While deploring cultural accommodation, the WCA caucus group has embraced some of the worst aspects of American culture. This week: hypocrisy.
To Become the Villain
It happens all the time in the secular world: the people with full-throated opposition to a policy or people group end up being a part of that people group. The church is no different. Antigay preachers like Ted Haggard are found to be gay themselves , or like Kenneth Adkins who said terrible things about gays at the Pulse nightclub shootings are convicted of horrendous sexual sins .
As Harvey Dent, the hero prosecutor who became a murderous villain, says in the Batman movie The Dark Knight:
Sometimes you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
WCA Embrace
When it comes to The Wesleyan Covenant Association , we see that in a mere six months of their official existence, they and their allies have fallen into embracing exactly the patterns of conduct they previously condemned.
In two recent situations, the WCA either used an argument they accused an opponent of making, or they are undertaking an action they previously ascribed to an opponent.
Let’s see how this plays out.
Don’t prejudge the WCA–But WCA can prejudge Centrists.
The first area where the WCA is not practicing what they preach is how they are treating an emerging centrist group with two named participants including Rev. James Harnish and Rev. Tom Berlin. There hasn’t been any press releases or detailed beliefs of this group–or even a -name- –but that hasn’t stopped two WCA affiliates from discussing them.
- Rev. Dr. David Watson, academic dean at United Theological Seminary, waded in against Harnish’s blog, insinuating the group would be promoting the Local Option, then arguing against it (again).
- Rev. Chris Ritter, pastor in Illinois Great Rivers, wrote on the WCA blog that he expected a Local Option from this group and placed Harnish and Berlin in various categories without seeing the substance from the group.
That’s fine for them to criticize a group. That’s well within their right. However, offering judgments or condemnations of a group before it is formed was precisely what BOTH of these men criticized others for doing before the WCA inaugural conference in October.
- Watson said that “Charitable readings of one another’s intentions are in short supply” when defending the WCA from advance criticism .
- Ritter criticized four Methodist pastors (myself included) for preemptively writing on the WCA before their October meeting.
- Numerous comments on my blogs and others said to “wait to be judgmental” when it came to the WCA. But if conversation on the Facebook Group UMClergy is any indication, that call for charitable engagement is not being heeded when it isn’t of their own “Tribe.”
In short, the Wesleyan Covenant Association members lambasted non-supportive commentary on their movement before their inaugural event, but they have no problem issuing the same critiques on another group before they’ve even got a website, press release, or roster. Specks and planks indeed.
Local Church conflict is bad–except when it is good for the WCA
The second way is far worse than hypocrisy: it’s the effect of the WCA membership policies are having on local congregations.
I got contacted by a layperson from a church in the South that is having a vote soon on whether to join the WCA. She wasn’t asking for arguments or my writings–she had those already –she was just calling to lament that her church is being torn apart by this vote and friends are on opposing sides.
It struck me that this conflict–a local church being torn apart over a local vote–is the same argument WCA affiliates made at General Conference against the Local Option.
The Local Option was presented at General Conference 2016. The proposal would allow annual conferences to decide whether to ordain LGBTQ candidates, and allowing local churches to vote on whether to allow same-gender weddings. The arguments against it centered on that it moved the argument from General Conference and to the local church–and how terrible it would be for local churches to hold votes of which way they would go.
But now we see that the WCA is doing exactly that: ripping apart congregations by their clergy leadership holding votes on whether to join the WCA as a congregation instead of just individuals. I’m fielding calls from moderates and progressives, and I’m sure others are as well.
Doesn’t have to be this way
Chaos is being injected into communities because of careless, reckless endangerment by the membership policies and promotions by the WCA to communities who are too divided to have healthy votes on this subject.
As we discussed months ago , progressives know that the health of the congregation is paramount. Reconciling Ministries have interested churches go through a study, long process of discernment, and don’t typically hold votes until they know it will have supermajority support. It’s slow but honoring of where people are at.
The WCA was encouraged (by me) to take heed of this reality–but they are not heeding it and are full steam ahead to cause conflict at the local church level, because 51% is still a win for a pan-Methodist organization, no matter the effects on the local church.
The same conflict the WCA publicly deplored is now part of their core strategy for growth. What a turnaround that they could have easily avoided by offering a process and a method to help churches ease into the decision.
While this is unlikely, I do hope the WCA can ratchet back their scorched earth recruitment efforts, offer a path for congregations to study and affiliate, and do the right thing for the local church they so venerate. The health of every congregation–progressive, conservative, centrist, or regressive–is of value to me, and I hate to see good congregations be broken up by marketing strategies with poor accountability.
How to respond?
As before, this series looks at how The WCA has been publicly denouncing cultural accommodation, but internally has been absorbing and embracing some of the worst aspects of American culture. Today’s article is in the same vein as this is a common approach in secular politics: accuse someone of doing something you did so they can’t accuse you of the same.
Over the coming months until the called General Conference in 2019, congregations and individuals have a choice.
- They can wait and see what happens with the A Way Forward process, a General Conference-approved vote, a process being held with regular, transparent updates, with elected members voting for the future.
- Or they can join with a group that has proved they will say and do anything, with no constituent input or real decision-making ability, to recruit and promote themselves, with no promises they will retain affinity to the institution that gave them everything they have.
The choice is yours.
Your turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
Editorial comment: in the “don’t prejudge…” segment, in the second group of bullet points, the second point, I believe you left out a word at the end of the sentence. Is it supposed to be “meeting?”
Excellent post!
Fixed! Thanks so much!
Are your kidding me? Are you serious?
Hi Randy, thanks for reading. Do you have anything of substance to offer?
Jeremy,
I’ll offer these thoughts up front; you and I are on different ends of the spectrum of thought on the question of homosexuality in the church as it relates to ordination and marriage. We are even different in terms of how we approach this conversation. I try to read this blog and the opposing views such as those of the WCA. I refuse to be manipulated into a perspective by either side. I feel that we have failed in so many areas in this conversation that it breaks my heart. Having said that, I offer the following:
It is reasonable that churches will vote on where they stand. Hopefully, they will do so only after prayerful consideration and conversation. It is also reasonable to look and consider if any of the solutions mentioned to this point are truly viable. I wonder openly if it’s worth staying in the UMC at all. To me, the real outcome of this fight (based on the language used by both sides) isn’t schism but departure. I say this with great sadness.
I have and continue to serve churches in the UMC. At this point, I find little encouragement in the UMC or the WCA. That’s as frankly as I can put my perspective. The rhetoric from both has been a poison to many and the indecision by our leadership has allowed the amount of poison to grow.
If we cannot all agree on the theological reasons for where we should stand as a corporate church, perhaps we should choose the most local option; individuality.
What exactly has been the “poisonous rhetoric” by the WCA? I have followed pretty much everything that they have put out and I have not seen anything that I would remotely label as “poisonous rhetoric.” Do you have some examples?
Josh.
I didn’t mean to imply that the WCA or any of the corporate groups have uttered the rhetoric. It is largely in the comments of the individuals. All you have to do is read prominent blogs (on both sides) comments by the readers and it’s there. Sorry for the confusion.
Comments by readers of blogs probably are bad. People are very angry right now. It is up to the leadership to talk frankly, honestly, and transparently to everyone right now. Sadly, many leaders are still using rhetoric and trying to skirt issues. What we do in crises reveals who we truly are.
I’m with Randy . . . are you serious? Really?
I saw what David and Christ wrote. Good Lord man, they were not attacking anyone or trying to prejudge. How can you even say that? Chris and David are probably the most calm, non-critical people there are out there. They are simply trying to help people (and themselves) understand the positions that are being put out there.
They are doing us a service. You are doing everyone a disservice by demonizing them. Shame on you.
And you are criticizing the WCA because congregations are taking votes to join it and that is dividing congregations? The main message of the WCA is that members and congregations should KEEP THEIR VOWS. That is a unifying message, not a divisive message.
There a lot of people in the orthodox/evangelical camp who want to leave and who have already left. The WCA is just trying to keep everyone from leaving.
P.S. You are starting to embarrass yourself with these posts. I am not saying that to insult you. I take no pleasure in saying bad things about people on the internet. I’m just telling you the truth. This is kind of embarrassing.
Hi Josh. I didn’t claim they attacked anyone, but I did claim they were pre-judging. Both assume the Local Option is their proposal. It may be. But it isn’t out there yet and framing against it without substance is exactly what they spoke about less than a year ago. It may seem altruistic but it is still a pre-judgment on their part, which they previously spoke against. That’s the definition of hypocrisy. Calling it that is not an attack: it’s…well…simply trying to help people understand the positions that are being put out there.
The main message of Reconciling at the moment is that members and congregations KEEP THEIR VOWS made at baptism to oppose all forms of wickedness…even discrimination within the Church. There’s a lot of progressives who have left as well, and such a message helps them see what they are called to be and do.
Thanks for reading, even if it feels embarrassing to you. I hope you are able to handle it as I am.
“The main message of Reconciling at the moment is that members and congregations KEEP THEIR VOWS made at baptism to oppose all forms of wickedness…even discrimination within the Church”
This is code for “say that you follow the BOD but then do whatever you want in regards to homosexuality because you believe that you are doing it out of biblical fidelity . . . hold gay marriages, ordain people who practice homosexuality, etc., etc. . . . . do all this all under the justification that you are being true to Scripture.” That’s what that means.
Anyways, there are only a few options on the table for us. The so-called “centrists” have constantly and consistently put out a local option plan . . . Hamilton, Slaughter, all of them. There are no other options. What did you think that they would come up with? We’ve talked this thing to death. We either can be Methodists who live in covenant with one another or a bunch of Baptist-lites with the local option.
To criticize Chris and David simply because they were putting some stuff out there that might help clear the fog is wrong, man. You know those two dudes. They are not right wing kooks. Let’s come out of this with some dignity by treating each other with some respect.
Hi Josh,
1) Your code words are not recognizable by me. Sorry to not be able to read between the ellipses.
2) there a whole lot of solutions between uniform Methodists and diverse Baptists. I’m hopeful for the AWF to find a suitable one for us for unity with accountability in diversity.
3) I didn’t claim they were right wing kooks and I didn’t misrepresent them. I pointed out how they wrote one perspective and then practiced the opposite. I said it was hypocrisy, a claim that links to their own words as evidence. What flaw do you see in the logic?
Blessings.
The book of Discipline supports Civil Disobedience. Anyway, why are Conservatives allowed to disregard Jesus’ clear teaching against WAR, which the Discipline labels “incompatible” with the teachings of Jesus, but progressives aren’t allowed to disagree with laws that discriminate, malign and oppress an entire group of people? AND Jesus said nothing about it!! Jesus DID teach us to Love our Enemies and Turn the other Cheek. He taught us also to be on the side of the marginalized and oppressed. Most conservative Christians strongly support using nuclear weapons in many cases, even though this even violates the Just War theory which they purportedly uphold. Even the Just War theory requires non combatant immunity. Civilians will always suffer from the use of nuclear weapons.
Dan,
Suddenly, we migrate to nuclear war? And of course it’s a nuclear war supported by “most conservative Christians”. I’m pretty carful to not paint with a broad brush but I will say this about your comments specifically; attempting to migrate the argument to outrageous perspectives is a poor choice. It’s a tool frequently used by people to create a “mic drop” moment. I know many conservatives (of which I am also one) and none of us are in favor of any type of nuclear war or weapon usage. War is an outcome of sin and we are all sullied by it. Hyperbolic statements and perspectives are what keep us from being able to come to the table. Everyone is so concerned about winning the argument that they advance the war.
All of this is why I doubt we will find a way forward that doesn’t include dissolution on some level. Sad indeed.
Most Evangelicals are NOT opposed to the use of nuclear weapons under certain circumstances. The point is that Evangelicals say that Progressives must abide by the Discipline. The Discipline states that “War is incompatible with the Teachings of Jesus.” WHY does what the Discipline states about homosexuality have SO much authority and cannot be questioned, yet most Evangelicals (some glorious exceptions among Evangelicals noted) disregard this clear statement of the Discipline? When I was at a Quaker college (Earlham College) over 30 years ago, there was a Greg Dixon who was the head of the Indiana Moral Majority who stated that “we should have used the bomb God gave us on Vietnam.” Such Evangelicals such as James Dobson and Jerry Falwell Jr are VERY hawkish and are not opposed to the use of nuclear weapons under certain circumstances. Greg Dixon supported the use even when our own country wasn’t threatened by Vietnam. The IRD within the United Methodist Church supported the Iraq War. The point is is that many Evangelicals (with some glorious exceptions) DO pick and choose what to follow in the Bible as well as the Book of Discipline. But then, they accuse Progressives of picking and choosing.
Why is ONLY the animus against LGBT persons binding on the Church, but not what Jesus clearly taught about War?
Dan,
I vehemently disagree with you “most evangelicals” statement. I would also vehemently disagree with someone who said “all progressives are in favor of abortion on demand”. I find such collective statements manipulative and frankly ludicrous. Your points around individuals you heard or that have made public comments are valid for those INDIVIDUALS only. They did not then or now speak with the authority of all conservatives, evangelicals or what ever collective pronoun you want to put out there. We use those pronouns to dehumanize each other because it makes it easier to be “us” vs “them”.
The bottom line is that in the UMC we seem to have three major groups; full inclusion, exclusion, and undecided. There are those in all the groups who have prayerfully considered and studied the question and arrived at their position. Because they have approached this conclusion with much deliberation, they are set and unwilling to move. No amount of name calling or manipulation by either side will change that.
By the same line of thinking other issues separate us. War, famine, and any other number of things cause us to argue. That too is the way of this world. Sin brought all of this turmoil in to this world and robs us the ability to even discuss our differences. So here we stand with a gulf between us that neither side can cross.
Perhaps the point is that many Evangelicals don’t allow anyone to disagree with them on homosexuality, but then any position on the use of nuclear weapons would be up to the person. It certainly isn’t a chargeable offense to advocate for the use of nuclear weapons, yet to disagree on homosexuality makes a person into a non Christian. WHY is the position on homosexuality the ONLY non negotiable social teaching in the Discipline? Why isn’t being against War non negotiable, since according to the Discipline, it violates the teachings of Jesus? I wouldn’t say ALL Evangelicals support the use of nuclear weapons, but way too many of them do. Of course, there are some excellent Evangelicals on this subject. Why isn’t there any accountability for this?
I am not being scientific, but I would guess that the Evangelicals who are less vehemently anti gay are also a bit less militaristic as well. The conservative groups within United Methodism, such as “Good News” and “IRD” are not only anti gay, but they are very hawkish as well. They did support wars such as Vietnam or Iraq that were not in the defense of this country. They are on record as supporting such wars, as you can read in their press releases. Evangelical left persons would tend to be less hawkish, and more interested in social justice for LGBT persons.
Dear jeremy,
Once again I read your blog with dismay.
Do you think the the Reconciling Ministries Network isnt and doesn’t tear churches apart. Do they cause disruption at General Conference and bring disgrace by disrupting communion?
When a stand for truth is taken there is always casulaties, whatever you think is the truth. So you cannot use an argument that the WCA is wrong beecause it is causing angst in a church.
We know little about the church the person comes from whom you mentioned, it may be a church of 1000 and maybe 10 are unhappy with the WCA. Not really significant.
With your constant writing about he WCA it seems to me that you are frightened of us. Why I am not sure, we dont shout at General Conference, illegally ordain people, abuse people in public who disagree, bring upset in a communion service or protest outside Judical Council.
In fact many of us are holding our Conferences in prayer, loving and welcoming all people. Seeking God for His will and wisdom for the United Methodist Church.
Jeremy, when you say, “The Local Option was presented at General Conference 2016. The proposal would allow annual conferences to decide whether to ordain LGBTQ candidates, and allowing local churches to vote on whether to allow same-gender weddings” I assume you’re talking about A Third Way, the proposal from the Connectional Table, the only Local Option proposal that received much of a hearing at GC16. That proposal, broken into 6 separate petitions by the ill-conceived order of the Petitions Secretary, did NOT contain a provision for local churches to vote on anything. It proposed to allow annual conferences to decide who is suitable for ordination, bishops to decide whom to appoint where, and pastors to decide whom to marry to whom. In addition it relegated the incompatible language to historical status, it did away with being gay or performing same gender unions as chargeable offenses, but it retained language commending support of civil laws that define marriage as being between one man and one woman, and it retained the prohibition on the use of UM money to promote the acceptance of homosexuality. I am not guessing about any of that. But not one piece of it made it out of a legislative committee to the floor in plenary. Pity.
Jeremy, when you say, “there a whole lot of solutions between uniform Methodists and diverse Baptists” I must assume, since the context is a conversation about the way forward for United Methodists in the face of pressures toward separation, that you mean there is a host of possible solutions to that problem. If there is a host, then please name them for us. As I’ve said before, there are only four possible recommendations that can come from the Commission on a Way Forward. 1) Status Quo, 2) Full Inclusion, 3) A Third Way (Local Option), and 4) Plan of Separation.
Lonnie, the scholars at the Colloquy put forth a number of solutions, including a conciliar model of varied conferences, a Methodist Council of Churches idea, and trial time-managed period mutual interdependence. Those are beyond your “only four possible” models which are rather limited in imagination.
At their heart of each of those ideas is not much difference from what has been put forth as the basic paths. We either conference together in order to discern God’s will and vow to live in a covenant with one another . . . or we become like the Baptists or the Anglicans.
The scholars at the Colloquy also doubted that we could stay together like we currently are. That’s why I keep saying that this whole deal of hiding in our bunkers and lobbing grenades at each other in attempts to say “gotcha” have to go. It’s time to quit playing semantic games and get real with one another before there’s nothing left of either the progressive side or the traditional side. People are walking away. I see it personally and hear of it regularly from local pastors and elders. Wait till you see the numbers this year. They are going to really to bring home the reality of our situation.
None of those proposals is beyond the four I’ve articulated. The Methodist Council notion is what in other publications I’ve called a Wesleyan Alliance, and that is a form of Option 4, a Plan of Separation. This is simply a difference in degree from the existing World Methodist Council, not a difference in kind. The degree, hopefully, will be that in a proposed Wesleyan Alliance/Methodist Council (the name’s not significant) we will be able to have some shared agencies and services–agencies such as GBGM, GBHEM, GBOD, GCFA, and services such as pension fund and health insurance programs. Hopefully we’ll also be able to share support of our seminaries and other institutions of higher education and hospitals and mission services. Agencies that are almost certain not to make the transition in anything like their present form are GCAH, GCORR, GCOSROW, UMW, and UMM. GBCS is at risk because of the antipathy toward it from the conservatives and traditionalists, but I suspect, in the end, it would survive..
The impasse over sexuality is only a presenting issue of THE PROBLEM: unrestrained theological diversity. We are not variations on a theme but rather water spilled on the floor going every which way. Your constant critiquing of the WCA is showing just how theologically diverse and incompatible we really are. The reason you do not like the WCA is because they are coming at Christianity and the church from a whole different perspective than you. The reason you do not trust the Discipline and find it confusing is because it does not say what you want it to say.
Wake up to the hard truth: It is not enough to say we all believe in Jesus and God we must also be in agreement with what that belief in God and Jesus means for our lives individually and collectively. Without that we are nothing more than cats with our tails tied together–alternating between fighting each other and trying to drag the whole church in the direction we each think it needs to go.
On many subjects, the WCA disagrees with the Discipline. For instance, for the most part, the Social Principles in the Discipline would not go along with what Trump is trying to do as President. 81% of Evangelicals of which the WCA is voted for Trump.
Unless you can cite a survey of WCA members that showed 81% supported Trump, your statement is pure conjecture.