Tag Archives: Traditional Plan

Progressive Methodist Voting Logic

If you haven’t been keeping up with all the latest and greatest adventures in United Methodism, then you may be surprised to learn that there is a rift in the church. For those who have been keeping up with it, especially traditionalists, you have probably been reading stories about the church and wondering how the Babylon Bee had infiltrated UMNews.org. The latest story I read certainly had me scratching my head.

It all begins with a headline declaring, “Centrists, progressives to discuss church’s future.” Unsurprisingly, Adam Hamilton, is quoted often and his leftward leanings continue to be displayed for all to see. In fact, the whole article is basically discussing a blog article he recently wrote titled, “What’s Next for The United Methodist Church?” Now, Hamilton is remarkably articulate, there is no denying that. What I can question, however, is some of his thinking in regards to how voting works.

At the Special General Conference in St. Louis, the Traditional Plan won the vote. Now, what I find interesting is the collective progressive shock that traditionalists within the United Methodist Church could actually pull off such a victory. Since that time Progressive disdain for our African brothers and sisters having a voice in church matters has become increasingly apparent. We’ve had no problem telling them how to conduct business all these years, but now that they have a powerful voice at the table the alarm bells are being raised by the liberal wing of the church. But, I digress.

What the article at UMNews, and the post by Hamilton, have to say however, is quite the spectacle to behold. In the face of losing the vote, progressives have now taken this approach: we realize you won the vote, now leave the denomination. If you are saying to yourself, “Wut?!” it is an understandable response. Indeed, this seems to be the latest and greatest approach of the left. Now, how did they come to this conclusion? Well, apparently, because traditionalists had contemplated leaving the denomination if the leftists won the day, then it only goes to follow that if they actually won the vote and staved off the progressive onslaught, that the traditionalists should leave. Its kind of like looking at the Clemson Tigers following their upset victory over Alabama in the college football national championship this year and saying, “Look, we know you won the game and all, but most people thought you were gonna lose. So, why don’t you go ahead and give the trophy and title over to Alabama and just go home.”

Now, they did manage to come up with some more fuzzy logic. As it turns out, in the bizarro world of progressives it would take years and be legally difficult for progressives to leave the UMC. In fact, if they were to leave the whole denomination would just need to be dissolved and new Methodist denominations would need to be formed. However, if the traditionalists leave, the progressives would be so beneficent as to provide us with a financially easy and gracious exit. Well, gee-whiz, that sure sounds snazzy. That is, until I remember that it was the traditionalists who carried the day at the Special General Conference. So, yeah, I’m not buying the logic that says it would be easy for traditionalists to leave, but not progressives.

As I mentioned recently, progressives also have plans to simply resist. In other words, they plan to be annoying and make the church so uncomfortable for traditionalists that they will eventually leave. The basic strategy is for progressives to be progressives. This is the “turd in the punch bowl” strategy.

Still, not to be outdone, the progressives have another plan! In this plan, the Judicial Council throws out most of the Traditional Plan and the left celebrates. I can only imagine the amount of lobbying that is going on with members of the Judicial Council.

But wait! There’s more! If the above plans do not work, they also have hopes that they can elect new delegates to the General Conference in 2020. These new delegates will then try to overturn the vote of the Special General Conference. But there is trouble brewing on the horizon! The church in Africa will have 20 more delegates at the General Conference. And this development has progressives wringing their hands.

That’ll suffice for now.

UMC Shenanigans!

Unsurprisingly, certain members of the liberal wing of the UMC are suggesting underhanded tactics to rip apart the church in the face of their defeat at the Special General Conference. In one case, it is being suggested that United Methodist churches in United States become separate from the global body and govern themselves according to their own wants, unshackled from those pesky Christians overseas. Reading such an article, I can certainly understand why the Bishop John K. Yambasu of the Sierra Leone Area was quoted by the United Methodist News Agency as saying, “As an African, I find myself thinking, is this the church where I really want to be?” Indeed, the reaction to the vote by United Methodists in the U.S. and Europe have the Africans wondering if they should become an autonomous church. But this is exactly what the liberal wing of the church wants.

In a telling moment, Adam Hamilton, who has finally started to come out from under his sheep’s clothing to reveal himself a wolf, had this to say to UMNews.org:

“One is people saying, ‘This is our church and we’re not giving it up and we’re going to resist and we’re going to disobey the Discipline,” he said.

Hamilton added that “if it’s uncomfortable enough” then traditionalist churches may choose to leave and form their own denomination, especially if they can retain their property.

According to Hamilton, this was one of two possible paths for progressives moving forward from the Special General Conference. The other was to form two Methodisms from the existing church. In short, the progressive/liberal wing of the denomination has no real intent to be part of a global church.

This goes a long way to explain another move within the church to determine what can and cannot be contextualized in varying cultures.  While there certainly are questions about contextualization in relation to missions, there are some things that should be universal regardless of cultural context. For instance, moral principles based on Scripture should not be altered based on cultural context. If we are simply talking about matters related to trustees and what not, contextualize all you want. If we are talking about moral issues, Scripture is our guide and not our culture.

 

 

 

Well, that didn’t take long…

It has not been long since the Special General Conference in St. Louis ended. Still, in the relatively short span of time between the end of February and now, it has become apparent that the liberal wing of the church was not prepared to deal with the defeat of their precious “One Church Plan.” The vote at the Special General Conference is being called into question by some who are claiming that unauthorized people voted – I do find it funny that the UMC required a photo ID for voters at the conference despite so many who protest against such policies in the secular arena. Now a task force has been organized by the conference’s organizers to investigate the alleged voting irregularities.

But, even that small matter pales in comparison to the defiant attitude of some Annual Conferences.  Apparently, and admittedly unsurprisingly, the New York and Greater New Jersey Conferences are having trouble coming to terms with what transpired in St. Louis. UM News even has a quote from Bishop Bickerton stating, “Just because the vote went a certain way, we cannot expect conformity to follow.” This is a strange thing to say, especially since many of us could venture to suppose that he would have expected conformity to follow if the “One Church Plan” won the day in St. Louis.

We should not be surprised that supporters of the “One Church Plan” are so up in arms at the moment and seemingly eager to engage in slash and burn tactics until they get their way or force conservatives out. At least the WCA and other conservatives were honest enough with themselves and others to put their cards on the table and let it be known that leaving the church was a live option. The same cannot be said of those on the left. They are like a hair in a grilled cheese sandwich – they will stay and make a mess until it becomes more desirable to throw it all away than try to salvage what is good.

Now, back to the “One Church Plan” and why we should not be surprised by their disgust with having existing, long-held, and Biblically based standards enforced within the denomination. The “One Church Plan” removes accountability and turns the denomination into a buffet of individualism. Supporters of the “One Church Plan” have essentially turned their noses up at historic Christianity and decided to throw off the yoke of accountability.

Anyhow, that is enough for now.