This summer, a Sunday School class at my local church in Seattle has read through nine books in the Faultlines series by Abingdon Press. It was a substantial romp through varied perspectives on the current reality of The United Methodist Church.
In the process of study, the class discovered at least three misleading claims in the book Are We Really Better Together? An Evangelical Perspective on the Division in the UMC by Revs. Rob Renfroe (Good News Movement President) and Walter Fenton (Former Good News Movement staff, now staff with the Wesleyan Covenant Association), both writing from The Woodlands, Texas. I claim them below as my own, though not all were initially been detailed by me.
“Not Substantially Different”
I honestly thought I would get further than the first paragraph before I found a misleading claim. I was wrong. First paragraph, page seven, emphasis mine:
“We will make no attempt in this slim volume to exhaustively rehearse the various arguments that have been marshaled for and against The UMC’s sexual ethics, its teachings on marriage, and its ordination standards. The church’s positions on these matters are not substantially different from the historic positions of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the vast majority of Protestant Christians worldwide.”
Claim: Renfroe/Fenton claim the UMC’s positions on sexual ethics, marriage, and ordination standards are in line (“not substantially different”) with the vast majority of Christianity.
Perspective: The above claim is part of their assertion that the UMC’s prohibition on LGBTQ inclusion is in line with the rest of Christendom and if we shift our position, then we will find ourselves outside of the rest of Christendom. But there’s a pretty big difference: The United Methodist Church ordains women. The Roman Catholic Church does not. The Eastern Orthodox does not. And the vast majority of Protestantism does not. Of the top 5 largest Christian denominations in America, only United Methodism ordains women.
So in short, The UMC is already “substantially different” from the vast majority of Christendom on its ordination standards because we include women. Changing our ordination standards to remove the prohibition on partnered LGBTQ persons will not change our standing with these groups who already consider our clergywomen, and our ordination standards, to be “substantially different” and outside of their historical position.
Thus it is a misleading claim that we are in-line with these traditions (“not substantially different”) when on a critical ordination standard, we clearly are.
Incidentally, when the ACNA broke from The Episcopal Church over their change in ordination standard to consecrate a gay Bishop and allow partnered clergy, they ceased the ordination of women in some regions, and the election of female bishops across the board, the latter of which is still practiced. Similarly, if the WCA breaks from The United Methodist Church, removal of the ordination of women is the only thing left to put them back to be in-line with the Christian traditions that Renfroe/Fenton admire.
“Carefully Crafted”
I’m not kidding. The second misleading claim is in the second paragraph! Page 8, emphasis mine:
“The statement the church adopted at its 1972 General Conference was carefully crafted, and many United Methodists still regard it as a gracious one, although others vehemently disagree. Eschewing inflammatory words like sin or abomination, the clear majority at the 1972 conference believed the following represented what the church already taught implicitly and what it should teach officially going forward: “we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching”
Claim: Renroe/Fenton claim the incompatibility statement was carefully crafted and that such effort and wisdom means it should be retained.
Perspective: South Carolina’s Tom Summers wrote a two-part historical narrative (1) (2) on the origin of this very phrase “incompatible with Christian teaching.” In it, he found that the original statement that was discerned by a study committee over four years, and refined in the committee process at General Conference, lacked that particular phrase. Instead, the phrase was added on the floor, hastily written by people outside of the committee process. Since then, votes to remove the incompatibility clause have ranged from 58-42 to 52-48 percent, failing by a few dozen votes out of just under 1000.
This is in line with the book We Shall Not Be Moved by Jane Ellen Nickell who notes the break between what was discerned in committee over four years and what was added impromptu on the floor. The bolded section below was added on the floor; the unbolded section discerned over four years by a Commission:
Homosexuals no less than heterosexuals are persons of sacred worth, who need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship which enables reconciling relationships with God, with others and with themselves. Further we insist that all persons are entitled to have their human and civil rights insured, though we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.
So the pastoral care statement was “carefully crafted” over four years in an official committee. But the bolded addition, lifted up by Renfroe/Genton, was not as carefully crafted and formed the basis of further discrimination against LGBTQ people. A populist appeal to fear (this was the early 1970s, the age of Anita Bryant, remember?) is no substitute for careful craftsmanship, and the claim that phrase was “carefully crafted” is not historically accurate.
“Seldom Produces More Insight”
Well, I guess we got further than the third paragraph, but not by much. Seventh paragraph, page 10, emphasis mine:
After fifty years of listening to each other, we understand each other’s positions and reasons for holding them. So, further conversation, therefore, seldom produces new insights or changed minds. At best, such encounters end with people agreeing to disagree, or at worst, they end in mutual bewilderment and the suspicion that one’s conversation partner is being obstinate. In short, more often than not, people on either side of the debate regard further conversation as fruitless and potentially harmful.”
Claim: Renfroe/Fenton claim that minds are made up and there is no more to be gained by further conversation.
Perspective: The dominant side of the debate for centuries has been the Traditionalist position of denying marriage ceremonies to gays and lesbians, and forcing gays and lesbians to divorce their same-gender partners before they could be ordained as clergy. If votes were taken at the beginning of Methodism, it would be unanimous.
But over the recent decades, and especially since 2003, marriage equality and LGBTQ civil protections have increased, and the number of United Methodist laity and clergy who have changed their minds are substantial. Every advocate for LGBTQ inclusion has stories of changed hearts and minds. Every LGBTQ person has changed the heart and mind of someone close to them. So decades of conversation have resulted in changed minds, and they have primarily come from Traditionalists changing their minds.
So it seems that the changed minds and new insights have all resulted in attrition from the Traditionalist position. Little wonder Renfroe/Fenton would like the conversations to end. But to claim that such conversations don’t result in new insights or changed minds is misleading. The 52/48 percent votes at General Conference indicate that conversation substantially changes minds and produces new insights for people. It’s just not the insights or the change that the authors hope for.
Conclusion
Charitably, one would hope outrageous claims in the first chapter to be substantiated in follow up chapters or footnotes. Not so. The rest of the book does not substantiate or expound on the above claims. It has an extensive debate with imaginary opponents’ arguments for LGBTQ inclusion, and a cursory biblical examination of the Scripture passages that they claim are against LGBTQ persons. The ~100-page book ends with a claim that The UMC is not worth maintaining and that it should be divided or dissolved.
So the claims stand alone. Renfroe/Fenton claim that their side has the legitimacy of ordination standards in line with the vast majority of Christendom, a carefully crafted polity, and that minds are not being changed. The above commentary shows that such claims are misleading, at best, and distort our history in multiple places.
While I personally find fault with their interpretation of Scripture and the lines of arguments against imaginary opponents, such are differences in opinion. The above commentary name differences in fact and such differences bear mention to make sure the average United Methodist isn’t taken by misleading claims.
Your Turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
Caveat: I have not read the book, nor would I likely defend much in the book, but I have to pick a tiny nit in misleading claim #1: “… The UMC’s sexual ethics, its teachings on marriage, and its ordination standards … are not substantially different from the historic positions of …”
I would think the authors mean by “ordination standards” the “standard” of not ordaining “self-avowed practicing homosexuals,” to use the Discipline’s language, and that standard is “not substantially different,” which has, I’m sure the authors would content, nothing to do with the ordination of women. Otherwise, your commentary is insightful. 🙂
Hi Chris, I agree their claim was not directly about women’s ordination. But their claim was that if we changed our ordination standards with regard to LGBTQ persons, then we would be outside of those historic traditions. I was naming that we already are outside those traditions, so there’s little ground lost or mutual efforts sabotaged.
Thanks for your comment and engagement!
It’s true that most Christians are part of denominations that do not ordain women. But the vast majority of those in the following of Wesley belong to groups who do: the UMC, Wesleyan Church, Free Methodists, Nazarenes, a HUGE swath of Pentecostals, etc. Ironically, the UMC and most of its predecessor bodies were rather late in getting on board–early adopters were the Wesleyan-Holiness folks (tossed from the UM predecessor bodies for their opposition to slavery and worldliness) who are now considered very conservative by most UMs. Personally, I don’t know ANYONE affiliated with any of the UM renewal groups who’s advocating for rescinding the ordination of women; if there’s no evidence of it then it shouldn’t be used as a scare tactic.
They didn’t advocate for removal of female bishops in the ACNA until they were constituted either as separate from TEC. And the way how renewal groups work, they always need a scapegoat. So I’m concerned for women or some other minority group (moderate evangelicals?) who would be next on the butcher block after The Gays are out.
John commented on “the vast majority of those in the following of Wesley.” Your response, Jeremy, about the ACNA was thus, off-topic & argumentative. If you want your blog to be given serious consideration, at least do the same for your commenters.
Just so I understand correctly, you don’t know of anyone in the UM renewal groups who’s advocating for restricting women’s ordination, but because the ACNA did so you’re convinced that the WCA/Good News/Confessing supporters will suddenly undertake a policy that creates even greater distinction from our already-more-conservative Wesleyan-Holiness and Pentecostal brothers and sisters, making far more difficult any potential union with one or more of those bodies.
Correct. Rights are intersectional. A denial of rights to one people group makes it easier to deny them to another. Or it simply shifts the denial. We see in the past decade how easily women’s rights in secular society have backpedaled. And how many conservative white men charge at being “monitored” by GCOSROW. If you cannot trust women to make decisions over their bodies, it’s only one more step to denial of their decisions over the body of Christ.
We are all in this together. My affection and care for evangelical anti-gay women still don’t want them to be part of a denomination that backtracks on their support of them.
Got it. There’s nobody within the UMC we can positively identify as wanting to roll back women’s ordination, but based on conjecture about the motivations of unknown others there must exist entire groups who want to do so. Then, because we “know” those groups must be sinister, we can foresee their plans.
Silly John. You think anyone would write this in public? The ACNA ban wasn’t spoken of beforehand either. Let’s chat in a year and see which denomination has furthered the rights of women and which hasn’t. I’ll email you.
Also: it’s a favorite tactic to focus on one point that is “in the works” and ignore the others that are in bright pixels on the screen and hard to argue against. Thanks for confirming those arguments are solid 🙂
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for the research and the article. I am constantly aware, as having been United Methodist for these 50 years (I joined in 1968, less than one month after the merger) is that the 1972 Statement is in the Social Principles, which, while in the Discipline, was not legislative in nature….it was a statement of where we were, added, as you accurately share, from the floor…..but it did not have the force of law, but a basis for thoughtful prayer, insight, and discussion……
Again, thanks for the article!
Bob
Thanks Bob! Blessings!
Jeremy, thanks for your post of the inaccurate statements of the folks looking to destroy the UMC. If they really think the UMC is not worth maintaining then why are they so insistent on making our church so restrictive as to hurt and bully so many of our leaders striving to connect with our changing world? I really wish the WCA and Good News folks would simply leave. They are staining the open hearts brand of our denomination.
Interesting view. From where I sit it is the Progressives who are destroying The UMC. WCA is trying to save our denomination from internal corruption.
Glenn, thank you. Bullies are unkind, lack compassion and are judgmental of others, not themselves.
Bullies are in businesses and health care. Nurses can often take pleasure in bullying a newcomer, or someone who is transferring from another hospital.
Doctors often bully other physicians.
In churches, one would like to think that all want to follow Christ’s teaching a be compassionate, kind, accepting and non-judgmental of one another, whether we are parishioners or clerics. Sadly this is far from the truth.
Sadly, I see the WCA and Good News as bullies, with a “My way or the highway,” approach to marriage and ordination. They lean more heavily on the Book of Discipline than they do Christ, who accepted and loved all God’s Children.
Jeremy, you really pick some minor points to find fault over. Carefully crafted in added from the floor. That means people can’t be careful and decisive. On human sexuality the one church plan is out of the mainstream of both Wesleyan and most other denominations. The part about women is a straw man argument, trying to create fear among women, which is what progressives always rely on when the can’t win a point on reason. The Bible clearly points to the ability and equality of women, starting with Deborah in Judges. People who rely on Paul’s message to a church where he uses the phrase “I don’t allow” instead of “God does not allow” are misreading the intention of God and even Paul. He was dealing with disorder in a single church. His goal was to turn pagans into Christians. He could not fight every battle and that one was the most important. Still is today. By the way I noticed that when you listed the percentage of votes you always put 52 to 48 second, even though more recent votes have been towards are greater percentage to maintain the discipline. Society may be swaying but the laity are not. Nor is the African church which will soon be the majority of the UM church.
I have known MANY Gay persons of African descent. There is a growing LGBTQ Civil rights movement in Africa. Many of these activists from Africa have contacted me on Facebook. Anti LGBTQ feelings in Africa are a legacy of Western imperialism.
Thank you, Daniel. As people learn more about the Bible and study it more astutely, they start to interpret the Bible in light of today’s information and knowledge.
Jeremy,
I find it a bit hypocritical for a Progressive to take issue with the specific language of a WCA book. Perhaps your time would be better spent reading the specific language of the Bible or reading the BOD which you swore an oath to uphold?
Glenn,
I am not aware of any bullying of UMC leaders. I am aware of UMC members trying to hold their leaders accountable to the BOD which they swore to uphold. If those leaders refuse to abide by the BOD, then they need to step aside as they lose all credibility. That is not bullying. As I stated, that is simply holding people accountable. Remember, our leaders work for us,not the other way around. Also, our leaders should not be “striving to connect with our changing world”. The world constantly changes and our leaders should NOT be trying to chase its secular issues. Our leaders need to focus on Biblical issues, not secular ones. Any UMC leader who is trying to connect us with our changing world is not someone deserving to be in a UMC leadership role as they have their priorities askew.
Your loving Brother in Christ,
Steve
Thanks Jeremy for your insightful article. At one period of time in our history, slavery was viewed as an historical position and tradition. We do grow.
Please help me to understand all of this. Some are telling me individual churches can opt out of the Progressive position. But would not the Church it self The United Methodist Church still be known as a body who will not uphold traditional marriage and will have gays in the pulpit. I am a lay person and I am torn apart…grieving for my church and the fellowship I must leave. Are there any words of comfort? I assume all of the above authors are clergy. You all know the inside of this but we, regular members, are kept in the dark. It helps to write all of this. I hope someone replies.
Janet,
Like you, I am also a lay person. I am sure there are others on here who can provide the details better than I. I will try and give you the Reader’s Digest version.
The UMC Commission on Way Forward, appointed by the UMC Bishops, came up with three plans, the One Plan, the Connectional Plan, and the Traditionalist Plan. The Commission voted to recommend the One Plan. I will let you google and research these rather than try and describe them here.
These three plans, along with some others, will be presented to the 2019 General Conference to be held in St. Louis in February next year. These plans will be discussed and most probably their language changed some, amendments added, etc. All this to say that the plan or plans which come out of GC19 will most probably look and read different than they do now.
Thus, I would encourage you to wait until after GC19 before making any decisions about leaving or staying in the UMC until the final plan comes out of GC19.
Your loving Brother in Christ,
Steve