How moderates and “Middle Methodists” are on the menu for the next 3 years of United Methodism.
Circling foul
During the November 2017 Uniting Methodists conference of moderate and “Middle Methodists,” there was a crazy uptick in posts at one of the paid caucus groups’ websites. Within six days of the conference, the Institute on Religion and Democracy* had published seven blog posts containing 11,366 words on the topic. While most posts by that organization are that long (and unreadable), it’s still surprising to have so much single-topic content in a short span of time. Two more posts in the days following resulted in a total of 15,554 words spent talking about moderates and Middle Methodists.
The volume of writings on one topic doesn’t bother me–this website has even more written on the Wesleyan Covenant Association, after all. But this particular group doesn’t attack the powerful. Like birds of prey searching for the wounded, they write most about vulnerable classes of people (LGBTQ and allies and their UM staff have a unique obsession with Bishop Oliveto) and vulnerable institutions (seminaries and conferences). We know from years of engagement that their pattern is to focus on folks who they think they “have something on” or just want to bully publicly.
So why would middle Methodists, who constitute the majority of American Methodism, suddenly be perceived as vulnerable enough to merit sustained dives from those circling above?
Wary and Wounded
Perhaps moderate and “Middle Methodists” are feeling like they have something to lose. In truth, if schism is in United Methodism’s future, they do stand to lose a lot.
Moderates occupy the churches that are most vulnerable to an either/or split. Churches that are 60/40 might lose half their congregation if they were forced to choose with which denomination to affiliate.
Already congregations are holding harmful votes to join the Wesleyan Covenant Association—votes that Reconciling churches have long avoided because they don’t want to harm churches that haven’t done the long discernment. 60/40 or 65/35 splits are harmful to the church, and LGBTQ inclusion advocates have long tried to avoid them out of care for the congregations.
So moderates and Middle Methodists are vulnerable, perhaps for the first time in a long while. Is this why everyone focused on the Middle Methodists all of the sudden?
Fulcrum
Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.
~ Archimedes, 3rd Century BCE (various versions on wikiquote)
Maybe they are being focused on because of what Middle Methodist support could mean to the future of United Methodism.
A fulcrum is a pivot point where a larger object can be moved with a long board (a lever). No matter how long the lever is, it is the fulcrum that matters most.
In this analogy, Middle Methodists are the fulcrum, the pivot point that enables the agendas of several competing groups who are vying for their participation:
- To conservative evangelicals, retaining Middle Methodists allows them to stop the flood of secular and ecclesial inclusion of LGBTQ persons by walling off a large evangelical, mainline denomination for the next generation. They would be able to claim the only one of the “Seven Sisters of Protestantism” that hasn’t allowed partial/full inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the life of their denomination. The Wesleyan Covenant Association entices with fundraising, large pulpits, and veneration of success to appeal to Middle Methodists.
- To progressives, Middle Methodists are a community that can tolerate full or incremental inclusion of LGBTQ people. Also, to have the largest Evangelical denomination yet to affirm the inclusion of LGBTQ persons would be a significant step forward—just as Methodists ordaining women was a step forward for women inside and outside the Church.
- In tandem with conservative evangelicals, outside paid caucus groups like the aforementioned Institute for Religion and Democracy profit off of silencing progressive and Middle Methodist social witness that years of schism would cause. Expulsion of Progressives would also be the only “win” that the IRD can claim, having failed to turn The Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA) to full exclusion and instead had to settle for being funded by smaller breakaway (and waning) denominations.
Everyone is out for the Middle Methodists as the keys to transforming the social and ecclesial landscape. Each group wants them on their side for their preferred future for the Church.
They have to go somewhere
I’m not a Middle Methodist. I serve a progressive church in a progressive conference in a progressive jurisdiction (Seattle: Pacific Northwest: Western Jurisdiction). It is a place of privilege where I get to live out progressive United Methodist values without fear of retribution, and I’m thankful to be building that perspective (it’s a new appointment for me as of July 1st, 2017)
From the outside, then, my view is that Middle Methodism feel like an endangered species in the United Methodist ecosystem. Like any species, when its natural habitat is threatened, they have to either evolve or move.
They can choose the Wesleyan Covenant Association. Like people who voted for Trump, there is an appeal to a populist movement with gilded sanctuaries and massive crowds. But just as the Trump Presidency has revealed to be subservient to the powerful, the only beneficiaries and decision-makers are the same power players that have run the Good News, Confessing, and United Theological/Asbury Seminary for decades. Nothing changes and gay kids are still born to straight parents, leading to this cycle all over again.
But I hope the Middle Methodists will be part of whatever future that leads to full or incremental inclusion of LGBTQ people. It was hard for the Middle when clergywomen got full ordination, and when African American clergy could serve white churches. It was hard for the diverse and divided Middle…I get it. But look at how much stronger we are than before–and how much trouble contemporary denominations born of schism have with women.
A Way Forward Together
Ultimately, I hope there is an ecosystem for Middle Methodists, Progressives, and Conservative Evangelicals. I believe all the elements are there: a robust Wesleyan theology that has constantly evolved since its inception, a track record of placing mission above theological disputes, and younger successful evangelicals in the South who are not anti-gay. It will take concerted conservation efforts, but it’s possible.
But I know the cultural elements against such an ecosystem are also very strong: anti-institutionalism, uncertainty leading to embrace of bombastic authority, polarization in our media diets, and the incredible wealth driving either a progressive expulsion or ecclesial division, fueled by wealthy Baby Boomers desperate for a win their children and grandchildren don’t want.
May we overcome all that and no longer see one another as fulcrums for agendas but rather fellow listeners to the Spirit that calls women, persons of color, and LGBTQ persons equally to serve God and transform the world.
Your turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media
* The IRD’s practice is to not link to Hacking Christianity and instead refer to the blog and blogger without links (Riley Case has the same policy). Therefore, we also do not link to the IRD. Google them if you like.
Don’t forget: the IRD publishes stuff to rile up their base and to increase fundraising.The more that they can point out the “danger” to “orthodox” United Methodism, the more dollars they can get.
Nice parallel to the Lord of the Rings. Good work, my friend. And thanks for the fulcrum visual. Really, great writing and dialogue and helps me understand the issue.
Blessings, Ted! The road goes ever on…
You’re full of crap. You don’t hope for progressive, “middle,” and conservative Christians to live together in the UMC. If you did, you wouldn’t demonize conservatives by comparing the WCA to [your words] “people who voted for Trump” the dude with the weird hair who made an “appeal to a populist movement with gilded sanctuaries and massive crowds.” You’re just taking shots. What a bold and brave thing to do . . . take shots at the “bad guy” on the internet (sarcasm).
One thing that you are right on is that there is little to no Methodist middle. The “Centrist” gathering turned out to be just another progressive meeting. While I do not care for the IRD that much, the articles that they put out asked the right questions. In fact, it was some really great reporting. There was not much spin at all.
I have read most of the WCA letters/emails that they have sent out and they are pretty clear on the fact that they do not want to “win” anything. If the UMC, as a whole, decides to go in a direction that they cannot, by their conscience abide by, they want to be allowed out without major repercussions (i.e. the loss of property and other things). If the UMC goes in a direction that others cannot abide by in faith, they want others to be allowed out without repercussions.
I think just about everyone is wore out with this whole PR war. If you want to keep on doing it, then roll on, whatever. If you get your jollies by busting on the IRD, WCA, or whatever, nobody is going to stop you. It’s sad though, man. It’s sad.
Hi Josh, I hope this message finds you well.
I’m quite positive that I know what I hope for more than you do. The consistent message on this site has been that people can live together with theological differences so long as all people groups are welcome at the Table and encouraged to live out their relationships and calling. I grew up in Oklahoma and cannot aspire for a church were my moderate colleagues and conservative evangelical colleagues do not live together. We navigated clergywomen and African-American clergy inclusion together, and today we are better for it. We can do it.
The WCA/Trump reference has been made before, you can read more of it here. Yes, I do believe the WCA is offering the same type of offer: join a populist movement, something new, but it won’t end up being in the best interest of the vulnerable among you even if it alleviates your personal spiritual needs to no longer worship alongside LGBTQ persons and call for their divorces.
Lastly, the “spin” by the IRD has been well documented for decades. Reading “United Methodism at Risk” and “Hardball on Holy Ground” provide a lot of documentation. Often we do not see “spin” because of our own biases, so it helps to read other people’s perspectives.
Thanks for commenting. Blessings.
You see, we have different understandings of what is good for LGBT people. You seem to think that people who are a part of the WCA and Good News and other traditional circles want to run out LGBT people. That is simply not true.
The traditional view is that sex between people of the same sex is sin. It is wrong in God’s eyes. And it is not only wrong but it is harmful to those do such things. You say that you are protecting the vulnerable but we think that you are enabling them to continue to do things that are ultimately harmful, destructive, and shameful in God’s eyes. These are the bare, honest facts. There is no middle ground. We both share a stance of love towards those who identify as “gay” but we do not share the same view about whether or not homosexual activity is sin or not.
And by the way, you can say that you want to live together all that you want but actions speak louder than words. If you demonize conservatives and say that we are just a bunch of meanies who want to beat up on gay people and push them out of our lives . . . well, why would you want to be in a church with such people?
“It is wrong in God’s eyes.” Speaking for God is rather presumptuous is it not?
Not when your speaking from hundreds of years of Judeao/Christian ethics, Christian tradition, and the overwelming consensus of the world wide church.
Hundreds of years of Christian teaching stated that the Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. It was only in 1965 that the Catholic Church no longer officially took that position. Slavery was also accepted for hundreds of years by the Church as well. And anyway, Lesbians have far lower rates of Venereal diseases than do Straight people. I have had the same male partner living with me for going on 8 years now. I have known him for 24 years now. He has really helped me a lot financially by regularly paying rent for these 8 years. I have NO sexually transmitted diseases and at 57 I am in great health, mainly because I exercise everyday and eat right. My parents of course, were heterosexually married, but their relationship was NOT healthy at all. They constantly argued with each other and even hit each other at times. I virtually never get into any sort of argument with my partner. But part of that is having gone to therapy for many years, which helped me to deal with anger as well as other issues. Psychotherapy does not change a person from Gay to Straight, but it can be very helpful in other ways.
Josh and Jeremy, I thank you for your back and forth, as one who is a “middle Methodist” and attended the Uniting Methodist Conference I can tell you it is people like you two that I need to hear and better understand.
Josh, I would say that indeed there is at last one eye of the WCA/Good News to “win”. At least that is the way I understand this email which is begins to consider the delegate counts and appeal to funding: http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1108936514096&ca=89cb6bfc-164a-4337-93bd-de137e06721b
I do not fault this effort, but to dismiss the idea that sides are looking to “win” is naive.
Was there anyone in leadership in the Uniting Methodist Conference who held to a traditional view that sexual acts between people of the same sex is sin (traditional view)?
Can you tell me that?
I don’t know. I was not able to visit with everyone in the room. I can tell you that there were people around the tables that I sat at who hold the same views on sexual acts between people of the same sex as you do.
I agree with you that there was a skew toward a progressive position in the presentations, but that was not the case at the tables that I sat at (I sat at three different tables, so only a small sample size I know).
Josh, I join you in the frustration that there is a sense that each side does not seem to take the other side very seriously. I even spoke to this matter from the floor at the conference and at my table. Specifically that in the video that was shown there was a person from Good News (I think) that expressed that what is at stake is the disobedience of some in the denomination. I was disappointed that there was not much discussion on that view and what is to be done about it. Even if you think the argument is a garbage argument, to not give it any merit I believe only gives credence to the overall problem that we don’t seem to respect the other and dismiss the other’s views as less than our views.
So I would say that yes, I join you in your frustrations in not being heard. I would also invite you to not fall into the same trap by not taking the arguments in this blog post seriously.
Peace to you all
Jason
The subject of this post ia serious. We are dealing with questions of Christian moral ethics and ecclesiology. That’s serious stuff.
Many of us have had very serious and thoughtful discussions about these matters. And there is a very broad consensus
on the matter.
Many of are also tired of wasting time and refuse to waste any more with this issue. There is nothing new on this issue. Just the same old tired stuff that has failed to convince. A lot of us are moving on and have no desire to be a part of all these word games and denominational power plays.
Jeremy, I respect your opinion, and your assessment makes sense. This whole issue, or rather the politicization of it through such actions, a politicization that is used/abused/amplified in the nation’s politics, is both infuriating and tiring. It’s to the point that I’ve decided to reword Mark A. Miller’s “Creation of Peace” from “We’ll build a land …” to “We’ll build a church …”, pray for appointment to a dying inner city church (I’ve gotten really bold and asked for a specific church if it becomes available) and go to work doing just that. I have enough sins of my own to atone for to not sit around condemning entire groups of people for what I may or may not perceive as their sins.
Jeremy, sadly, you are a master at spin and extremely nasty innuendo. I don’t doubt for a second that you are completely blind to your behavior since you’ve been called out so many times previously. If you want people to take you seriously, you should get some close trusted friends to help you see what everyone else reading this clearly perceives. Or, you can always just continue to spew invective and slander and continue to pander to your base; after all, they’re the only ones who aren’t just rolling their eyes, going, “Wow. Yet another nasty post by Jeremy. Hard to believe this guy is actually employed as a Christian pastor.”
“They have to go somewhere…” The truth is, Jeremy, that so long as lgbt people and their family members and allies think that their welcome is conditional or partial, more and more folks will simply stay home. Many people are just one pleasant Sunday brunch away from never coming back at all.
So true, James. The end result is likely to be many more cars parked in driveways on Sunday morning, and the continued alienation of most young adults. And the Sunday brunches are a thing too. More brunch places open every month here in Austin, and they’re all packed…probably with lots of former church people.
Well written Jeremy. Thanks for your perspective. Perhaps people do not realize the damage the UMC is doing to LGBT brothers and sisters.
I’ll momentarily break with my don’t-feed-the-trolls rule to correct some of the inaccuracies this source (yet again) makes:
1-We did not critique “moderates and Middle Methodists.” Rather, our articles raised questions about a very non-moderate, liberal caucus group, which is supported by this blog’s author, whose central agenda is the same as what RMN has pushed, and whose leaders have promoted very non-middle, far-left agendas on everything from abortion to denying the resurrection and sinlessness of Jesus Christ.
2-As much as some liberals would rather we weren’t part of the same church, the fact remains that the authors of the referenced articles are not “outsiders,” but longtime United Methodists, loyal to the UMC’s core doctrine. OTOH I have not seen any criticism of the liberal MFSA caucus having an Episcopalian staffer, or a few years back hiring an executive director who had previously been a leader of Unitarian Universalist congregations.
3-This blog actually claims that “Reconciling congregations” – those which by definition have forced divisive votes to affiliate with the RMN caucus, making themselves publicly unwelcoming to more moderate and traditionalist church folk and often losing chunks of their membership – “have long avoided” holding harmful congregational votes.
4-If wealthy general agencies, and bishops controlling huge denominational machinery while holding the livelihoods and families of thousands of clergy in their hands don’t count as “the powerful” within the UMC, then it’s not clear who would.
5-We had 9 articles, not 7. If Jeremy does not block this comment, he can have the last word, but any readers interested in looking past the ad hominem to the substance of the concerns raised can view them here, ideally starting with: “Is “Uniting Methodists” Truly “Centrist” or Just Liberal Re-Branding?
https://juicyecumenism.com/tag/uniting-methodists/
Thanks for the comment, John. Our practice is to block comments that have obscene content, not obscene theology, so you are good to comment.
When all else fails, Jeremy like most progressives becomes derogatory and angry. I don’t agree with everything at IRD but at least they argue with reason and not derogatory labels.
Thanks, Jeremy. Without any sarcasm, I like your line – if not your application – about “obscene content, not obscene theology.” I might have to use that sometime! 🙂
Sure! $1 licensing fee per post. 🙂
Of course these are serious matters, what I was saying was that each side does not take the other sides point of view/arguments seriously. I was saying that I am not sure many in the Uniting Methodists were taking the conservative position seriously and that I also have seen folks on the right not take seriously the position on the left. I was hopeful that you would avoid the trappings that I have seen too often – one side taking their position more seriously than taking seriously the other side. If you are “tired of wasting time and refuse to waste any more with this issue” then I wonder if the hand washing of this matter is a reflection of no longer feeling like you are being taken seriously and thus will no longer engage with the other sides?
Is your fatigue on this and a desire to move on a result of not respected as you should be? (Also if you are moving on then why have you chosen to engage this blog/comment? I am glad you are and it makes me think that maybe you and I are of the same spirit where our actions reveal our deepest desires of connection.) Thank you for posting!
In my experience, conservative and evangelical Christians have taken this matter seriously. I have been a part of passionate, heartfelt, thoughtful discussions in such circles. We have studied the Greek text, historical Christian theology, philosophy, ethics, biology . . . you name it.
I am tired of siiting down with lib/progs simply because it rarely seems that they have thought what they believe. The whole lib/prog scene has become filled with obnoxious fundamentalists.
As to why I continue to visit this blog . . . hell if I know. I usually like to hear from different perspectives but all of this UM stuff is getting very stale predictable.
Jeremy, You state that it should be mission over theology. That is like having a ship without a rudder. Mission and ministry have to be directed by theology. It is theology first and then you direct your mission based on your theology. This is the problem with theological pluralism, you have multiple rudders steering in different directions at once and chaos always ensues.
Also you make constant references about denominations and churches that don’t include full inclusion of gays are losing members. However the numbers reveal the opposite. All denominations that have approved full or part inclusion of gays in marriage or as ministers are fading rapidly. Your entire jurisdiction has fewer members than any of the conference in the southeastern jurisdiction, where traditional theology, including among the young, dominates.If you want to join the other fading seven sister denominations on their march to extinction, turn the United Methodist church progressive!
In my experience, conservative and evangelical Christians have taken this matter seriously. I have been a part of passionate, heartfelt, thoughtful discussions in such circles. We have studied the Greek text, historical Christian theology, philosophy, ethics, biology . . . you name it.
I am tired of siiting down with lib/progs simply because it rarely seems that they have thought what they believe. The whole lib/prog scene has become filled with obnoxious fundamentalists.
As to why I continue to visit this blog . . . hell if I know. I usually like to hear from different perspectives but all of this UM stuff is getting very stale predictable.
The UMC has become a Christian country club, and their main focus is simply filling the church pews and keep the wallets open, rather than following the Word. It sickens me that money is being considered in this decision, rather than simply what is holy. If that were the case, we wouldn’t be in this mess. We had a problem of disobedience, and did nothing about it, in the name of “love”. However, sometimes love requires discipline!
Disciplining someone for an immutable characteristic is not Love.
Disciplining is a consequence of what someone has done not who they are.
Disciplining someone to keep them out of hell is an act of love! If you love someone, you will do the hard things necessary to lead them to heaven and away from hell, however you envision hell, even if that means telling them not to follow their “born” desires. Trust me I would not have been married for 35+ years if I had acted on the desires that I was born with!!
I don’t think Christians are called to completely deny all our inborn desires and feelings. For instance, Paul stated in Ephesians 4:26, “Be angry, but don’t sin.” Paul stated this even though he named many sins caused by abuses of anger in Galatians 5:20-21 as keeping a person out of the Kingdom. Hitting and slander are inappropriate ways to express anger, whereas naming feelings and calling out hurtful behaviors are appropriate expressions of anger. Desires can be acted upon either in a destructive or in a constructive way. Acting on homosexual desire by forming a life long relationship is a constructive way, but becoming a sexual predator like Donald Trump is a destructive way to express desire. 81% of Evangelicals voted for Donald Trump, which shows these particular Evangelicals condone his being a sexual predator, even though a good many of these same Trump supporters strongly condemn stable, life long, faithful Gay relationships.
I am really worried about the Methodist church. I cannot in good conscience be in a church that sanctions marriage between two people of the same sex. Let us just split and use different name. There are older people who are grappling with this, but no mention is made of their plight. I thought the church was suppose to be a beacon of hope that affected the culture. No, it’s the other way around; we have become a reflection of our culture, just what God warned and warned the Israelites not to do.