Paths to the same destination
I will sometimes take one of my daughters to a playground or a park. The one by our house has long concrete paths that wind around like they were poured by Dr. Seuss. Following them and pushing a stroller (my three kids gives me a lot of experience) will get you to the playground. But from the parking lot to the playground there’s a beaten path in the grass as children disregarded the poured concrete path and have worn their own path with their tiny shoes running straight to the playground.
Children show us that there are always two different ways to get to the same destination: the path the architect wants us to go, and the path others have created.
This analogy (and header image) works right now in The United Methodist Church because there are paths that the powers-that-be want advocates for the full inclusion of LGBTQ persons to walk down…and then there’s the paths are still being created beyond our polity and processes. Which one will prevail and guide us to a future expression of United Methodism that welcomes all?
The False Path of Obedience
As previously discussed, right now in The United Methodist Church, the Traditionalist perspective that LGBTQ persons are not to be full participants in the life of the church, is dominant. This calculated “wedge issue” that harms real people has bought and broken a 50-year-old denomination with an over 200-year legacy reaching back to Revolutionary America. At every level of General Conference and representation on global church leadership, 2019 showed the Traditionalist dominance of the denomination.
Some would think that the path being poured is the path of surrender and obedience: that Traditionalists want a tight polity that holds people accountable when they deviate from it, and that anyone who can stick to that polity is welcome to continue in Big Tent Methodism.
However, that is a misinterpretation. The self-professed “heart of the Traditional Plan” involved ways to forcibly remove entire annual conferences and to remove the pension benefits of excommunicated clergy. Thankfully, that heart was cut out and not implemented by the 2019 General Conference and Judicial Council.
Obedience was never the path being poured by the Traditionalists, and it is important for the average Methodist to understand that. They are not interested in sharing a denomination anymore—if they ever were. Instead, the primary path is the path of expulsion: make the progressives leave. So now we turn to see if those who want the full inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the life of the church will walk down that path—or will they make their own?
Pathways discerned by UMC Next
I was a participant at the UMC Next event held in Kansas City on May 20-22, 2019. It was a gathering that brought together 10 members of each annual conference (around 600 United Methodists) to share testimonies, experiences, learnings, and considerations of paths forward for United Methodists who find LGBTQ exclusion to be unacceptable. I went as one of delegates from the greater northwest episcopal area. You can view the press release here. It was a closed event and I can’t offer specific quotes.
But what I can reflect on is that during the process of discernment, discussion, education about various plans and paths, the body generally debated three paths before us. Two have been poured (or are being poured) by the Powers-That-Be in the UMC. And one has been beaten through tireless (but now exhausted) efforts by LGBTQ inclusion advocates. It’s helpful to examine
1. The poured path of Disaffiliation
The poured path of Disaffiliation: ”Leave” The UMC. This path has been poured out for us by the 2019 General Conference. It has been poured for us by the Judicial Council. It has been called for and repeatedly prodded by the triumphant Traditionalists, strutting around the halls of their newfound power.
This is what they want to happen is progressives leave, and it doesn’t matter how much of their local and regional property they take with them. But the legislation doesn’t allow for it. As you’ll see in tomorrow’s post, this poured path is broken, not written in reality to facilitate the widespread exodus of progressive churches. It’s bad legislation, written outside of the committee process and without involving those who would use it.
The way to walk this path is through acquiescence to the Traditionalists so they allow us to leave with more property and resources. This poured path will need to be fixed by the 2020 General Conference if the Traditionalists truly want the Progressives to leave, and it will take them granting a path that allows progressives to have resources at the end. This is against their 2004 strategy document because it allows progressives to continue their witness, but they could be persuaded, and many progressives are fully ready for something new.
2. The to-be-poured path of Dissolution
The poured path of Dissolution: ”End” the UMC. This path is not yet clear, but the Traditionalists are pouring it in tweets, blogs, and interviews with an odd fixation. In short, this path involves dissolving The United Methodist Church, liquidating its general church assets, and dividing them among the 2-3 branches that would come from it.
Recognizing that the UMC with its serpentine polity will take Traditionalists years or a decade to twist to their liking, the claim now is that we should dissolve The UMC, sell its joint assets, and set annual conferences or networks of churches free with their own property and some regional resources. Let each one go free, though losing much in the process.
The way to walk this path is through negotiation with the Traditionalists. The ideal scenario is for both (or all) perspectives to come to the table with a sense of grace and respect. I don’t have a lot of faith that the Traditionalists will come with grace and respect—repeatedly in their legislation over the past decade has been a desire to “own the libs.” So I fear the negotiation table will become a hostage situation rather than holy discernment. But it’s a path that is still being poured and perhaps negotiation will get us there if cooler heads of the Traditionalists prevail upon their own party.
3. The Beaten Path of Resistance
But there’s a path that the Traditionalists do not want progressives to take, the path that has been beaten down by those who will follow the Spirit’s call on their hearts and not the hard concrete of General Conference.
The beaten path of Resistance: ”Remain” in the UMC. This path is to continue to reject the Traditional Plan, to continue on the path we have been, and to show how the Traditional Plan is toothless and will only be implemented in a patchwork fashion. The numbers work even if it falls short of full inclusion, and the goal is to allow time and culture (just like the inclusion of women and African-American pastors) to shape the Traditionalists until they open up—or just elect less anti-gay leadership.
Beating a path takes time, following the trailblazers who sacrificed to lay it. It takes top-to-bottom agreement by a jurisdiction to create it, and so far only the Western Jurisdiction has done so. It is within reach by the North, but out of reach by the South. So while the Traditionalist Plan can harm the Resistance in the South, they cannot implement what they want in the North (given a few changes) and definitely not the West.
But the enthusiasm gap is vast: progressives have been in this conflict for a long time, and the exhaustion and the hope for something new drains the energy out of some of these efforts. And yet this is also the path with the easiest implementation: With a clear, compelling strategy of how this path will enliven something new, wedded with the resources and marketing savvy of the megachurches and moderates, and this path can be clear and effective. It will take LGBTQ advocates, progressives, Persons of Color, megachurch pastors, and moderates working together. It will be a fragile coalition, but one that United Methodism hasn’t seen before, and thus the possibilities are unknown.
What Path will work?
We took a few test votes at UMC Next and they were just as split as a usual General Conference vote, so the way forward is not as clear across The UMC as it might be in your local church. Our tables were diverse, helping each other see that “stay and fight” could work in some contexts but not others, and “let’s just walk away” has varied financial barriers across the connection.
The end result was better connections, better learnings about how to center LGBTQ persons and Persons of Color, and a grudging growth towards mutuality between LGBTQ advocates and moderate Megachurch pastors. The event had many failings and intentional or unintentional micro aggressions to LGBTQ persons, to which I lament.
I lament that not everyone was on the same page and we cannot put energy towards one path. But the Traditionalists have showed us they can walk on two paths at the same time. They have their own parallel denomination ready to go without The UMC—with all the books, revivals, women’s supplementary materials, seminaries, Missions, and fellowship that they would need—but they also walked the path of dominance within The UMC. So too can progressives walk several paths right now until one of them breaks open for us to more quickly and effectively achieve a more just expression of Methodism
Your turn
For the coming months, I will follow the lead of LGBTQ persons, seeking guidance from those at the margins of United Methodism as to how to create a more just and inclusive denomination. I will also seek guidance from women and POC caucus groups who stand to lose significant gains made in a separation situation. And in the meantime, I’ll be providing information and analysis to support a variety of paths inside and outside United Methodism.
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
thank you! I believe it is in our (regional at least) DNA to follow path #3.. that is the one around which I feel the most hope and energy!
But in following this path will your local church still pay full apportionments to the global church that continues to hold down GLBTQ folks? This is the part that made us leave the UMC. We couldn’t continue to go and not give to the local church but couldn’t give to the local church knowing that apportionments were still being paid. AND it keeps your membership in a Global Church which espouses views we could not tolerate. This is why we left (actually much more complicated than these two items but this is the crux of the matter)…
I traveled through the Midwest and South last fall, stopping at UM churches along the way to see their contexts and meet these people who call me apostate. The biggest impression from my trip is that it’s like it’s 20-30 years ago there.
So I can see how it’s progress for them to (finally) start resisting, but as for me and my Western Jurisdiction church, we’re ready to make disciples and care for the least of these as the inclusive reconciling congregation we already are!
Beyond that, there’s a whole lot of our midtwentieth century structure that doesn’t support the adaptive and contextual work we need to do, as others have well identified. I value the big tent, practical theology, accountability, appointments, and liturgical freedom of the UMC, but not much of the general boards or agencies are useful for my context.
The Traditionalist position will strengthen in the coming decade as new Annual Conferences outside the US will mean more votes in areas that align very strongly with the Traditionalist view. It’s hard to out-strategize math.
The litmus tests are coming and there is a timeline for the implementation of the Traditionalist Plan. Are the powers-that-be at UMNext really going to fiddle around with various paths? GC2020 is less than a year away. If you don’t like the exit plans offered, then you need to create your own and create it now.
Thanks for this reflection. It is the first time I’ve felt real hope for us. However, in my church context path #3 would lead to a mass exodus of churches. We’ve waited long enough. Time for justice to prevail.
I haven’t been able to walk through the doors of a Methodist church since GC, because as a cisgender, hetero male, to walk into a church that does not check my qualifications at the door in order to participate fully, I would be taking advantage of my privileged position to do so. Until the table is fully open, how can I partake at the expense of another? Participation in an unjust system is complicity, as a layperson. It’s different for clergy, and I get that. To walk away is to take enormous financial and career risks. But as laity, it doesn’t sit right. I can’t be the only one who is temporarily(?) worshiping as an Episcopalian until my home denomination gets it right. But if it takes another 10, 20 years? My roots will be down. I might never come back.
You’re right. The energy for path three is waning — at least on my part. Believe i’m close to admitting that I’m tired of being a warrior fighting for my place in the UMC.
Thanks for laying these options out in discernable ways, Jeremy.
Playing with your metaphor a bit, would any kids go to a playground where they are told immediately upon arrival that they can play on the monkey bars but the slide isn’t for them? Or maybe, just maybe, they can play on the slide next year, or perhaps when no one is looking? Is our playground really that compelling—even with the slide?
The danger for each of these paths—most particularly for path three—is that LGBTQIA+ folk will realize that there is actually another park across the street that already allows them to use the slide, and has free ice cream on Sundays.
This is such a good analogy. As a gay male who has been in the fight for well over a decade, I’m just TIRED of fighting. I am a lifelong Methodist, but at this point, I KNOW there are other denominations, or no denomination at all, where I can be myself, do good in the world, and have a whole lot more energy to do these things because I’m not worried about what the Church thinks of me.
I traveled through the Midwest and South last fall, stopping at UM churches along the way to see their contexts and meet these people who call me apostate. The biggest impression from my trip is that it’s like it’s 20-30 years ago there.
So I can see how it’s progress for them to (finally) start resisting, but as for me and my Western Jurisdiction church, we’re ready to make disciples and care for the least of these as the inclusive reconciling congregation we already are!
Beyond that, there’s a whole lot of our midtwentieth century structure that doesn’t support the adaptive and contextual work we need to do, as others have well identified. I value the big tent, practical theology, accountability, appointments, and liturgical freedom of the UMC, but not much of the general boards or agencies are useful for my context.
I wish the resources expended for UMC Next had been applied to a ‘Council of Jerusalem’ type of meeting. Right now many folks hold to the Bible saying that LGBT-ism is a sin. A group, let say the Bishops, hash it out and declares “ no, it’s not a sin, because of this and that (map our situation to one described in Acts and applying latest medical research and such)”. That would be provided to annual/general conferences. Just saying “society accepts it” is not going to be enough to change hearts and minds.
I am laity from a small NC church in the outer rim. Don’t really know the history of this scrap but I know we have more important things to worry about. This is a horrible waste of talent and resources. It sounds like the UMC Next and WCA events are both spirit filled events, only bad thing is they cancel each other out
Didn’t the Bishops already meddle enough? Nobody’s going to listen to their proclamations; people already know their reasons for believing as they do. BTW, I think the Bible already has this subject analyzed anyway.
I don’t know what Bishops have done up to now other than tasking the Way Forward committee. I cannot imagine anyone purposely engineering this fratricide. An accident we need to recover from.
Folks tend to not listen to anyone nowadays But hope springs eternal
The Bible covers this subject pretty well. It also provides the example of the Council of Jerusalem for resolving issues like this. When I hear the testimonies I just don’t hear anything that warrants “pillar of fire” type responses. Besides, the world today is different than back then. Let a council examine the issues and hear the testimonies
Three pronged offensives are one thing, but it’s not a good thing when directed at your own territory
To expand on the Council idea and why the options presented by both sides are probably not ideal let me offer this. Christians are tough, they will face down hungry lions for their faith. Which is why you need to address the sin status of LGBT-ism in a Council first, it is key terrain.
I am guessing the statement of concern that would be addressed could be something like “the harvest is great, the workers few, what exactly is the problem here?” Then, why exactly is LGBT-ism sinful? Is it the idea of getting frisky without the goal of children, is there something in LGBT culture inherently un-Christian, is it the idea of defining ones life by sexuality, … You would refine those question to be addressed and add more in the initial planning conference then further in main planning conference held to plan the actual event.
Both traditional and progressive have said things they should not of. Forgive all that, take issue down to bare metal. Treat as incorporating a new culture and that you need people of that culture to minister to people of that culture.
Completing this would not be all. While Christians will face down lions, some will also leave for relatively minor things such as donated flowers being rearranged. A tough decision space to manage so care is needed.
United Methodism already has a council. It’s called General Conference. That is the body that was created to decide questions like this. We are in crisis because there are those who have decided not to accept the General Conference decision. It’s as if Matthew, Thomas, Thaddeus, and Bartholomew decided not to accept the results of the Council of Jerusalem and lead a “resistance” movement against those decisions.
Rev. Lambrecht, thank you for your comment. I was thinking of a smaller group (tiger team) that would examine this issue as a research question, maintaining traceability between the Bible, available scientific and medical research, and the results which would be provided to annual conferences and then the general conference. Maybe some maneuver room can be found
I have not developed any scenarios to use to answer possible questions but let say something unique to modern world affects someone’s sexuality. Maintaining traceability with the Bible, does this change things?
Maintaining traceability is important
I have been to a few annual conferences and not sure if that is the best environment for this, but folks crafting resolutions and voting would benefit from the product this research would produce.
Hi Walter,
As a point, Lambrecht doesn’t really want a solution like you suggest – he’s one of the main authors of the Traditionalist Plan and really would like the progressives to toe the line or get out.
I find it interesting that he’s on this board pushing his views. Seems like he might be a bit worried about the outcome of that conference.
JR, thanks for your response. Pastor Jeremy runs a fine blog here. I don’t agree with a lot on it but he does bring up ideas that warrant thinking on.
I have not met him but I am sure Rev. Lambrecht cares for the church and would not like to see it split. Folks are frustrated by this problem facing the church. The Almighty knows how to stoke that furnace to do the necessary refining.
I am not trained in theology but was rather a problem solver before my retirement. I can almost smell that there is a solution here but I don’t have the knowledge to more than scratch the surface. Guessing that the solution lies in the granularity of how LGBT-ism is referred in the Bible combined with current scientific and medical information. The Bible coverage of other items might apply here where before folks think it did not. I cant stress enough traceability would have to be maintained through all of this. Could be all sides pull a win out of this.
Logic and traceability to the Bible will not be all. I was finishing up Rev. Hamilton’s study on Peter just as GC2019 was winding down. In the question section I pulled videos from the conference to challenge the mostly traditional crowd. I learned from this that there is an emotional component to all this that completely overrides the logical component. It will take some time, but it would be an adventure.
Hi Walter,
You are certainly more optimistic than I about the future of the UMC.
As for Rev. Lambrecht, you might want to read up on his point of view before assuming he wants to keep the church together.
https://goodnewsmag.org/
http://tomlambrecht.goodnewsmag.org/
He’s got a very specific point of view and it’s not compatible in any way with Rev Jeremy.
That being said, there could be a solution in the area you are poking. That would require an interest in such a solution, and I don’t think there’s a lot of that available at this point. Sadly, I think we’re years past that kind of a solution being viable.
As a conservative I do not accept the Bishops guidance when it opposes the teachings of the Bible. If the vote at GC had gone the other way, I would have felt the need to dissociate myself from what had become of the UMC. I could not participate in a denomination that accepted and advocated that which I believe to be sinful. (Yes we all sin and I certainly am not neat perfect.) I do support the fair division of the church and that no pastor should lose pension benefits.
As a conservative I do not accept the Bishops guidance when it opposes the teachings of the Bible. If the vote at GC had gone the other way, I would have felt the need to dissociate myself from what had become of the UMC. I could not participate in a denomination that accepted and advocated that which I believe to be sinful. (Yes we all sin and I certainly am not neat perfect.) I do support the fair division of the church and that no pastor should lose pension benefits.
Doug, thank you for your comment. One thing that I imagine that would be looked at is if LGBT-ism is a choice or hard wired. You would not say that someone born missing a limb or born with certain color hair is sinful.
The event I am imagining would have maybe 30-40 participants. Aside from science and medical subject matter experts, you would probably include professors from seminary. I have heard several conducting lay servant training and have been impressed. Like I have said, traceability with the Bible would need to be maintained so everyone knows why and what
In the questions I presented in the Bible study the issue you bring up about interpretation was mentioned. That is why I stress traceability
Hi Jeremy,
Been awhile since I have replied but I read almost all of what you post. As someone who began ministry as a strong traditionalist, I have moved to what is often referred to as the strong middle. That does not really seem to a position that is highly regarded anymore….and I find that sad. However, if there is a change, split…or whatever it is called, I will strive to be in ministry with all people wherever the path I am following takes me. I had lifted my name to be part of the 600 but was not selected. While I am not surprised as I am sure many were hoping for the invite, I did so knowing that there would be some kind of gathering in my annual conference. (Texas) where folks who want to listen and discern would be welcome. I am no longer afraid of a split or division and will hope that Kingdom building will be the priority and outcome. In my current status and position, I will use my energy for early childhood education and aim at that 3rd Grade Reading standard in my community and beyond. That to me is were the real mission of the church should be aimed. I like that path.
Great post, much appreciated. Staying and resisting has most advantages on its side. Globally, United Methodist will be moving closer to inclusion – if liberals can learn to embrace evangelism more effectively. Proclaim the risen Jesus effectively, and the rest will follow…
What of UM-Forward? As an ally, they are who I follow, read, and try to understand. The pain is horrific, the weariness is deeply profound, our POC-Q-T siblings are groaning and suffering, some, I fear, to death – of the soul if not the body. If my soul cries out, How long, O Lord?, and I am a privileged but struggling ally involved on the comfortable periphery for the past 20 years…..the pain of my siblings must be unbearable. Did UM Next do anything to acknowledge that pain? That righteous fury? To show in tangible and tenacious ways how moderates and we progressives stand with them in the fiery furnace? Please, keep us informed….thank you!
Resistance should be combined with much greater outreach to Central Conferences. I have an African Gay Man Facebook Friend who talked about starting a Reconciling Church in Africa. I bet there are many persons in Africa who could be swayed on this issue.
Midwest pastor here. You are right in saying that #3 won’t work here yet. Please please advocate for a plan that will give a progressive congregations and pastors an option. Else LGBTQ persons in the heartland will lose the welcoming faith communities they have.
Midwest laity here. 2nd this motion. The struggle I see is apathy among a good chunk of membership (and the basic midwesterness of not rocking the bock). There are some, like me, who speak as LGBTQ+ allies, try to amplify their voices, & advocate for full inclusion. But it seems so many people are just ambivalent and would rather go along to get along than deal with issues of UMC polity. I think they can be moved, but we need to figure out how.
Resistance has been tried for 40 years. It has not worked – and will not work in the coming decades as the numbers in the conservative annual and central conferences increase. Progressives are leaving the UMC now…it is time to split before the majority are gone and progressive churches are shells.
Jeremy, thank you for sharing such a clear, honest analysis of the possible paths ahead.
I have said almost from the moment of the final tragic vote in St. Louis that progressives should not be driven into schism. Rather, we should study carefully and learn the methods of the right which have led us all to this tragic point. We should organize better, create our own caucus groups, develop our own strategies and tactics and be ready to fight fire with fire. For too long we have gone to a gun fight with a knife in out hands. We now know, as does the whole UMC, how mean-spirited, conniving and underhanded the right can be. They also take a very long view. Where we are today marks a point along a path that the right started more than 40 years ago. We must be equally far sighted, determined and resourceful.
Progressives are not stupid. I think we have placed too much confidence in the super structure of the UMC itself to help us ward off outside influences. In the end, it was the right’s courtship of the African Central conferences that carried the day. And this courtship included chicanery at best, deceit and lies at worst. And while we were doing this, the right was organizing an entire parallel superstructure to the UMC, often with implicit, although perhaps ignorant, consent.
In my own church, I came across minutes of the Board in 1998 in which our two pastors were going to an event described as being sponsored by a “Methodist Group.” This group was the Confessing Movement. I’m certain that our Board did not realize that the Confessing Movement was never part of the Methodist Church or that its principle aim was to undermine all mainline Protestant churches. It’s just such careful misstatement that has deceived most Methodists for far too long. Look on the WCA’s web site and see how often the phrase United Methodist Church crops up. To the casual observer, WCA also is part of the UMC. Not so!
To illustrate how far the right has over stepped this time, consider the news reporting about GC 2019. It has all been about the opposition to the Traditional Plan and what a dismal development this has been. There is nothing about a busy church implementing its latest decisions. It is about resistance.
So let’s keep it up. If enough Methodists resist is ways both large and small, there is nothing the church can do. Note the Western Jurisdiction. Renfroe does not want another St. Louis, but I expect he will get one at the 2020 General Conference. Let’s submit a thousand resolutions demanding to undo the Traditional Plan and to eliminate discriminatory language against gay people. Reisit!
You’d be surprised, there are those of us in the south that are not traditionalists and will resist. We have pastors on our side, also.
I have lgbtq in my life, and in the quest to first, do no harm, I offered up changing denominations, or remaining to fight within. I received full support on fighting from within. So remaining I am.
The problem I see with the three paths analogy is that in order to be effective, it requires at least a congregation-level commitment. If you are an outlier in your church (say you are a progressive in a church of ‘don’t rock the boat’ folks) then there’s very little you can do.
Resistance takes numbers.
Should a person individually split from their congregation – finding a progressive church option would be good, strengthening the numbers, but I’m not sure how much of a difference it makes at the end of the day.
News from the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference last week:
“Bishop LaTrelle Easterling commissioned Tara Cressler “TC” Morrow as a provisional Deacon and ordained the Rev. Joey Heath-Mason as a full Elder. Both Morrow and Heath-Mason are married to people of the same gender.”
https://www.bwcumc.org/news-and-views/ordination-makes-history-on-many-levels/
Go baltimore-washington conference!
Yes, the delegates from more conservative parts of the world will grow, but the world is becoming less conservative..
Incredibly useful and well-written article!
Congratulations and thank you for sharing your knowledge on such acronym-heavy subject in a simple way to understand.
Keep it up! Cheers.