So here we are. General Conference 2019. The place where LGBTQ inclusion and exclusion in The United Methodist Church might find a step forward towards inclusion or find even more rigid restrictions on LGBTQ persons and allies.
The UMC was created in 1968 from the merger of the Methodist Church (see edit below) and the Evangelical United Brethren Church. It only took four years to add the first restrictions on LGBTQ people in 1972. It’s been a long season of exclusion in the church since that fateful Conference.
In the Broadway musical Hamilton, the long winter of battles between the British and American forces is captured in the song Stay Alive as Washington and Hamilton strategize how to prevail against a superior foe:
[Washington:]
There’s only one way for us to win this
Provoke outrage, outright
Don’t engage, strike by night
Remain relentless ’til their troops take flight[Hamilton:]
Make it impossible to justify the cost of the fight[Washington:]
Outrun
Outlast
Stay alive ’til this horror show is past.
This might reflect the experience of progressives and LGBTQ persons at General Conference 2019. Because it definitely feels like we are just trying to survive in a church that seemingly wants to legislate us out of existence.
The Traditionalists are incredibly organized
Over the decades, those opposed to progressive and mainline values have created numerous structures and organizations within and alongside United Methodism.
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 antagonistic group 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.
Alongside these were numerous caucus groups: Good News Magazine (1966), Confessing Movement, Lifewatch, the Institute on Religion and Democracy, and others. Bristol Books became part of Asbury Seedbed a few years ago. And just before GC2016, the Wesleyan Covenant Association came about as well, to fulfill their part of the 2004 plan.
These organizations provide material and financial support to defeat progressive values and inclusive polity from being passed by General and Annual Conferences, as well as support for court cases to declare anything that sneaks through as unconstitutional and remove clergy that step out of line.
Finally, a few days before General Conference 2019 (and 2016), the Africa Initiative retreat (that was sponsored by Good News) included a reported 200 delegates from Africa and shared the conservative renewal groups’ messaging, voting guides, and process strategy with the delegates from Africa. Of course, Africa will vote independently as delegates from Africa, but the organized way the Traditionalist values were communicated in a retreat setting is undoubtedly effective.
In short, there’s no ambiguity: the majority culture in The United Methodist Church is conservative and their natural affinity to Traditionalist leadership is the best organized. While The UMC has many great progressive and mainline values in its polity and practices, it does so only after being deemed acceptable by this majority culture (or they just haven’t removed them yet).
The Moderates are trying to be organized.
As reported on Rev. Chris Ritter’s blog, the Uniting Methodists, a middle-Methodist or moderate group that has been taking the lead on passing the One Church Plan, had one of their strategy documents leaked.
I’ve seen bursts of hysteria on the Twitters, alleging it is trying to “control or shut down votes” and other comments. I’m sorry to say veteran GC people like me are unbothered by it. Since 2004, I’ve been involved in strategy sessions and seen strategy documents from all the caucus groups, progressive and traditionalist alike, and there’s nothing surprising about the document. In fact, it’s rather low level organizing, written for public dissemination. For people who support the Traditionalist Plan to be clutching their pearls over this document is to deny their side is doing the same things.
The bright spot for moderate organizing has been the Mainstream United Methodists which have put out a steady beat of solid articles and content supporting the One Church Plan. Another joy was several annual conferences where moderates organized with progressives to elect more moderate delegations in 2016 (like West Ohio and Alabama West Florida).
In short, for the first time at General Conference, moderates and middle-Methodists are organizing. It’s refreshing, but as with any inaugural effort, there will be missteps and apprehension at opposing the Traditionalist renewal group juggernauts.
The Progressives and LGBTQ are just trying to survive.
Progressives have been organized for a long time as well. Since the founding of the United Methodist Gay Caucus in 1974 (which would later become Affirmation) and the Reconciling Congregations Program in 1984 (which would become Reconciling Ministries in 2000), progressives have sought LGBTQ inclusion mostly by reducing harm: by watering down harmful legislation or inserting “agree to disagree” language. In recent years, LGBTQ groups like the Queer Clergy Caucus and Love Prevails have taken the cutting edge of witness to heart in public statements and protests.
While progressives are a minority party in United Methodism, creative minorities are able to carve out safe havens for LGBTQ people in United Methodism. The Western Jurisdiction has become a haven for progressives and LGBTQ persons to serve openly because accountability (as Wesley intended) is held at the annual conference level, among clergy peers. The constitutional separation of powers structure of The UMC allows for such diversity.
The purpose of the Traditional(ist) Plan is to eradicate those safe havens and instead encourage them to leave United Methodism. But even if it passes, it will be unable to remove accountability from the Annual Conference level. So it will be a non-starter to anything new in The UMC, just making like a little bit worse.
Without a truly progressive plan that affirms LGBTQ persons explicitly to rally behind, I see the task of progressives and LGBTQ persons at General Conference is to survive. To be alive at the end of this week. To have safe spaces, either carved out officially by the One Church Plan, or ones that the Traditional(ist) Plan can’t touch. And then we move on from there to whatever is next.
Your turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
Above we read,
“The UMC was created in 1968 from the merger of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church. It only took four years to add the first restrictions on LGBTQ people in 1972. It’s been a long season of exclusion in the church since that fateful Conference.”
The statement is unfortunately inaccurate. The Methodist Episcopal Church was no longer in existence in 1968, but was replaced by a church with a racist Central Jurisdiction and regional geographic jurisdictions. The Methodist Episcopal Church, the MEChurch, South, and the Methodist Protestant Church became part of “The Methodist Church” in 1940. The Methodist Church united with the EUB Church in 1968. This applies only to the North American (U.S.) parts of the church. Outside the U.S. it is more complicated.
The relevance: In 1940 institutional racism was embedded in the church’s constitutional structure; 82 yeas later in 1968 its dismantling started. (We’re still working on it. Just ask the Ebony Bishops.) In 1940 ordained MP women, I have heard, had to give up their ordination; in 1975, 25 years later, this step was reversed with open ordination for “women and men” God calls. In 1972 efforts to explicitly extend ministry to gays and lesbians in the Social Principles (passed) were thwarted by new contractory rules against gay ordination and same-sex marriage or relationships (passed) —”join, don’t expect to serve!” (Reminds me of a luxury car commercial.) Now, only 47 years later, we have an opportunity to continue this long-term trend toward inclusion.
Take courage! Don’t give up! The hill is steep, but we can climb it.
Whoops James, you are exactly right. My apologies. I’ve corrected it above and made a note to look at your comment. Thank you for the help.
Oops — that should read “28 years” not “82 yeas”!!
Thanks James
You want my thoughts?
I’m sick and tired of this. I’m sick and tired of one part of the church being criticized, attacked, lied about, and disregarded as though they’re nothing.
I’m sick and tired of you and your ilk doing Satan’s work, destroying the Methodist Church because what you think you are is more important than what God made you to be. You’re a fraud and a shyster, leading your congregants straight to hell.
Leave, and take your cronies with you. Start your own apostate “church.” You can even keep the buildings.
You asked.
If that’s what it takes, so be it.
Bye, Felisha!
The exclusion is the destruction.
Funny how people such as yourself seem to better know who God wants us to be than ourselves.
Oddly enough, I thought your first paragraph referred to the hateful way gays have been treated by supposedly Christian believers. Then your second paragraph talks about accepting how God has made us. That means accepting that God chose to make gay people, because it’s not a lifestyle “choice” but how God formed them. After that you go down the path of hatred that many of us deplore. If you continue on this misguided path you will find yourself serving, not God, but a church that pretends to believe Scripture, but denies it’s very essence. To Ric from an ordinary lay person, lifelong Methodist (70 years old), feeling ashamed of your words.
The last sentence in the article says “And then we (progressives) move on from there to whatever is next.”
I would suggest “moving on” to a different denomination; please no more arguing and destruction.
I was born and raised in this church. Maybe YOU should be the one to stop the destruction and arguing and get out.
I would take your advice gladly; sick of the bickering!
All I advocate for is a gracious way for congregations to leave without being forced into financial peril. Most of the Traditionalists seem to support that, but most of the Progressives seem to be against that.
Can you explain why Progressives would inhibit amicable separation?
I keep seeing “amicable separation” but have not yet seen an amicable plan. At any rate, the rule that congregations don’t own their buildings has nothing to do with conservative/progressive.
So you agree then that “both sides” should forget wrangling about who is “right” and work together to develop an amicable separation plan. Again, it seems that Traditionalists have at least opened the door to proposals about separation, so why aren’t the Progressives walking thru that door and cooperating to develop an equitable separation plan? Better to do that than to continue complaining about the terms of what has been offered. It’s called negotiation and open-mindedness, as I’m sure you advocate.
No, I don’t necessarily agree to that. Why are Traditionalists so gung-ho to take the easy route of separation? Presumably they value marriage, for example and see divorce as being wrong in either all or all but the most extreme examples. Curious that they are so quick to embrace divorce. Again, why are Traditionalists just so quick and ready to give up?
I can only imagine it is because the Traditionalist “breakup” plan heavily favors the Traditionalists. Which it does. So it’s less than “amicable” and, in that sense, a joke of an offer. That’s why no progressive is seriously considering that plan. “Take over the denomination, its’ wealth and structures, and don’t let the door hit you in the rear end on the way out, progressives” is neither a just plan nor an amicable one.
If Traditionalists wanted an “amicable” separation, they would maybe be pushing the connectional plan more than they are. But that plan seems to be seen as a joke by both sides. Okay, maybe it’s “imperfect” from a Traditionalist perspective because we still “stay together” in some sense. But, to borrow a phrase that Traditionalists love throwing around right now, “we can fix it later.” De-coupling all the apparatus of an entire denomination needs time. It seems Traditionalists either don’t actually want that, or are acting in bad faith. Or perhaps are just impatient and want to take the nuclear option.
I see no good reason for progressives to start any kind of negotiation by making a lot of concessions towards a party that doesn’t seem to be acting in good faith. That’s also not how negotiation even works. The Traditional plan(s) are in bad faith. If we are going to be “open for negotiation,” then maybe they need to come up with a better plan that we can negotiate over. I see no reason why we should do your work for you.
I have the Advance Christian Daily Advocate on my computer right now. Can you please go to page 201 where disaffiliation petitions are detailed. Here is the link:
http://cdnfiles.umc.org/Website_Properties/general-conference/2019/documents/general-conference-2019-adca-english.pdf
Can you please point to specific areas where the separation terms are unfair?
P.S. these terms do not apply to only Traditional churches, they apply to any church that wishes to disaffiliate. It would be in your best interest to make sure they are fair in case your (Progressive) congregation chooses to leave if the Traditional Plan passes.
Well, the first one makes issues regarding homosexuality out to be the only reason to disaffiliate. That’s both theologically problematic and, in my opinion, morally problematic. “Hey, who cares what anyone thinks about sacramental questions (which the UMC leaves fairly vague), it’s LGBT people who are the problem!” But at least they’re being honest that they just want out because they find LGBT people to be gross.
Furthermore, I simply find those requirements to disaffiliate entirely too easy to game. They may sound fair, but the ability to take advantage of those low hurdles set out are innumerable. So, again, I haven’t really seen any kind of good amicable separation plan.
The Boyette separation plan makes no mention of sexuality or any other specific reason for a church to leave. They may leave for any reason that the congregations deems appropriate by a vote. Fair and non-discriminatory. Perhaps the reason you haven’t seen an amicable separation plan is because you haven’t looked at them.
When you have read them and present a cogent response, I will again answer you. Until you do, I will no longer waste my time communicating with someone who disregards evidence.
And I’ll cease to respond to someone who ignores my second point about how either of those plans are incredibly easy to game, and so both are non-starters.
Again, given the rhetoric, it is curious that progressives are holding to a strong ecclesiology and traditionalists have discovered the “virtue” of easy divorce.
This Presbyterian is praying for my United Methodist brothers and sisters.
Thanks! We need it.
Thanks Jeremy. You have been a lighthouse in the midst of a bad storm.
I served as a DSA in the Great Plains conference when I was 18-19 and served as a presiding officer at GYPCLA-14. Seeing the harm the UMC has caused as an institution shook me to my core. I am no longer actively involved with the church, the pain was too much to bear. I pray that the church discontinues it’s harmful policies, but I do not have much hope that it will happen.
When did disagreement become hatred? Your stances word not mine. And if it’s about God why are you seeking to destroy the church you say you grew up in and love if the church does not do what you want?
You have nailed it again. Part of what these right wing nuts have done is tell the African delegation that the One Church Plan will re colonize Africa and spread AIDS. Utter nonsense. You rightly point out the culprits, Good News, IRD, WCA, et al. Their intent has been to take Methodism back to the 19th century, ignore science, ignore the Enlightenment, ignore critical analysis of scripture, ignore ecumenicism, ignore everything that makes us Methodists to begin with. And they have been at it for a long time. IRD is not a Methodist organization although it has a Methodist division. It’s purpose is to make America a theocracy. As the last large mainline church, we are the biggest target. And human sexuality is the biggest hammer they have ever wielded to beat us to death.
It is time for Progressive Christians to unite together in one church, TEC. ELCA, UCC, UMC.
We are up against an unholy alliance of ultraconservative billionaire Capitalists and authoritarian Evangelical Fundamentalists. They have the money, Fox News and Trump and the radical right
It is a well oiled political machine and is headed toward Christo Facism.
We must stand together or be undone one by one. Which is what is happening in the UMC. If we lose the UMC it should spurs us to open talks with our allies about forming a Uniting Church of Christ that can retain our denominational heritages and unite our resistance to this Conservative hostile takeover of our churches and country. WAKE UP! THIS ISNT JUST ABOUT GAYS!
Speaking of denominational heritages, the UCC, when it was created in 1957, was itself a merger of two denominations which were rooted in the Congregational, Lutheran, Evangelical, and Reformed traditions, and its governance structure is a mix of congregational and presbyterian polities inherited from this merger.
Similarly, the United Church of Canada, with which the United Church of Christ has full communion since 2015, was a 1925 merger of Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational churches. The same churches merged into the Uniting Church in Australia in 1977.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if moderate and progressive Methodists, if the UMC were to split after Tuesday, were to work out a way to merge into the United Church of Christ and fuse connexional polity or other Methodist traits into its mixed-polity structure. I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet here in the U.S.
But if this is about defending progressive strains of denominations like Methodism against a well-funded socially-conservative reaction, I don’t know if a merger of the mainline LGBT-welcoming, equally-ordaining churches helps as much as simply having 1) a better structure which allows for clerical discretion like those denominations and 2) having a better-organized defense against the likes of IRD, WCA and similar hardline parallel organizations.
A Methodist acquaintance who is married to an Episcopalian rector once surprised me with his statement that the UMC’s Americocentric, and consequently conservative African-heavy, international structure could be part of the reason for its potential split (“not a mere fracturing, but a full split”). Meanwhile, the other big mainline denominations with more regional autonomy – the UCC, for example – have managed to survive similar votes as this (with only the TEC having the least-amicable seeing-off of withdrawing parishes over property issues). One hopes that whatever Methodism does comes out of the wake of this Conference would be better-structured so as to allow for more-amicable regional flexibility, and not the hamfistedness which has manifested against progressive dissenter clergy over the years (especially not the Traditionalist Plan!).
I suggest the Episcopalian church. It is very similar to the UMC except it has already gone progressive to the full extent. I am sure you would be comfortable there. With the massive loss of members they have experienced since Bishop Robinson’s ordination I am sure they could use a shot in the arm! Then progressives such as yourself and traditionalists such as myself would be allowed to do the work the Lord requires without wasting time fighting among ourselves Please do not think I am being mean spirited. Sometimes a good divorce is better than a bad marriage, especially when both sides think the other is unfaithful and is breaking the marriage covenant. Both sides believe the other is wrong and neither side is going to convince the other that they are wrong. We have irreconcilable differences.Let us accept that fact and act in peace.
The larger Anglican Communion sure is not liberal. I do go an Episcopal Church every Christmas Eve. When I lived in Greece years ago, I did attend an Anglican Church there. wouldn’t leave the United Methodist Church, because I don’t want to facilitate it becoming like the Southern Baptist Convention.
Perhaps the “new” church you will be creating would take in those lost Episcopalians. Together you might create a marriage that will make you happy in it’s insularity and narrowness. Meanwhile the rest of us will continue as Methodists in the Wesley tradition, recognizing that we have not been debating a lifestyle, but hearing the sound of God’s voice through children he loves. I look forward to hearing the word of God preached by clergy who have experienced a tunnel of hatred and have come out into the light. May God bless those who love and truly keep the Greatest Commandment.
After the whirlwind GC today, my 75-year old mother (a recent widow of a lifelong UMC clergy member) and I had a decompression chat.
Her key comment: “If the Traditional Plan passes, I will leave the UMC …. but I’ll hate to leave the people I’ve grown to love.”
Good News & its conspirators aren’t just destroying the UMC, they’re destroying lives, all for profit, power, and property.
Why is link to the Institute on Religion and Democracy is hyperlinked to the NRA? The NRA is a terrorist organization linked to the Mafia state formerly known as Russia, who in 2016 installed one of their career money launderers as President of the USA.
We know the Russian Mafia has infiltrated both the NRA and even the National Prayer Breakfast, two formerly decent organizations fighting for the rights of Americans.
And now this?
Hacking Christianity indeed.