This past week, three organizations advocating against LGBTQ inclusion in The United Methodist Church issued disturbing ultimatums to the A Way Forward process and the Bishops who will bring it forward.
The Good (News?)
Rev. Rob Renfroe, speaking on behalf of the Good News Movement, promises that if there is a whiff of compromise, his caucus group will destroy The United Methodist Church:
Treat us with contempt and one of three things will happen. One, we will defeat the plan and the bishops will have failed in the one thing we have asked them to do in decades – resolve our division and lead us forward – leaving the church in chaos and further disunity.
Two, we will put forth a plan that resolves the conflict by allowing traditionalists to be faithful to our understanding of Scripture, and that plan will pass.
Three, the local option will pass and we will become invisible. You won’t see us or many of our churches in what’s left of the denomination. As for our value, you’ll find out how much we added to the church when we’re gone.
Short version: Pass our plan…or else.
The Bad
Rev. Keith Boyette, speaking on behalf of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, promises a similar exodus but not before rejecting two years of intense denominational discernment outright:
The WCA is committed to upholding our sexual ethics, definitions of marriage and ordination standards for the simple reason that they are grounded in Scripture and the historic teachings of the faith.
Regardless of the recommendation of the COB, we will contend for this position through legislation submitted to the special called 2019 General Conference. Should the UM Church abandon its current sexual ethic, definition of marriage and ordination standards, the WCA will provide a home for laity, clergy and churches committed to what has been historically taught and believed by Christians in all times and in all places.
Like we feared before, the WCA is now pledging to present alternative legislation opposing A Way Forward. And as we outlined before, it has a viable course of acceptance.
The Unbelievably Ugly
This guy. I don’t even know what to do with this. The Legal Counsel for the Wesleyan Covenant Association, Daniel Dalton, who wrote their founding documents is peddling his legal services to churches who are contemplating leaving the UMC.
He wrote this rambling diatribe on his blog. And ended with this:
The professionals at Dalton & Tomich, PLC have helped many local Churches leave denominations and prepare to leave the Methodist denomination. You can email us to find out the five things the local Church should do to prepare for departure or learn more about the Trust Clause through our whitepaper.
Up till today, I’ve never believed the characterizations of some lawyers as shameless ambulance chasers. I do now.
Look what you made me do
The only good news from the above is that they’ve finally come out in the open.
None of these letters would have seen the light of day 18 months ago. That was when the caucus groups were in charm school and denying allegations of schism. They took to public letters to refute General Conference delegates, like when Good News’ Walter Fenton lambasted a Texas delegate, Ricky Harrison.
In reality, no one is actually calling for “schism.” The only people bandying around that scare word are those who evidently want to tar others as proponents of schism…Who in the UM Church is promoting schism or strongly advocating for separation, amicable or otherwise?
The lady doth protest too much, methinks!
But what’s the endgame?
Here’s the problem with the digital saber-rattling: people are unsure if the above schism advocates want schism or if they are fanning the flames of schism to facilitate a takeover ala the Southern Baptist Convention’s moderate expulsion of the 1980s.
But history tells us something.
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 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.
But looking back, that simply wasn’t the case.
Fool Moderates once…
The 1980s were when the conservative perspective was resurgent and attractive to moderate Methodist delegates to General Conferences. We removed our commitment to ecumenism in 1988. “Fidelity in marriage, celibacy in singleness” language that specifically targeted LGBTQ people came in 1984. The Houston Declaration was in 1987. Bam bam bam.
So why did the parallel traditionalist universe begin at the same time their perspective was resurgent in United Methodism?
I believe that the mere existence of such parallel entities allowed them to intimidate and claim power over the institution in private, all the while claiming minority persecuted status in public.
And it led to a Church that was silent in the face of the AIDS epidemic, callously turned away by a silent moderate majority that had been cowed by fear stoked by the conservative minority.
It worked then.
And it is working now.
Fool Moderates twice?
During the past six years, the ratcheting up of conservative industrial entities has intensified at a rate unseen since the 1980s.
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 six 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.
All the while, the WCA and Good News claim minority, persecuted status from meanie bishops above. But silent moderates and conservatives are the majority in the Church…unless the moderates aren’t so silent.
The 1980s taught us that silent moderate Methodists could be intimidated into believing perspectives that didn’t stand the test of time, leading to harm and death.
The Church loses its way when the conservative industrial complex slips into full gear and claims persecution in order to persecute others, rather than full participation in the discernment process they previously venerated.
The same strategy is on display today.
Will the moderates be fooled again?
Be the Connection
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win.”
– Gandhi (attributed)
The endgame is unclear, but there are many months ahead. Be vigilant, talk with your bishops until their plan is crafted, then talk with General Conference delegates (the same ones from 2016, in most conferences). Share stories of your local church’s good work, reach out to neighboring churches in partner projects or international missions to Africa, support UMCOR, and pray.
Be the connection that the above parties so desperately want to unravel.
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media with your local church, conference committees, and friends.
[Update: Original post erroneously identified Walter Fenton with the IRD rather than the appropriate Good News. It has been corrected.]
Yes!!! All of this – thanks Jeremy. We must not be the silent majority – we must be the engaged, vocal, active majority. Silence is complicity. It must not be an option.
Bravo, Jeremy! We should certainly do our best to continue to “be the connection” until the shameful hypocrites burn everything to the ground. Would only that this process could have happened a little later, after many more of the misguided and yes, sometimes very hateful homophobes could have already departed permanently.
Despite my personal antipathy toward you, I do still read your stuff, and want to commend you for sounding this alarm and call to action. And kudos for the subtle Empire allusion.
So far you are the only one to notice it! Blessings, Keith!
I noticed it too, as well as the Tolkien allusion.
Yes, Jeremy!!
So how are the evil conservatives who you say are saying do it our way or else different than the LGBT, etc. saying do it our way or else? Seems that both are arguing from their understanding of what is authoritative to life and faith. Seems that the issue is what is the authority. Obviously, at least to me, the Book of Discipline is not the authority as it is so plainly ignored. So under what authority is the UMC supposed to be organized? There seems to be none and that to me makes the discussion about division moot as there is no real unity.
John, the difference in my eyes is that the effort for LGBT inclusion is not saying do it our way or else. The Way Forward’s 2nd option, and to a lesser degree 3rd option, both give permission without requiring for conferences to ordain and pastors to marry. There is no serious effort to require pastors to a marry a gay couple. But as a pastor I am required to NOT marry a gay couple currently.
So the ordination of a Bishop who is a practicing lesbian is not an our way or else action? Interesting, especially when this is in direct violation of the Book of Discipline, but then it does not seem to matter. If this does not matter to you all then what parts of the Book of Discipline do? Besides the parts that protect your positions and retirement.
Don’t know the Paragraph # but it’s under the District Structure. Board of Congregational Development, Committee on Church Location and Building, Congregational Assessment Process, Involuntary Discontinuance.
If the Gospel really is something we are called to actually live out, evangelizing by being “doers of the word,” rather than just talking about it, nothing shows better the “affliction of heart” to which the UMC now suffers yet again, both together and alone. Fellowship, community, and sanctuary matter and they are not the property of the institution the are the blessings of the people.
The willful, involuntary, “official discontinuance” of local congregations, without the express consent of the professed members of the local church is contrary to ever principle of grace, mercy, and Christicty wherever two or more are gathered.
It seems that the traditionalist faction is happy to use the Discipline when it serves their purpose but perhaps not when it doesn’t. At least there’s not a firm commitment to work with the current process—TFW and GC2019—until they see whether they like the results. That’s no commitment.
Several of the trials against clergy have concluded with a just resolution. That’s perfectly legitimate according to the BoD and for good reason but the practice has drawn criticism from those who insist on harsh penalties.
Let’s be very clear– they are actively working to manipulate the trust clause in their own image and are already positioning churches as well as pastors to leave the denomination.
Thanks for your analysis
It is called taking a stand. And you can’t say they are not speaking with clarity.
It’s about time they stepped into the light. I’ve only been calling for it for 18 months.
You give a one sided history.
Thank you for capturing the words of these exclusionary groups for everyone who might not be keeping up with what is coming. I cringe at what they are trying to offer up as a loving example of Christian devotion. When these groups finally choose to vacate there will Loving Methodist communities at the ready to welcome and embrace their children, parents, grandparents, neighbors and all whom they will continue to reject and hurt.
To think that conservatives will vacate seems wishful thinking to me. Unfortunately, I’m afraid, there will be a majority for option 1 and those of us who’ll be unhappy about it will be told that we may
leave if we can’t accept the decision. Sad outcome, but no surprise.
I think you are right. It will be the Africans who will decide. Some of them I am told can accept the local option since it.legitimizes their existing exclusion of LGBT people and does not jeopardize the US funding they receive from.both liberal and conservative churches. The question is just how many Africans feel this way? Enough to swing the vote for the one church model? Or will the conservatives scare them into supporting No.1? If that happens will liberals leave…or just hunker down…
and the war will continue? I for one will not stay to watch the next round of executions.
Jeremy, thank you for again doing the work of providing essential history and needed context while shining light on what the extreme conservatives inside (and, importantly, outside) the UMC are actually doing and saying. I am grateful for your work here.
Jeremy, if everyone departed who don’t agree with your position, how many do estimate would be left? How big would the “UMC” in the US be at that point? In your opinion. Serious question from a cradle Methodist.
Bob, I’ve lived my entire life in a denomination that I don’t agree with every letter and punctuation point. I love it regardless. I’ve served as a pastor my entire life to parishioners who don’t agree with me to every letter and punctuation point. I love them regardless. It isn’t hard to live in dissonance for straight white people like me, since I’m often the privileged majority. So my hope is a big tent that has moved on from this debate like we did the debate over the ordination of women and the appointment of African-American clergy to white pulpits.
thanks
Bob, what Jeremy didn’t admit is that if all of the traditionalists left, the UMC would be about 1/3 of it’s present size and it would collapse financially. You could also kiss off Africa. I doubt this would happen but a substantial number will leave. I know a pastor with three churches and if given an out on the trust clause, all three will leave. They are not alone. By the way, the conservatives are not creating schism, the progressives are. Conservatives are trying to maintain a 3000+ year history of human sexuality. The BOD is on their side. Since progressives can’t produce a reason to convince the majority of Methodists to switch to their sides, they have taken to violating their oaths and the BOD. If you can’t change the law, then just break it seems to be their motto. We are not the ones who elected a gay Bishop or just recently appointed a gay DS. Instead of reasoning you are forcing the issue, so don’t be surprised or upset that conservatives are fighting back. All of this is why so many churches are fed up with the UMC and would love an out. The UMC has never done anything but appoint a pastor or given a dime to them. However it does collect a lot of money from churches that it doesn’t help.
Scott, you seem bitter that progressives love people the way they were born. I am sad for you. As for 3,000 years of history, think about all of the atrocities people accepted throughout time because of history. Thanks to science, we have a better understanding now than we ever have of gender and sexuality. To say that being LGBT is wrong or even unnatural is to say that God messed up in His creation (since science shows us that people are born this way and are not choosing “a lifestyle.” I, for one, choose to love and accept people, even in positions of leadership, who exemplify the love of God.
Tim,
Rather than “listen” to science and surmise what God is saying, others such as myself would rather listen and follow what God has actually told us, LGBT IS UNNATURAL. In fact it is more than that, it is sinful and an abomination before God. I refer you to Leviticus 18 and 20, as well as 1 Corithians and Romans. The Bible is very clear as to where God stands on LGBT.
Now, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t love LGBT, because he does. I, as a Christian, also love my LGBT brothers and sisters. However, that does not mean I agree with my LGBT brothers and sisters. I want them to follow God’s word and turn from their sinful ways. It is because I love them that I want to be honest with them and seek the best for them. To agree with them does not love nor honor them, it only enables them to continue in their sinfulness. This is no different than enabling an alcoholic.
What I and others like me cannot abide is leaders who do not listen to God and his word Re LGBT. They choose to ignore him. How can I/we trust or give any creditability to any so called UMC leader who tries to lead us in violation of God’s word or broken their oath to abide by the BoD. They have failed us.
Jeremy, once again you have illuminated the strategy. After several years of thoughtful meetings and seriously sincere efforts to find a way in which we can all live together, these few individuals would like to throw it away and basically go back to Egypt. And probably make so some money in the process.
The “Back to Egypt” committee is strong in most churches–no reason it wouldn’t be here too!
I think their endgame is pretty clear, the question is really: Why now? I feel that the answer to that is that they think they must act now or inclusiveness will prevail.
“Up till today, I’ve never believed the characterizations of lawyers as shameless ambulance chasers. I do now.”
Really? Because, based solely on your sampling, a more accurate generalization would be that United Methodist clergy are at least twice as shameless as lawyers. Or, to avoid generalization: at least twice as many United Methodist clergy than lawyers are shameless.
Cheri Duncan
Assistant Public Defender
Admitted to the Texas Bar 1985. Also admitted: United States Supreme Court, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Eastern District of Texas.
Board certified, Criminal Appellate Law, Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
Cheri,
I apologize. I left out the word “some” and I see it disconcerted you. I’ve updated the post to be more accurate to the situation.
Blessings, ~Jeremy
Thank you.
I do wish you didn’t buy into the stereotype at all, especially since it does not strengthen your argument.
Still, thank you for acknowledging that I was “disconcerted.” A better word would have been “hurt.” Contrary to another familiar stereotype, lawyers actually do have feelings, too.
Having lived through the “unification” and having as a step father one of the lawyers for the conference I can say hold to your guns Cheri. It was the Bishops and their counselors that insisted on the brutal treatment of those who did not wish to be united. It came down to money and money only. It was years before my step father could be comfortable in church again and he bore the scars of what he had to do for his client the UMC.
Correction: Walter Fenton wasn’t affiliated with the IRD when he wrote his screed against Ricky Harrison. He was with Good News. Now he is with the WCA, even though he’s still listed on the Good News website as their director of development.
Whoops! Thanks, Cynthia. Will update.
Please update to delete your needless buy-in to an ugly stereotype of an entire profession — my profession. I’m disappointed in you, and I can only hope you would not be that insensitive to any other group of people.
As a personal aside, I believe that my work as a lawyer is as much a calling to the Lord’s work as any minister’s is.
Cheri
Cheri,
I apologize. I left out the word “some” and I see it disconcerted you. I’ve updated the post to be more accurate to the situation.
Blessings, ~Jeremy
Hmmm! One Discipline to rule them all, my precious?
You know, Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church has said that anti-discrimination laws supporting homosexuality and transgenderism are “at odds with the moral nature of human beings.” He is heavily supported by Putin, to include financial support. I would be very interested to know if the Russian Patriarchate has any ties to the WCA, Good News, or the IRD.
The question isn’t whether Russian money is behind groups like the WCA, Good News or the IRD. The question is whether that information will be revealed before February 2019.
Mueller’s investigation has already shown that Russia did, indeed, target religious organizations with no specific names for what those organizations are.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2018/01/23/russian-infiltration-various-religious-groups-lot/
If I understand correctly, you’re saying the pertinent question is whether the information about the truthfulness of the assertion that Russian money is behind those groups will be revealed before February 2019. Given that NO groups have been identified, might the Russians have backed RMN, Love Prevails, and other progressive organizations as well (or instead)? Once one starts speculating about things with nothing more than a hunch to go on, there’s no end to the rabbit trails we can imagine.
If the only acceptable plan was “status quo, but more so” then the last two years were a waste of everyone’s time and a phenomenal display of bad faith.
I was quite encouraged by the positive statements from Pat Miller and Tom Lambrecht up until recently. Now it seems as if that was only so much hot air.
Let’s see an article on how the so-called renewal groups and so-called centrists gave organized over the past decades to formally and blatantly reject the decisions of General Conferences.
Thanks Jeremy, It is important to keep a scorecard of who says what about our church. I have no personal vision for a justice filled unified way forward for the United Methodist Church. But I still believe the Holy Spirit can work in ways I cannot perceive.
Jeremy, you sound desperate when you start to blame the conservative industrial complex for what is happening in the church. Now one of your readers wants to link Good News, etc to Putin and the Russians. Next someone will claim that Trump and the Koch brothers are secretly in charge of the conservative wing of the church. My advise: lay off the Kool Aid, read the scriptures and believe them, and pray, pray, pray!
It doesn’t appear to me that Jeremy is laying undue blame at the feet of the “conservative industrial complex.” Actually, “conservative industrial complex” appears to be a seldom-used construction, because of all the vast, indexed web content indexed by Google, the phrase “conservative industrial complex” (when you isolate it by searching for it in quotes) only produces “about 553 results” (my Google-fu shows that it was coined by conservative writer Andrew Sullivan in August, 2009). Jeremy gave some hints at what he meant by the construct, and one only need look to the funding of the IRD, especially when it got started (info here: umaction.org/FollowTheMoney.html) to see lots of money from extreme right-wing sources helping to fund hostile takeovers of progressive and moderate denominations. No involvement by Trump, the Koch brothers, or the Russians, but plenty of big-name, ultra-conservative foundation money was given to the IRD, even while it was claiming to be relying “entirely upon the generosity of United Methodists like you” (from a November, 1999 UMAction letter).
I’m not sure characterizations as “extreme right-wing,” “hostile takeovers,” and “ultra-conservative” add to meaningful dialogue, especially when there are many who are “merely” conservative (not “ultra-conservative,” whatever that means) who see the efforts of the renewal groups as “reclaiming” denominations perceived to have been overtaken by “liberal” (or even “ultra-liberal,” whatever that means) interests.
And PBS stations say they get their funding from “viewers like you,” disregarding the funds they receive from a variety of influential foundations. I’m not saying two wrongs make a right, but to think there’s something unique to IRD’s claims is naive at best.
If we can avoid polemics, we might even get heard by those who disagree with us.
You are wrong about PBS, at least about my local PBS station: WTTW, Channel 11, Chicago. Their announcement concludes…”…and viewers like you” AFTER listing donations by very wealthy families and individuals, and donations by foundations….
It is time to be honest about what is happening. Everybody is funded by outside sources. RMN, IRD, GoodNews, etc will all accept donations from whoever. I fear that the UMC is now the site of a proxy war between progressive and conservative Christian factions. There may be no guns, but it is going to be ugly just like the proxy war in Yemen, between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Any way you face it this is going to be either a very ugly divorce or were going to end up like the couple in “The War of the Roses”.
The question isn’t whether Russian money is behind groups like the WCA, Good News or the IRD. The question is whether that information will be revealed before February 2019.
Mueller’s investigation has already shown that Russia did, indeed, target religious organizations with no specific names for what those organizations are.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2018/01/23/russian-infiltration-various-religious-groups-lot/
Russian money?
Is there a twelve step program for drinking too much of the progressive “kool aid”.
Is this a joke or do you sadly believe that the Russians are trying to keep the UMC traditional? Do you have any proof or are you just casting stones?
It seems that we are dedicated to our dogma, whatever that may be, and not to fellowship and love.
My fear is that the forces of a strict enforcement of dogma at the global church / General Conference level will trounce the genuine goodwill between people of different views in the local church. Those of us that live in small churches with diverse opinions are not recognized or heard.
I am fearful that my LBGTQI sisters and brothers will never be recognized as devoted Christians. Let’s find a way forward where we can all celebrate in God’s Big Tent. If we were all dedicated to truly finding a way forward, the pluralistic church I thought I grew up in will still be here after 2019 and beyond. Let’s find the common ground as a way forward.
I have posed this question frequently in other venues and never gotten a straight answer to it, so why not try it here? It’s more a procedural question than one pertaining to specific content.
Why do some of you post comments without revealing your identity?
Are you embarrassed to claim your stated views?
Do you prefer the safety of anonymity, especially when attacking or condemning others?
Sadly, I think it’s time for schism. Let the WCA form it’s own denomination if we go with contextual. Or, if the opposite happens, the RMN and progressives can do so too if we go with accountability. Yes it will be painful, there will be hurt, and relationships will be severely tested, which is happening already. One of my former bishops said that the UMC is a voluntary organization, and no one is being held against their will to stay. He was talking about church members who threaten to leave if they donxt get their way, and I think it applies in this situation. There are many strong conflicting convictions which we will not legislate to agreement. I also think we’ll be surprised with the result of schism.
I wonder if we really know the percentage of traditionalists and progressives and moderates. In one weekend 1 from my congregation let me know that she and her husband would be leaving if full inclusion happens, and another told me she and her husband would leave if it didn’t. Both these women are active in mission and ministry, working together at times, and have no idea that the other holds opposite views. They seem to be moderate but are just quietly one side or the other.
In my conference there is a huge clergy retirement wave and few new ordinands. A couple of my retiring colleagues have told me they want out before this all goes down even though it means less pension. On the other hand, a local pastor colleague has put off ordination and 2 seminary grads that i know arent moving toward ordination until the dust has settled. They too are not sharing their opinions and plans publicly.
Whatever happens, I don’t believe that we in the US will let our sisters and brothers in Africa down; at least, not on a congregational level.
I think have decided what I will do in any case. I suspect that others will be surprised when i leave or stay. In the meantime I’ve been following God’s leading, with fear and trembling, to mediation, reconciliation, compassionate listening, communication training, and transotional / intentional interim ministry. Hardest work I’ve ever loved.
Again, one of our biggest problems is that each side thinks they are Paul and the other Barnabas.
Jeremy has spent a significant amount of his time as a communications person (officially or unofficially) for revisionists and too little time taking a real look at the true state of the denomination.
Love Prevails has dedicated itself to disruption if it does not get what it wants. Revisionists have staged demonstrations at the last five (at least) General Conferences when the democratic process has not gone in their direction.
The leadership of the Council of Bishops asked General Conference to give it a chance to present another path. It appears that the two paths that a majority of COB will present are either “local option” for the nth time or some sort of division designed to fail. A strong majority of the denomination does not favor revising our ordination standards. It is possible that is a wrong-headed position but it is not going to change any time soon. So, we either create a far more graceful exit than Jeremy’s crew would ever provide if they actually “won” or we go with something like the “autonomous affiliated conference” route for the Western Jurisdiction and those conferences, churches and bishops who are unwilling to abide by our current ordination standards.
In this situation, it is the Western Jurisdiction leadership that fired the shots at Fort Sumter. Instead of “Uniting Methodists” and “centrists” who are simply revisionists who are pretending to be something they really aren’t, perhaps it is better if we have a real conversation about how much connectionalism we really want to have and can sustain. Continuing a situation where the rest of the USA pays for an episcopal office occupied by someone who publicly disobeys the ordination standards is simply unsustainable.
To me, the issue boils down to understanding what God wants. The Bible clearly presents LGBT as against His will. I know same-sex attraction is extremely powerful, but to say that God is responsible for it seems to conflict with the Bible. The only thing I see is when God “gave them over” to it. I believe we must welcome and love those with same-sex attraction, but I don’t think they should be allowed to teach its practice as anything other than sin, and should not be given positions of leadership in the church.
The church must be faithful to the authority and teaching of the Bible. Without that, it has nothing to offer anyone. There are many other churches available that are faithful.