In 2018’s Marvel movie Black Panther, the antagonist Killmonger seized the throne of Wakanda and received the superhuman abilities of Black Panther. He then burns the grove of plants that for centuries have given Black Panther kings their strength. Killmonger believes this burning away of an irreplaceable resource ensures that there will never be a challenger to his reign (even though one heart-shaped plant is saved, which sets up the final cinematic confrontation between Killmonger and T’Challa).
This scene serves as a helpful illustration of the primary motivator of the Traditionalist Plan…Rage. Rage felt against a particular segment of United Methodism, a rage that burns away that which makes United Methodism unique in an attempt to wipe that segment off the rolls of the Church.
The Plan, part 1:
Heightened Restrictions
The Traditionalist Plan was never fully developed by the Commission on the Way Forward and instead was prepared by a few members of the Council of Bishops. Only 9 out of 32 “A Way Forward” participants supported it in the end. But it has the most potential for disruption of United Methodism as we know it, and influential people rich in resources are supporting it.
If adopted as currently written, this plan would not only strengthen anti-LGBTQ provisions presently included in the Book of Discipline; it would add new measures intended to ensure “greater accountability” and stricter enforcement at every level of the United Methodist Church.
The Traditionalist Plan broadens the definition of “a self-avowed, practicing homosexual” to include anyone living in the context of same-sex marriage or civil union, and any public statement (including social media) claiming an LGBTQ identity. It removes peer accountability from trial processes and ensures minimum sentences for particular LGBTQ-related offenses.
If your breath catches there, you’ll need to sit down before you read the next section.
The Plan, part 2:
Heightened Punishments
One of the more controversial elements of the Traditionalist Plan is that it proposes “gracious accountability” for LGBTQ people and those who oppose current Church restrictions on same-sex marriage and ordination.
Before 2020 General Conference all annual conferences must certify in writing that they will uphold LGBTQ prohibitions. Failure to certify results in GCFA withholding funds to the conference and preventing the use of the Cross and Flame logo, and initiates negotiations on the annual conference becoming a separate denomination. Certifications are also required in regards to the Board of Ordained Ministry: Bishops must certify they nominated only persons upholding discipline; members of Board of Ordained Ministry must certify; Boards must certify they examined the sexuality of candidates.
In short, multiple levels of leadership of an annual conference must sign a statement saying they will uphold the heightened LGBTQ restrictions, or else they will lose their identity and funding as a United Methodist entity.
The Plan, part 3:
Manufactured Expulsion
The heightened restrictions and punishments are utilized to encourage the exit of clergy and congregations from The United Methodist Church. The Plan “helpfully” outlines a smooth path for churches and clergy seeking to exit United Methodism.
The container for these exiting churches are autonomous-affiliated or concordat bodies, i.e., self-governing churches that such persons are requested to join by surrendering their membership in the United Methodist Church. Here’s our previous coverage of this concept. 50 local churches can leave to form a self-governing church once that church has a mission statement, Book of Discipline, and provisional leadership. Conferences must release these churches to the new autonomous conference without the usual payments under the Trust Clause. Clergy and bishops may transfer membership to this church. This provision becomes effective immediately upon adjournment of the 2019 General Conference.
While UMC structure is basically unchanged in the plan, it does result in one, two, or more new denominations, though only United Methodism (i.e. Traditionalists) retains ownership of the money, agencies, and institutions.
The Specifics
Here’s a link to the full plan, starting on page 132. The Traditionalist plan is on section pages 55-57, then 63-84.
The following outline examines how the Plan affects each circle of United Methodism. This section was drawn from the legislation and prepared by a third party, with some local editing.
What happens to Local Churches?
- No local church will be required to vote on anything. However, congregations that disagree with their annual conference decision to enforce the Discipline could vote to withdraw from the UMC or join a newly created autonomous-affiliated or concordat Church.
- The planned, systematic expulsion of churches and conferences would result in higher apportionments as fewer churches would remain to share the apportionment burden.
What happens to Clergy?
- Urges clergy not willing to support disciplinary provisions around same-sex marriage and ordination to leave United Methodism and join autonomous-affiliate or concordat Church.
- Requires clergy found guilty of breaking current or future disciplinary provisions regarding the performance of same-sex marriages to surrender their credentials.
- Mandates that any just resolution reached during a clergy complaint process must include a commitment not to repeat the offense.
What happens to Annual Conferences?
- Directs annual conferences to certify that they will enforce current and future disciplinary provisions related to LGBTQ issues.
- Encourages annual conferences with alternate views to the current Discipline to leave United Methodism and form autonomous-affiliated or concordat churches.
- Stipulates that annual conferences that do not certify their compliance with the Discipline by 2021 will no longer receive UM funds or be allowed to use the UM name or logo.
What happens to Bishops?
- Mandates that both active and retired bishops must certify that they will uphold disciplinary restrictions by 2021 or lose the ability to be compensated for their expenses by GCFA.
- Encourages those who do not certify compliance to the heightened anti-LGBTQ restrictions to leave United Methodism and join an autonomous-affiliated or Concordat Church.
What happens to Central Conferences?
- No Changes Anticipated, other than reduced funding available after churches unwilling to certify anti-LGBTQ doctrine leave The UMC.
What happens to the General Church?
- No Changes Anticipated, other than reduced funding available after churches unwilling to certify anti-LGBTQ doctrine leave The UMC
One curious note
On page 64, churches can leave The UMC for any reason and only have to pay the unfunded pension liability. So we would see a massive exodus of megachurches who pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in apportionments each year, even if they support the new anti-LGBTQ doctrines. Money is money.
Hacking Christianity (HX) Perspective
The Traditionalist Plan is full of rage: it goes on for pages and pages of rage against bishops and forms a tight cage around them, believing the more they tighten their grip, the fewer Bishop Olivetos or Talberts will slip through their fingers. It’s like the comments section on UMC Facebook groups became actual legislation. Little wonder as it was written by a small group of bishops after losing a vote against the One Church plan. Shame and rage are a lousy atmosphere for drafting legislation, but as we know from US politics, they are persuasive to particular groups of people.
Beyond the rhetoric and legalese, the method is straightforward: force the leadership of The UMC to sign faith statements disavowing the dignity of LGBTQ persons. If they don’t, they will be forced out of United Methodism, and the Traditionalists will take over those leadership positions. Signing statements are presented as forms of control of bishops, clergy, and Boards of Ordained Ministry (pages 70-71), but the reality is they are used to remove people at the outset.
It is so fascinating how sex and money are intertwined in the Traditionalist Plan. The GCFA (money and finance people) becomes the enforcers of the new Traditionalist regime, turning a structure from mutual growth and support to enforcement and accountability. Any deviance and you are expelled, with no money coming from GCFA (which controls episcopal funds and many others), forcing churches and conferences to tear off the Cross and Flames from their buildings (page 71).
In closing, the Traditionalist Plan is less a Vision for United Methodism than it is a reaction to LGBTQ inclusion. The rage-induced flailing combines Inquisition, coerced Loyalty Pledge to a discrimination regime, Enforcement, Purge, and an extra dose of Schism into a toxic proposal for United Methodism.
The rage has a purpose. The purpose of the Traditionalist plan isn’t to find a just resolution to the tension over LGBTQ inclusion in The United Methodist Church. It is to remove progressives and moderates and young evangelicals from leadership, gerrymandering the slim 55% Traditionalist majority into an unbreakable majority at every level of The United Methodist Church.
All of which will take place if the GC2019 delegates choose Rage over reasonable realignment, Fury over the future with hope, and Fire burning the unique combination of United Methodism into ashes, scattered to the winds to keep any phoenix Spirit from arising.
May God have mercy on The United Methodist Church and guide us to a better future. The choice is yours.
Your Turn
Whew. Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
What happens to the laity in this scenario? What if they don’t want to either relinquish their membership in the denomination they grew up in or change churches? A lot of people who cannot live with this kind of hostility will be left stranded. Many will have to leave Methodism altogether because affirming churches may not be close enough. A lot of people will choose to retreat from the Church altogether, disdaining the hatred and acrimony. People have already done so and it will just get worse. Hatred and rage in the name of orthodoxy (whose?) are totally antithetical to the Christian faith and should be rejected in the strongest possible way. by voting for the One Church Plan or something more affirming. It is time for the silent to find their voices and stand up for what is compatible with the teachings of Jesus. Love for God and neighbor is the essence of the Gospel. You cannot love your neighbor and tell them they aren’t welcome in the full life of the denomination.
Sure they can. They’ve been doing it for years. If this passes, they’ll have the blessing of the Church to tell us we aren’t their neighbor and to get the hell out. It works for 45, it works for his cohort politicians – it will certainly work for the hatemongers of the UMC.
I just don’t understand. Jesus never said, I love you But….your gay, but you are an adulterous person, but you harbor hate in you heart, but your divorced, but you are a sinner. I believe Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. ❤️
Jesus never said, “I love you, so let’s make love,” either. The love that Jesus affirms, that we should all share with everyone, is agape, selfless love; not eros, sexual love. One who loves (agape) others wishes the best for them, and since there is nothing better than God’s love (“if you love me you will keep my commandments”), wishes that they act according to God’s will, and not their own.
Jesus said He loves the person yes but also said “Go and sin no more” He never accepted sin along with the person. He only accepted the individual. And if we were about Love it would be about the individual. Unfortunately BOTH sides making it about sex and personal wants and desires.
Jesus have love and grace to the sinner and then this then you soon no more
“A lot of people will choose to retreat from the Church altogether, disdaining the hatred and acrimony. ”
That is probably the worst part.
Sounds like rage on every side of this.
Definitely some on both sides, which is why we have a duty and call to hold it together as “one church” in a United Methodist approach which puts love for each other first.
Those on the extremes need to pray, seek guidance and come back to earth with a bump determined to care more for their neighbors than some words from nearly half a century ago in a book of discipline. Those words need to go, but the people all need to stay.
When did seeking justice — a central biblical value — come to be considered to be “on the extreme”? That is just both-sidesism, a false moral equivalence.
What happens to the real estate if a church or Annual Conference refuses to sign? Does the affiliated/concordant/new whatever get to take their buildings and property with them (doesn’t seem likely)?
Do you know whom the bishops are that wrote the Traditional plan? Can you say whom they are?
I don’t know for sure which bishops wrote the traditional plan but the two who voted for it publicly are Eben Nhiwatiwa, and John Wesley Yohanna, along w/ 7 others, lay & clergy, on the COWF.
The only other bishop who publicly supported a plan (the One Church Plan) was Rosemary Werner, along with 17 others, lay & clergy, on the COWF.
The 9 for the traditional plan and the 18 for the One church plan total 27, leaving 5 on the COWF who are not named as publicly supporting a plan. There are five other bishops on the COWF so my guess is that they are the 5 not named in public support of a plan. These are
Ciriaco Francisco
Grant Hagiya
Gregory Palmer
Robert Schnase
Debra Wallace-Padgett
I read this plan earlier this week and prayed I was misunderstanding – surely people that I know and live as colleagues would not want this for our church?! Is this what the traditionalists have wanted all along? This slash and burn and control? And my more cynical side rose up to say – this is the threat. Not the plan for the future, but the threat.
I believe it is vital we know which bishops wrote the Traditional plan, too. They have violated the trust of their ordination and consecration, and Wesley’s admonition to “do no harm.” For many of us, they are our bishops, and we need to know. And, as of this moment, I am declaring myself gay for the purposes of the UMC. I have an earring. I fly a rainbow flag. I love people of the same sex.
Love that!
Stephen Drachler, you rock!
I believe the Commission On The Way Forward wrote all plans. Initially, the bishops as a whole only supported the OCP. They even recommended to not present the Traditional plan as an option. This shows just how out of touch the bishops are with the body of the church. Therefore the Traditional plan received very little to no time, compared to the OCP, in the commission to try and perfect its language to avoid constitutional challenges.
http://www.livingout.org/
COWF wrote & recommended the OCP and the CCP, and recommended both in their report. As I understand it from multiple sources, the TP was written by a single rogue COWF member (Tom Lambrecht, also co-author of the now-infamous 2004 Good News hostile UMC takeover plan) who then organized a small side group of bishops to lobby for its inclusion in the report.
And his lobbying worked. The TP was included in the COWF report as an “Appendix” and unrecommended, as the COWF did not work on it.
There is an ugliness in this that I never, ever saw in my former spiritual home, the United Church of Canada, when this issue (which we called ‘the issue’) was being discussed. Yes, some members and congregations left, others withheld givings to the Mission and Service Fund, but this plan as it is described is just plain vitriol.
Yes, ‘out’ the Bishops who wrote this. Ask them, ‘Do you think this plan is lawful? Even if you think it is lawful, how is it beneficial? How does it build up the body?’ Really, make them answer these questions.
Let the schism begin. I say “GO!” And with our blessing – and don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you! Go, Go, Go and take your hatred and vitriolic liturgy elsewhere and let us get back to doing church – REAL church!
I have heard rage from every side in this mess. Each side wants the other to leave. The Reconciling speaker says they “will burn it down” before they give up. The WCA speaker says they will leave en masse if the Disciplines prohibitions are removed. The One Church speaker says theirs is the only viable option with a smug “we’re smarter than you” affect.
We all lose!
That is so sad to hear. But I have no doubt it is true. Is there a way forward on sexuality issues that doesn’t blow up this denomination I call home? I hope everyone is praying for God’s guidance on this.
I wasn’t raised Methodist but I have been going to a Methodist church for about 5 years. I do not hate people who are LGBTQ. However, it is clear in God Word our Bible it’s wrong and so is adultry, and other sins. When you become a Christian you repent. You don’t do those things anymore. You can’t condone sin. There are 2 paths the straight and narrow and the wide path. I don’t know about the book of discipline but I’m going with God’s word.
It is not “clear in God [sic] Word our Bible” that loving, committed, exclusive same-sex relationships are wrong, so acceptance and full inclusion of LGBTQ persons is not “condon[ing] sin.” This view in based on a superficial literal reading of a few verses in the Bible without proper regard for their context, the ancient cultural values on which they are based, and especially their opposition to the overwhelming message of scripture as a whole. Additionally, in many cases (though not in all) this feigned loyalty to biblical teaching is a mask for homophobia and purity-based authoritarianism.
idiot
Bishop Nhiwatiwa was one of the founders of Africa University. I guess he has no idea that this plan, if adopted, would spell the end of that educational institution.
I think it was about 20 years ago when a young United Methodist pastor came out as a non-practicing lesbian. She was de-frocked and I seriously debated leaving the denomination. I finely decided that I would be a more effective force for God’s love within the church. I am a loving member of a reconciling congregation. This would devastate us and me personally. I love being a United Methodist, but I love my God more! My God is a loving God whom I believe is greatly saddened, weeping over His children who have strayed so far. When Jesus said love each other, this is certainly not what He meant. I pray for them that they find their way back to our beloved Savior’s path!
It is worth noting that 55% of United Methodist support the traditionalist plan according to this article. Further, the vast majority of Christians over the past 2000 years have held similar positions. Across the world today most Christians (including Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Pentecostal churches) support similar values. Only a relatively few Main Line, Western Christians hold other values concerning human sexuality. While I do not believe morals are to be determined by popular vote, the breadth and depth of the support for traditional values on human sexuality, suggest that the Holy Spirit is leading our faith in this direction.
One hundred years ago, close to 100% of Christians, and of members of the UMC’s predecessor denominations, surely would have held “traditionalist” positions. Today, though, that is down to only 55% in the UMC. The trendlines — certainly in the West, and now beginning elsewhere too, as movements for LGBTQ human and civil rights start to gain traction outside the West — suggest that the Holy Spirit is moving hearts, minds, and souls in the direction opposite to where you think the Holy Spirit is heading.
The problem is that most of the people who support a “traditionalist” position don’t, actually, read Greek, or know much about ancient Greek culture and how little the New Testament has to say, nor are they that familiar with ANE (Ancient Near Eastern) views. This is a quite complex issue. Among other things, I do specialize in ancient Greek sexuality, and I’m very familiar with some of these topics. I really wish there was more room here for scholarship on the matter, not “But we’ve always thought that way, it must be right!” You could use the same argument to bar women from the pulpit. But the UMC was among the first to ordain women.
For some comment related to this, albeit in response to something else entirely… (but it illustrates the problem translating words), Yes, it’s long, because it’s not a simple answer:
http://awomanscholar.blogspot.com/2014/01/no-mr-robertson-malakoi-homosexuals-and.html
This one is shorter, and was aimed specifically at this discussion in the UMC (and other protestant denominations:
http://jeannereames.net/New_Thoughts_Old_Debate.pdf
“The UMC was among the first to ordain women.” By what calendar? The United Brethren ordained women as early as 1889, but its merger with the Evangelical Church in 1946 to form the Evangelical United Brethren brought an end to the practice until its subsequent merger in 1968 into the United Methodist Church. The Wesleyan Methodists were ordaining women in the 1850s; the Church of the Nazarene in 1908; Free Methodists in 1911; Methodist Protestants began in 1880, but ceased in 1939 when merging with the ME and ME South churches. That merger produced The Methodist Church, which eventually got around to granting ordination to women in 1956, a full hundred years after Antoinette Brown’s ordination by the Wesleyans. Looks as if our “traditionalist” brothers and sisters were just a few steps ahead of their more “progressive” Methodist/United Methodist siblings.
Helenor Davisson 1866 and Anna Howard Shaw 1880. Both ordained in Methodist Protestant Church and well before 1956
And as I indicated above, the Methodist Protestants were more than willing to give up on ordaining women in 1939 in order to merge with the ME and MES. Institutionalism triumphing over principle once more.
Dr. Reames, Thank you for your well-researched, shorter article (http://jeannereames.net/New_Thoughts_Old_Debate.pdf). Your comments about “The Sacred Band” a military battalion “composed of 150 pairs of lovers who…held firm . . . or they died.” was interesting.
When I worked as a staff psychologist in a prison I observed (but did not do research on the observation) that inmates fell into 3 general groups (with some variation and some exceptions) concerning homosexuality. 1) Most took a position that could be described as, “I have never done that and I won’t do it now,” 2) a small group took the position “while I am stuck here, I’ll do it, but I won’t do it when I get out,” while another small group were those who said, “I was gay before I came in, I’ll be gay here, and I’ll be gay when I get out.”
In both cases, all male military units in ancient Greece, and in an all male prison, there is homosexual behavior. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is using those anomalies to guide the direction of sexual ethics in the UMC today. I think it is much more helpful to pay attention to the traditions of Christianity over the centuries and across broad groups (Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal) of faithful Christians today.
While I find value in academic exercises, I lean on the life of the church across the world.
May God guide all of us as we earnestly seek the most holy direction.
I don’t see a parallel between prison inmates and Greek military. Prison inmates have no choice. Members of the Sacred Band did; there was the rest of the Theban army to join, for instance. And I think you’ve overlooked the real difference: Greek society understood sex very differently. This isn’t just about the military, but about the whole construction of what sex meant and was for, and what marriage meant and was for, and (for that matter) what friendship (philia) meant and was for. Their social constructs don’t look much like ours.
William, while many may consider themselves traditionalists, do you truly believe that 55% will vote for this, enforcing signatories? This is 2018, not the Spanish Inquisition nor Hilter’s SS. I believe this far exceeds what any person considered when they answered God’s call to ordained ministry in the UMC. I also believe the restraints far exceed what any layperson considered when they took membership vows in the UMC. This is not disagreement over one’s understanding of homosexuality. There’s no loving one’s neighbors here at all.
Julie,
The 55% number comes from the article/blog above (the slim 55% Traditionalist majority). But, yes, it is my understanding that most of the General Conference delegates support the Traditional position. Further, it is my understanding that if the UMC continues as is, the 2020 General Conference will have even more who support Traditional positions. The pattern seems to be that progressive Christian organizations (UMW, Episcopal Church, etc.) are declining in numbers while those who support traditional positions are increasing in numbers across the globe.
My prayer is that the Holy Spirit will lead us.
Hi William, I don’t know that it is progressives that are declining but rather churches as a whole. Dating myself, but growing up, stores weren’t open, childrens’ sports (organized) weren’t played on Sundays, etc. We went to church as a family & did things as a family afterwards. Now there is so much going on in the world to vie for our time, even if we go to first service in order to participate in secular things after church.
Progressive churches declining. – I can speak of my current and previous. My previous was more middle than anything but they too began a large (visible) decline in worship attendance about 2007. Not sure why, the senior pastor was very much in line with the congregation’s mindset. My current church (I transferred to it in 2007), very progressive in mindset and demographics, has also had a visible large decline in worship attendance, probably a drop of 300 between both services. For us, I’d say a good 30 couples/families have moved out of state just in the last 4 years, some of whom also left the UMC. Others left the UMC for more progressive denominations, greatly disappointed in the slower than snail’s pace progress towards a more inclusive UMC; NOT for a more traditional/conservative UMC. For us (my current church) that isn’t a guess or wishful thinking. My church is at least 80% LGBTQ in demographicsand probably 70/30 male/female, the opposite of most churches. Our people have funded a church that is not for them, funded rules and prohibitions that directly impact them (no ordination, no weddings) and yet the majority stay. We are a church guided by the Holy Spirit and live the logo of GC 2008: A Future with Hope. We keep hoping and working for a more inclusive church.. Every quadrennial we get told no. In the immediate months following, people leave. THAT’S why progressive UMCs lose members – because of NO; not because they are progressive.
We need a Book Discipline that belongs to the US and is solely voted on by US delegates. If Central Conferences can adapt their BOD without us affecting their decisions, we too need the same ability. We and they can vote on the global portions of the BOD that affect all UMs. But marriage and ordination and funding of anything LGBTQ-related doesn’t need to be a part of that; particularly because our secular laws are so very different when it comes to homosexuality. How can people ever agree when marriage is allowed here and homosexuality is criminal in certain countries in Africa, resulting in imprisonment and/or death? When that is your starting point in the world, it is basically impossible to find a middle ground in the Church.
My prayer is that the Holy Spirit will lead us. Towards yes. Towards recognizing the fullness of the humanity and value of all of God’s children, especially those in the UMC.
Julie,
Thank you for continuing this thread because that gives us an opportunity step into deeper waters and to be a bit more open. I hold to a core belief that God is right. I also believe that all of us humans fail. I really want to change anything about me that is not in line with God’s will. I have struggled with the issue of human sexuality and our UMC BOD. I have paid attention to research about faith matters and about human sexuality. I am a reluctant traditionalist in this matter. I truly love others and have opened my home for meals with Muslims and Hindus as well as Christians. I find it easy to love people whom I disagree with. I do not require people to agree with me in order for me to love them. However I would not ask my Hindu friend who lives across the street from me to be a leader in my UMC local church even though I really like him. In many ways I like the inclusive positions being proposed, but I simply remain convinced that 2000 years of Christian tradition and the strong stance of most Christians today do reflect God’s will. I am also aware of the fact that there is no Scriptural support of homosexuality (a lot has been written about whether or not Scripture really condemns it, but no one has found Scriptural support of the behavior—there is lot of support of heterosexual marriage.) Still, if there is sound reason to change my position I will. Regardless, I will continue to love all people. I concluded my previous post with “My prayer is that the Holy Spirit will lead us.“ I did not qualify my prayer. You concluded your post with “My prayer is that the Holy Spirit will lead us. Towards yes. “ From a sincere position of openness I continue to pray that the Holy Spirit will guide us.
Ms Arms Meek, I have worshipped in my UMC for nearly 30 years. We currently have about 600 members and 265 attendance. In the years I have been here I am able to count dozens of people who have left our church. Because I live in a small community, I see them attending and being strong members of other churches, conservative churches. The reason they left was the liberal theology they read about in the UMC, and depending on the pastor, hear in our church as well. Our current pastor is much more traditional and we are growing, albeit slowly. If the One Church Plan is adopted, most or our leadership, paid and unpaid, would leave within a year. A strong vibrant church would became a shell of itself in a few years.
I don’t write this to compare our 2 churches but to simply state I do not see how both of us are able to remain in the same denomination. Why not have a plan where any church could leave, and only have to agree to cover pensions, but with no other significant financial penalties?Without that, one of our churches, plus many many more, will not flourish. You don’t want me running your church’s theology and I don’t want you running mine. In fact, my major problem with the one church plan is that it doesn’t provide for a gracious exit.
Despite widely different theology, our church is able to do ministry with the local Assembly of God, Southern Baptist Church, United Church of Christ, Roman Catholic Church and The Episcopal Church, but we couldn’t worship there easily.
Similar divides exist between progressive and traditional churches is the UMC.
Why not set each other free?
In Christ,
The Answer is in the Book
Answer: to be honest, I’ve always valued the ‘big tent’ of the UMC: we’re about the last Protestant denomination in the US in which conservatives and liberals are forced to commune with each other and actually talk with each other-every other tradition has split along cultural lines. I would be deeply saddened if the UMC lost this.
I’m confused as to how this Traditionalist plan got included alongside the Connectional and One Church plans. What’s the story here?
But more importantly, I’m confused about WHICH Traditional plan is being presented. There is the COWF Traditionalist Plan (pp. 187-188) and the COB Traditionalist Plan (pp. 194-215). Is the COB asking the Judicial Council to judge both of these?
Hi Mat, the Traditionalist Plan was to be included as historical narrative and legislation as part of the Council of Bishops vote. They asked the AWF to write it and they refused. So a small group of bishops wrote it (I suspect with help on or outside the Commission).
The latter plan is the one being considered, though the former was the rough draft that the CoB actually voted on. Sigh.
Clarity, enforcement and a way out for those who don’t like it. Count me in. I like it. And it avoids a split church.
‘A way out for those who don’t like it’ is the definition of a split church. The main reason I’ve remained Methodist is our big tent: we’re anchurch that both George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton could be a part of. If we finally lose that, than I personally am out. I’ve enough experience with the ELCA to be quite comfortable there.
Thanks for this analysis Jeremy. Need to say that the speculation about individual bishops in the comments section is incorrect.
I was on the commission, so let me state to the best of my knowledge:
(1) No bishop member of Commission on a Way Forward participated in the writing of this Traditionalist Plan,
(2) The persons who did participate in writing it were American only and included one or more American member and two or more American bishops not on the commission.
(3) The presence of a Traditional Plan in our final report is an artifact of our collaborating with Council of Bishops and their last vote was overwhelming in recommending the One Church Plan and, at the same time, directing that the final report should include information on all three sketches from November and also petitions (of which the commission only had petitions for the One Church Plan and Connectional Conference Plan so some bishops not liking the CoB recommendation worked on petitions for the Traditional Plan).
When analyzing signatures of public support for plans, please note that some people signed on to more than one. It’s fair to conclude that a large number along the lines of two-thirds of members support the One Church Plan, that no other plan had majority support, and that the Traditional Plan had the least support by far. We shouldn’t read too much into why a given individual member signed onto a given plan and especially for this final version of the Traditional Plan that showed up with little input or discussion across the commission overall.
Thanks Dave! Very helpful.
Of course about 2/3 of the COWF supported the one church plan, and the traditionalist plan had the least support. The deck was stacked against those holding orthodox beliefs. Since COWF members were chosen by the Bishops, and the vast majority of the Bishops are liberal, it is not surprising that the vast majority of COWF members were also liberal.
The COWF had 32 members. Africa, the most conservative area of the United Methodist Church, has about 40% of our membership. Accordingly, there should have been 12-13 Africans on the COWF. There were 7.
The Western Jurisdiction is our tiniest membership area, with about 2.5% of our international membership. It is also our most liberal area. Statistically, there should have been one member from the WJ. There were 3.
More significantly, based on what is available on the internet, well over half of the COWF were already in favor of same sex marriage in the church BEFORE they were placed on the commission. As one commission member noted, the process didn’t change any body’s mind.
Just like it is no surprise if California votes Democratic or Texas votes Republican, given the makeup of the COWF, it is also no surprise to see them favor a plan that allows same sex marriages in the United Methodist church.
In Christ,
The answer is in the Book
The Bible is very clear, homosexuality is a sin and an Abomination before God. To disregard this is to not follow God’s word. Traditionalists such as myself see the Traditional Plan as close to perfect, if it rids the Church of non-Biblical progressive policies. Many of us think it doesn’tgo Far enough in asking/nudging Progressives to leave the New UMC we envision. Progressives have already failed to live by their oaths and uphold the BOD, why should we think they would be any better in a more traditional/Evangelical Church?
As to those who wonder why we can’t love our neighbors, I ask you why you think I don’t love my neighbor? Because I do love them. I don’t agree with them but I love them. I want the best for them which is to learn and follow God’s word, repent of their sins, and give up their homosexual ways. What could be a better indicator of loving someone than to be truthful with them and not just “go along to get along” ?
Just as I do not want an unrepentant murderer, child molester, or idol worshiper to lead my church, I can’t have an unrepentant homosexual in any leadership role. The best leaders lead by example and unrepentant homosexuals make a poor example of a leader. Similarly, those clergy who fail to uphold their oathsto God to follow the BOD, they have failed as leaders and must be removed.
So, you consider equating homosexuality with murder, child molestation, and idolatry “loving your neighbor”?
Then I guess it’s okay for me to say, “You are one sick, hateful bastard,” as long as I do so with Christian love in my heart!
I consider the sin of homosexuality on equal footing as murder, child molestation, and idolatry worship. In other words I consider all of them as big deals that any church should not tolerate, and especially no church leader should engage in.
As I said originally, that does not mean I hate homosexuals. I love them equally with others, but I believe the church should take a “tough love” position with them and firmly refer them to the many places in the Bible which say homosexuality isn’t conducive with Christian teachings. That is being truthful with them instead of outright “accepting” their homosexuality as being natural and unsinful. To accept their homosexuality as not being sinful is not following the Bible, being unfair to them, and going down the secular humanism path instead of the Christian path.
So, if that makes me some sick, hateful bastard, I gladly accept the title (Bless your heart). But I will firmly and relentlessly resist the ideas of gay marriage, homosexual clergy, participating in gay pride parades, or any way “accepting” homosexuality as anything but sinful.
Pork and Shellfish are also called “toevah” or abomination in Deuteronomy 14:3- same word as in Leviticus 20:13. In Leviticus 20:25- same Holiness code as 20:13, it says that we make our souls detestable or “sheqets” if we fail to properly divide clean from unclean animals? Having sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle (20:18). Unclean foods are consistently called detestable or “sheqets” in Leviticus 11.
Yes, I know but the Bible also goes on in other books to denounce homosexuality. I’m sure you are familiar with the specific verses?
So, God is confirming his position on homosexuality.
And as for the other verses in Leviticus, is there any of us who don’t eat pork and shellfish? It would be unreasonable to put the eating of pork and shellfish on the same level as homosexuality.
The same Hebrew word for “abomination” or toevah is used to describe a man lying with a man in Leviticus 20:13 and for unclean meats, such as Pork and Shellfish in Deuteronomy 14:3.
There are also other Biblical texts that speak against Pork.
“The Bible is very clear, homosexuality is a sin and an Abomination before God. To disregard this is to not follow God’s word.”
Actually it’s not. In fact, the word “homosexual” does not appear in the Bible (Hebrew or Greek) because that concept didn’t exist yet. So of course they had no word for it. Use of “homosexual” is problematic from a linguistic/translator’s point of view.
Unfortunately–and despite head-in-the-sand syndrome among some–this IS a complex argument, one that requires a close look not only at the words themselves, but the culture (as translation is never one-to-one). Classicists and Biblical scholars can go on literally for *pages* about why a particular translation is correct or not, and what certain words mean, as translating them can vary by context. I put 2 links above, in a previous reply, to a longer and a shorter analysis of the actual Greek texts/words, as well as Greek culture (and Hebrew culture), that explains the difficulties.
If you wish to be literalist about some laws, then you have to be literalist *about it all*, not just some. That’s (partially) the point the rest are making in reply to you above. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. At the Jerusalem Council, the early disciples elected to throw out the full law in favor of the Noahic Laws. If you reject what the Jerusalem Council decided, and choose to follow Leviticus, then you’ll need to start obeying all 600-and-20-something.
The Noahic Laws listed in Acts are frustratingly vague in parts, but you cannot pick-and-choose. That leaves us with (mostly) Paul’s attempts (in good rabbinic style) to elucidate what they entailed, and that, in tern, leaves us with a lot of Greek and the Hellenistic-Roman world of the Eastern Mediterranean into which Paul was born–why culture matters.
I believe the Bible is intended for simple interpretation as God/Jesus intended it to speak to the masses, not to only scholars. I don’t need a scholar to tell me what the Bible says in Leviticus, 1 Corithnians, Jude, etc. Re homosexuality. I don’t need an interpretation of the language nuances or any other reasons for interpretation. That is exactly how progressives found the US Constitution provided a right for abortion and gay marriage. They provided an interpretation based on some magic fairy dust instead of as the founders intended (and the founders would have never provided for abortions or gay marriage).
So, if that makes me “intellectually dishonest”, then I will wear that title with pride, along with the sick, hateful bastard assigned to me by Dr. Jenkins.
Ps. Why can’t you Ph. D’s accept things at face value instead of dissecting every little thing? Also, why are Ph.D’s almost always progressive? Most of the Ph. D’s Ihave encountered personally knew a lot about a very little, but couldn’t do simple tasks such as clean up after their child, be sociable, be polite, or fill out an insurance form. So, no, having a Ph. D does not impress nor convince me of anything. I attest to the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) philosophy in most things, including reading the Bible.
Steve: I believe that the individual books of the Christian Scripture were very simply clear, in their original language and to the people they were written to. USians, I find, often make the mistake of assuming letters written two thousand years ago were written to us personally, when they were in fact written to a culture that most of us would not even understand.
Let me give you an example- suppose I were to say ‘the Kingdom of Heaven is like a salad, but the Kingdom of this world is like a big mac’. Here in the US, you would understand that I am saying that the things of this world are readily accessible and attractive but ultimately deadly, while the things of Heaven take work to prepare, are not attractive to the masses, and are ultimately much better for you. However, in China, McDonalds has successfully branded itself as gourmet dining, and salads are peasant food. If I were to say the same words there, the Chinese would interpret my words to be either against consumerism or even expressing nativist sentiments.
Steve — Quite bluntly, unless you can read Koine Greek, you don’t know what the Bible says, you just know what any given interpreter says it means. So if you believe it’s simple, then I invite you to take some classes in ancient Koine Greek, and read it for yourself. Otherwise, you are *always* at the mercy of the interpreter. Again, translating is never one-to-one, and the only people who think it is are those who speak only one language.
So, for 2000 plus years and how many different and separate interpreters, homosexuality has been sinful. NOW, via modern interpreters and nuances it isn’t sinful?
Sorry, I don’t buy it. It is just as I said before that Progressives have an agenda when they “interpret” the Bible, the Constitution, or what have you. They inject their bias into their work.
I will trust the many years of Sunday School leaders, Bible studies, and clergy whom I trust and never led me wrong. The Bible is God’s word. It states that homosexuality is sinful. Case closed.
Dr. Reames,
Three things: 1) Thank you for sharing your knowledge/research that helps us understand that the prohibitions against homosexuality are not as clear as some see them. 2) Can you point us to any Scripture that supports homosexuality. There is a good bit of Scriptural guidance for heterosexual marriages, but I know of no support for homosexual marriage in the Bible. 3) What was the dominate stance of the Christian faith on the matter of homosexuality in the first 700 years of our faith? I have been taught that the foundational teachings of our faith includes prohibition of homosexuality, but would like to know your more educated / researched position.
Finally, thank you very much for sharing your knowledge.
‘Why are PhD’s always progressive?’
That question should make any conservative seriously re-think their position.
You are right, it makes me seriously question any Ph.D. As they overthink, over analyze everything to the point of not being able to provide a simple, unbiased response to anything.
William — Thank you for reasoned questions. Although I see where you’re going. 😉 For 2, there isn’t anything that supports it, just as there (really) isn’t anything against it, as we understand homosexuality (not homoeroticism) today. The Bible is largely concerned with other things, but when it addresses relationships, it’s surprisingly egalitarian, unlike most assumptions for marriage at the time, which were considered to be agreements of contract, not vows, and involved very little religious. Warfare was more religious in ancient Greece (and Rome) than marriage. Xenophon’s Oikomenikos (teasingly titled, “How to Raise up a Wife”) gives some sense of expectations for women in marriage in (mostly) upper class families. Demosthenes (59.122) also famously said, ” For this is what living with a woman as one’s wife means—to have children by her and to introduce the sons to the members of the clan and of the deme, and to betroth the daughters to husbands as one’s own. Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our persons, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households.”
That’s a rather different view than what Paul (and others) advocate for marriage. So does the Christian New Testament say same-sex marriage is okay? No, but same-sex marriage wasn’t an ancient concept because same-sex *vows* (such as that at Iolaos’ heroon in Thebes) were actually more binding. And marriage was about producing legitimate children for inheritance. This is rather different from a pairing of affection. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (books 8-9) deal with friendship, including that of lover and beloved, as does Plato’s Phaedrus. These ties (of Philia) are viewed as more significant than marriage, or eros (sexual [or other] desire).
So again, there is no stance on same-sex marriage in the Christian New Testament because it wasn’t even a concept in the ancient world, as–ironically–marriage was *lesser* than friendship between two men. This is notably misogynist, and I don’t want to obscure that. Aristotle loved his wife and daugher, btw, but still considered women’s intellect somewhere between men and trained dogs. 😉 Plato accepted two women as students because they could do math (geometry), but generally looked down on women. It was a common view. That attitude towards women informed their views of marriage. But it meant marriage was a duty and necessity. Love had little to do with it, and whether sexual or a non-sexual “Bromance,” the “highest” love of Philia was reserved for men to men.
Why the church adopted an anti-homoerotic stance is really complicated, and has a lot to do with the alteration of the Early Church from an apocalyptic, “the world is ending tomorrow” movement to, “Er, it looks as if we might be around for a while, how do we make this work/make ourselves respectable?” We see this change even between the first generation of disciples, such as Paul, and the second group, Timothy, Titus, I & II Clement, Barnabas, etc.
While that isn’t about marriage and homoeroticism (yes, I keep using that word on purpose), it addresses the larger issue. Again, I posted a couple of links above. The first, while a longer discussion, goes into more depth.
Also, I highly recommend:
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300205954/christian-beginnings
This is the primary textbook for my class “Rome and the Early Church.”
To Steve, re: This has always been the interpretation, it can’t have been wrong all this time, so why change it now…
Uh, you do realize that is the *exact* same argument used to justify slavery? Also the same argument to justify not ordaining women? Would you like to walk back either of those because it’s “simple.” Paul really did condone slavery in Philemon.
Again, your argument has to be *consistent* or it’s intellectually dishonest. So if everything in the Bible must be taken at apparent face value, then it’s okay to own people and women should not teach/speak/be ordained. Your choice, dude. Can’t pick and choose. You have to allow that our understanding changes because the church is a living thing, RACING to keep up with the Holy Spirit, or it’s fixed and can’t change…and that’s the definition of something dead.
I choose a living, breathing, *changing* church.
Dr. Reames,
I don’t believe in a “Living” version of the Bible any more than I believe in a “Living” version of the U.S. Constitution. It gives too much allowance for radical interpretations such as LGBT rights, homosexual marriage, and in the case of the U.S. Constitution, a right to an abortion.
None of those glorify our Lord.
Using the word “rage” is in itself an inflammatory word. I have an orthodox theology which includes the concept of sin in its many forms. We, as fallen human beings, have a sin nature that can only be changed and transformed by the Holy Spirit into the likeness of Jesus Christ.
When you say that the Traditionalist Plan seeks to rage against LGBTQ persons and those who support the active LGBTQ lifestyle, you in turn are raging against those United Methodists who are trying to hold to the traditional doctrines of the United Methodist Church.
The UMC is in schism because progressive theology and orthodox theology do not adhere to the same doctrines and practices. Just as oil and water do not mix, I cannot see our two theologies “mixing.” I suggest that it would be better for the UMC if we separated. Ultimately, it is not about power or money but being faithful disciples of Jesus Christ. Those of us who have orthodox theologies or those of us who have progressive theologies need not be “raging” at the other but going our own ways seek to serve Jesus Christ to the best of our abilities and not judging or vilifying the other.
Well said. A very reasoned response.
As others have suggested, there is plenty of rage to go around. I think Jeremy’s point is that the rage of traditionalists is actually enshrined in the Traditional plan in terms of what is actually being proposed to a far greater degree than the other two proposals. The punitive and enforced nature of the Traditional plan lead me to agree with Jeremy’s analysis.
I would not call the Traditional Plan “punitive and enforced”. The underlying rules are the same as the status quo, and more importantly, if a church, pastor or Bishop cannot live with them, there is a gracious and generous exit. That exit does not exist in the One Church Plan, and so the One Church Plan is much more “punitive and enforced” than the Traditional Plan.
In Christ,
The Answer is in the Book
The Bible is what it is. Parts of it were written down more than 2500 years ago. The translations may differ by translator, but the thought remains the same. As much as some progressives would like to change that, they can’t. So what is the alternative? I would like to suggest that Jesus dealt with the same problem in a loving way. When confronted with a test of his traditional conformity he noted that He had not come to do away with the traditional law, but rather to complete(fulfill) it. What did he mean by “complete”? The law, and all its sub laws and regulations had been given to wildly imperfect men by a God who loved them and wanted them to work forward and upward to perfection. The law was not the end. It was the beginning. It could only be brought to “completion” (perfection) by love. And, that was what Jesus expressed when he said: Love the Lord, your God with…and your neighbor like you love yourself. That puts a different twist on the “thou shalt not”s. Is it possible that my neighbor may not be at the same stage of seeking perfection as I am? Perhaps my neighbor is more advanced and is loving another fully as themselves without regard to prohibitions imposed by man (under the guise of legalistic purity). Perhaps not. Either way I am not licensed to hate my neighbor or judge my neighbor. As a Christian, having willingly taken on the yoke of Christ by calling myself by his name, I also assume the theology of seeking perfection by loving my neighbor as I love myself. I will do all that I can to help my neighbor. I wil in no way hinder or put down my neighbor in his (her) pursuit of perfection. And, I will accept, with whole hearted affection and zeal any gift given by my neighbor that will further the Kingdom of God on this Earth.
I would propose another alternative. To the woman at the well, Jesus told her in a loving way Togo and sin no more. After lovingly teaching our LGBT brothers and sisters what the Bible says Re homosexuality, That it is sinful and such sin distances one’s relationship with God, we can lovingly tell them to go and sin no more.
That is not judging them, it is teaching, caring, and loving them enough to share the Good Newswith them. Agreeing with their sinful behavior is to desert them and godown the secular path of trying to get along. The Christian way is to LOVE them enough to make them aware of their sinfulness and teach them a better way which God has provided for them. Go and sin no more.
Well said, Steve, and Amen. It is not love to encourage your neighbor to continue in their sin.
I just happened to come across this blog today. Thank you all for your comments. I was baptized in the AME church. Raised a Lutheran. And attended a Quaker Meeting from high school until now. Unfortunately the attendance at the Quaker Meeting has fallen under seven. That’s not working out for me anymore.There is no buffer. So I am attending a United Methodist Church.Its tagline is a Church for All People. In the Heart of the City. Its welcoming( GLBT friendly) and racially diverse. (45% African American on any given Sunday) I am coming to see the Methodist Church as amalgamation of my roots both in Lutheranism (music and liturgy) and Quakerism. (social holiness) I would transfer and join the Church today. But I am cautious not to get too involved in the church because I don’t know what’s gonna happen after February 2019. Should I wait or start looking for new church? Just be ok with the local church. And find ways to speak out and act for justice in the larger church? Personally, I don’t like this quagmire I find myself in. Just because I want new faith community.
Ok. Quick points NO ONE seems to state. Dr. Reahms, YES I had a woman in my church fight over Homosexuality was NOT stated in the Bible. That’s right is is not. BUT the ACT of a homosexual, SODOMY, ORAL/UNATURAL SEXUAL ACTIONS. ARE MENTIONED!! Sodomite is what they were known and called in the scriptures, plus it was accepted and viewed as IMORRALITY. Second, this LOVE thing. God loved us and them so much he sent HIs son to die for our sins and gives us forgiveness if we ask, PLUS THE ANONEMENT WORK OF DELIVERANCE, and making us NEW creatures in Christ as Paul calls it. Everyone the scriptures say that will NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven for the lifestyle that is listed in Galatians and Revelation God Truly LOVES. But will NOT allow them to get a pass on Science, or any other reasoning. AND scripture is clear these as well as those who refuse to accept God’s plan of salvation ae lost and WILL be judged and thrown into the lake of fire for eternity-the second death. I don’t hear anyone using these clear scriptures in the discussions. It’s like we don’t believe the exist. On PH.D’s ( I have a TH.D) Oh earned at that!! Paul even warned against those who were heady and high minded and sought only the simplistically in Christ. I think I covered it STEVE for you. I don’t mince words, put me on a TV show defending the faith I’d be more blunt than many great preachers I have heard that are gone now being so soft on it. It is time to really look at ALL of scripture. OH one last thought that has just become very real to me. Revelation talks about those weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth when they hear their fate, eternal death in the Lake of Fire. As a young person I use to think they were remorseful but repentance is too late. NOT ANY MORE, I believe what was being shown was how hateful toward God/Christ they will be at that moment even facing eternity in the Lake of Fire they hate God and HIS ways and that’s their final yelling at HIM for not accepting them and there finally realizing they were wrong. And that is not a hateful attitude, it’s Biblical !! READ THE BOOK!
As I go through my stages of grief reading hear draconian measures, “rage” does seem appropriate at this stage. Dylan Thomas’ said it best, “Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Do not go gentle into that good night.”
Board game playing is one of the important ingredients for a better learning experience. Also, laughing helps to decrease stress so playing board game has the ability to reduce the stress.