closer to the Southern Baptist view, more complex, more simplistic – who knows. And, frankly, WCA doesn’t really know either. (I understand they’re already getting some internal flak over the “Beliefs” section of their website, particularly on the “inerrantist” view.”) They will have to deal with this sooner or later if they do splinter off into a separate denomination (and their website, notably, refuses to preclude that) as the fight will then become “who is ‘real’ Orthodox?”
A couple of thoughts:
– “Why are these organizations cropping up just as it is becoming more clear that the Traditionalists are running The UMC? Why wouldn’t they be throwing their resources into The UMC now that they can no longer hide that they run it?” I would say that having a majority (even a strong majority) of GC delegates does not equate to “running” the UMC. While it does mean that certain more progressive legislation has been blocked, that some more traditionalist legislation has been passed, and that the changes to the BoD regarding human sexuality have not been approved, they don’t control all the levers of power in the UMC. Not even close. I am guessing, but I think it is a fair guess that if you asked a “Traditionalist” such as you describe whether the Traditionalists “run the UMC,” the answer would be “no” and likely accompanied by a chuckle. They do not possess the sort of power to empower them to make wholesale changes to UMC bureaucracy (both in personnel or structure). Perhaps you can show me how they do, but I just don’t see it. And I would imagine that is one of the reasons behind the growth of these parallel organizations (i.e., “we don’t/can’t control the UMC Board of ________, so let’s just set up __________ instead”). I’m not arguing the merits of this approach. I just don’t think it lines up with the “schism-in-waiting” hypothesis.
– I appreciate the analysis on “Traditionalist Non-Compatibilists” vs. “Traditionalist Compatibilists.” I think you’re on to something with the former. However, I do think there are “Traditionalist Compatibilists” who nonetheless do not want to see the BoD changed. I think they are sensitive to LGBT concerns, but to them, the Progressive approach goes too far and is not supported by the Bible. I think that while they support the status quo on the issues of marriage and ordination would nonetheless be willing to entertain different approaches to engagement and inclusion (and not simply “pray the gay away” nonsense). I do think there’s middle ground to be found here, it’s just not in the issue binary the UMC has created over the last 44 years.
– I do think it will interesting to watch the WCA, but through a different lens. A common problem for groups organized around a single issue is that lack of uniformity in (i) approach to arriving at the shared conclusion regarding the single issue and (ii) other issues once that single issue is “resolved.” For instance, as we’ve seen in this year’s GOP primary, the various factions of the Republican Party were united in their opposition to President Obama (and, by extension, Secretary Clinton). However, their specific reasons/approaches to that conclusion could not have been more different between Kasich, Trump, Cruz, Paul, etc. etc. A Traditionalist’s opposition to changing the BoD might be on theological terms closer to the Roman Catholic view, or on theological terms closer to the Southern Baptist view, more complex, more simplistic – who knows. And, frankly, WCA doesn’t really know either. (I understand they’re already getting some internal flak over the “Beliefs” section of their website, particularly on the “inerrantist” view.”) They will have to deal with this sooner or later if they do splinter off into a separate denomination (and their website, notably, refuses to preclude that) as the fight will then become “who is ‘real’ Orthodox?”
Very good points! I especially agree with what you say about the TNCs. I will place myself in that group, especially since there are only 2, and say that as a Christian I find the progressive stance, and the premise of their argument of inclusion to be false. It is a wedge that is being used to frame an argument such that those in opposition are bigots. I am not a bigot. I am for inclusion of all people in the church and include all people in all areas of my life.
The issue truly is – are you going to change what God has declared ion the Old and New Testament n order to fit in and change with the times? The comment about every 40-50 years there is a change in the UMC rules on marriage. So, must be time for a change. We have a lot of lgbtq people who are or want to be ministers so it is time for a change. People are feeling left out or uncomfortable so it must be time for change.
God is unchanging. He does not change His mind. He has changed the manner in which we worship from the temple and the Holy of Holys to where our own bodies host the Holy Spirit! How does this proposed change meet with anything outlined by our God? How is a sacrament suppose to be conducted in the called upon presence of God Almighty to preside over to ask for His blessing and Holy Covenant?
How are we, the TNC group, suppose to support this? We are, in my observation, the voice of warning like John to turn away from the ways of this world and turn to Christ. The WC appears to be preparing for the worst in our denomination and the formation of this group, as shown by the history lesson, seems to be timely and needed.
There has to be a moral absolute or there is no purpose to the church. God has told us what this standard is and if the group as a whole, through pushing ‘progressive’ ideas and agenda or by ignoring and tolerating the change to not make waves, splits apart it will be due to this wedge not by a group trying to hold tight to the will of God.
You blow my mind with your perception that the Wesleyan Covenant Association is a gathering storm! The gathering storm originated out of the liberal/progressive camp when you clearly declared that you are above the rules, and processes of The United Methodist Church. The only thing that the WCA is responding to are the various schismatic actions liberal/progressives have engaged in since General Conference.
Do you even get a hint that we are nowhere close to being on the same page when it comes to Christianity and respect for how the church functions? You can not take such actions and then view yourselves as being in leadership and now the rest of the church needs to catch up. In my book, you have shown that you no longer need The United Methodist Church! As far as I am concerned you are absolutely free to go and do your thing in peace and leave us to do ours!
I tend to lean more progressive, but I am a richer person being in ministry with people I disagree with, and have conversation with. I hope and pray that we can all stay at the same table and celebrate our mission and ministry together- mission and ministry that unite us and not divide us. In the end, even with a split, the United Methodist Church can still celebrate Christ’s work in our differing communities. We should celebrate what we are united on…because we have never been united on everything.
“As far as I am concerned you are absolutely free to go and do your thing in peace and leave us to do ours”
That’s pretty clear… Not a very Methodist thinker Betsy?!
You think people would be better to not associate with each other because they interpret a very small part of scripture differently?
They think it is not a sin to be authentic in who they are, forming a covenant relationship of love, consensual, emotionally supporting, non-cultic in nature, not ‘lustful’ but faithful in publicly made vows.
You disagree, so despite all the rest of what a person does outside of that intimate relationship between two people in private, you’re not saying, “Let’s stay together and celebrate our belief in Him, and His Son”?
You’re not saying, “Let’s work together to do all we can together to fight injustice, poverty, and to promote all the things Jesus of Nazareth stood for”?
That’s worth thinking about isn’t it?
Peace and love.
“all the things Jesus of Nazareth stood for”? While Jesus came primarily for the forgiveness of sins by dying on the cross, the NT has at least 9 passages that make LGBTQ behavior unacceptable.
When Jesus forgave the adulterous woman, He then told her “Go and sin no more.” So the goal of the church body of believers in following Christ is not to promote sin, but demote it. That means, yes, we all sin from time to time and must even seek forgiveness from fellow believers and from the Lord, of course, but habitual sin is not the goal here, rather daily repentance and a humbleness before Jesus to obey Him on a one-to-one personal basis.
Do I listen to the call of my sins, or the call of my Lord?
Hi Walt,
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Jesus never once mentioned anything about people who were LBGTQ+, A.K.A. homosexuality. He, also, never once mentioned abortion, which is another “Hot Topic,” in the WCA.
If you are a Biblical literalist, please, read note the following. The only admonition against men have sex with men, was regarding men who forced other men to have sex with them or engaged in abusive sexual practices.
Peace,
Carla
While your analysis is interesting, I think it far to hopeful for progressives. It will be hard for many to finally understand this – but those who we once considered the far right, are now in fact the solidly centrist conservatives in our denomination. Your notions about the WCA – I think – are completely wrong. Understandable – sure, your referencing the compatable/incompatable language produced by Billy Abraham and the Unity Commission way back in 1998. But its not 1998, and while you could have said so of the WCA group in 1998 that they are the far right, the are now solidly center and in some quarters of Africa might even be considered far too liberal.
I agree there is a split on the right. Just like in the Weslyan and Naz Church – methodist conservatives would be considered progressives, there is always tension in any religious body between the right and left. What the WJ did in electing Bishop Oliveto was, of course, a hail mary intended to try and drive a wedge in that split enough that, in so doing, enough would leave on the far right that it would reshape the debate. That could still happen – but for most of the reasons you point out, I doubt it. It would be snatching defeat from the Jaws of victory.
Once the centrist conservatives like Good News (I know I know you can’t handle me saying that but again – if we are aggregating theology and looking for the median – the good news folks are exactly that), once they take over – there will likely be a split with the hard right which is mostly from Africa and ethnic groups in the US. At first, at least, it won’t be more than a minor skirmish, because of financial considerations. Eventually the typical thesis and antithesis will develop, there will be charismatics and traditionalist traditionals who have differing visions of the church as it will always be.
Your main mistake in analysis is the notion that centrist conservatives control anything. Its important to consider the notion of dejure vs defacto control. To say conservatives have dejure (by the law) control may be accurate – actually sure it is accurate. But far more important in any Buerocratic organization is defacto control (Practical – in reality – day to day control). Ask any General Agency Employee who is in charge and i can assure you its not nor has it ever been Centrist Conservatives or any other types other than progressives.
That is starting to change. Small cracks starting to develop. Junius Dodson going to the Board of Discipleship – and while he is not a full on traditionalist – the dude believes in things like the Divinity of Christ and the Bodily Resurrection. Something that I can personally attest has not been the case for most Gen Sec’s. Heck my associate Gen Sec was a self admitted atheist. Yep its that bad. He was a great boss, and a very nice guy by the way – but totally secular and ardently non-religious. Another crack is the election now of a Bishop from Asbury – confirmed centrist conservative types – in all but 1 Jurisdiction (not hard to guess the outlier). Likewise the numbers of centrist conservatives on the commission on General Conference has dramatically jumped – though it will take a few quad to fully see that takeover come to fruition. Finally – in order to bridge the schismatic breaches that some AC’s and Jurisdictions have initiated, there will need to be constitutional amendments. Its virtually certain that by 2024 and very possible that by 2020 the centrist conservatives plus the Africans will eclipse the 67% voting margin needed to amend the constitution at will. At that point – Granny bar the door. Run for cover. Brush up on your evangelical mimicry skills, or your gonna be looking for employment fast.
Holden Center… Do you realize that the previous General Secretary at Discipleship Ministries fully believed in, as you say, “the Divinity of Christ and the Bodily Resurrection?” And because of that belief, he was escorted out the door. So, the “small crack” was already present and obviously intolerable for some. With that in mind, it doesn’t look promising for, in your words, “a dude who isn’t a full on traditionalist,” but close enough to be as threatening as the previous General Secretary; a top executive who was fully committed to making disciples for the transformation of the world and one who had the respect of both conservatives and progressives. Slightly ironic that the agency tasked with discipleship was threatened by the prospect of an authentic disciple.
I do not think it is that hard to know what the right thing is to do if you are truly saved and are truly living the right way for GOD. GOD’S WORD tell us the right way to live. We are to love the sinner hate their sins and help them in whatever way we can to see what a true Christian is.
I appreciate the history in this article. It is both fascinating and sad to me that so much of our denomination reflects the structure of our government. We lobby like them and are divided like them. It saddens me as I believe Jesus Christ calls us to a deeper way to be the church. We are to be in the world but not of the world, yet all of this conversation just continues to sound just like the secular world around us.
I am one of the few who hope for a split. I am naive/hopeful enough to believe that it could be amicable. We are divided in many ways, greater than just how inclusive or non-inclusive we are. Let us just pick our sides, spend a great deal of time in prayer and allow the Holy Spirit to refine us, shape us and remake us for ministry in the 21st century to a very hurting world. Let us stop shooting arrows at each other and reach out in love to our hurting world. Let us wish each other well on our separate sides, knowing full and well that thought we may have new teams, we are still connected as the larger church under Jesus Christ. And let us then go and serve and share the good news as Jesus Christ calls us to.
I appreciate REVMICCA’s comparison to our own secular government(s) and agree. I too am hoping for a split and very soon. I am please and hopeful that the WCA will not be able to take any UMC assets with them. I am completely opposed to WCA. But I do believe they will continue to promote the Good News of Jesus Christ. I also know that the UMC will do the same, just to a wider body of the world and with less judgment and ostracization.
God bless you all for this dialogue. And lets all work hard to remove the proponents of WCA from our leadership roles as soon as possible.
People who do not believe that sin should be promoted, but should be demoted, are not going to commit their time and financial resources to a body of believers that scorns the Word of God. There are at least 9 NT passages that teach LGBTQ behavior is a sin and so they believe that promoting this sin is not the mission of Jesus Christ, our head.
Hence, those faithful to their leader, the Lord Jesus Christ, will either reverse this damaging trend, or they will move on.
As an interim step, it would be interesting to see what happens if local churches withhold (put in escrow) those payments that go to the Methodist church leadership (council of bishops).
Do I listen to the Lord Jesus Christ and obey Him, or listen to the call in my body to sin? LBGTQ behavior is sin per at least 9 passages in the NT. Jesus wants to promote holy living in us, not sinful.
I suspect virtually all LGBTQ persons need to find Christ as their Savior and their LORD, not just their Savior.