Tag Archives: United Methodist Church

Viva la Resistance! Or, something like that…

Well, it is June and that means it is Annual Conference time here in United Methodism. Of course, this year the hot topic at Annual Conferences across the connection was the Special General Conference that took place in February. Ever since that seminal event in St. Louis the leftist faction of the denomination has been feverishly at work to organize their resistance… or, something like that.

Not terribly surprisingly, LGBTQ clergy were ordained or commissioned in the Northern Illinois and Baltimore-Washington Conferences. I guess you can file this in your ever-expanding “Who Needs Rules in the United Methodist Church” folder.

Slightly more surprising, though not entirely, was the ordination of an LGBTQ clergyperson in the North Texas Conference. I say it is not entirely unsurprising because North Texas does include Dallas, which is not exactly a bastion of conservatism. However, there is a unique aspect to the situation in North Texas. That is, the clergyperson in this case is not a practising homosexual. Thus, the argument can be made that the ordination in North Texas is within the parameters of The Book of Discipline.

Now, the “resistance” can be further witnessed in the passing of resolutions at the various Annual Conference meetings. If you are unfamiliar with our propensity to pass head scratching, facepalm worthy resolutions, then you are missing out on quite the spectacle.

Case in point: the Great Plains Annual Conference passed a resolution condemning the Traditional Plan and apologizing for the way the vote went at the Special General Conference. Now, the folks at MainstreamUMC.com want us to believe that this is some pretty radical and shocking stuff. Of course, the Great Plains Annual Conference is Adam Hamilton’s backyard.

So, we’re told in the article that Nebraska and Kansas are reliably conservative and have a history for voting for Republican presidential candidates. They do, in fact, have a history of voting for Republican presidential candidates. However, Kansas also has a Democrat Governor and Lieutenant Governor – so, I’m not sure what we are to take from the voting habits of people in Kansas. Kansas was also home to the well-known late-term abortion provider, George Tiller. And, the Kansas Supreme Court recently ruled that abortion is a constitutional right under the Kansas Constitution. So, let’s not pretend that Kansas is the poster child of conservative states.

Now, couple this with the fact that the UMC in the United States has a substantial number of left leaning members and the Great Plains Conference is in the backyard of a megachurch whose pastor is actively campaigning against the Traditional Plan, and suddenly it is not too surprising that such a resolution would pass. If this resolution had passed in Oklahoma, then that would have been worthy of note. As it is, its just another resolution that will be read by a small group of people and ignored by even more, just like nearly every other resolution.

The Traditional Plan Prevails Again

I must admit that I am pleasantly surprised that the Judicial Council has upheld the Traditional Plan. Even more surprising, however, was the Judicial Council’s decision to uphold parts of the Disaffiliation Resolution. If you are interested in seeing how the council ruled on the various items related to the Special General Conference, the folks over at UMNews have a handy-dandy chart for you to consult. Now, not surprisingly, there are some who are suggesting that the Judicial Council made a horrible decision when it comes to barring the consecration and/or ordination of people who would be otherwise disqualified under the Book of Discipline – go figure…

Since the council has ruled, talks of a split have apparently escalated. Of course, Progressives are up in arms and apparently feel that the traditional Plan is bad for publicity. So, apparently public opinion and not Scripture is of primary concern for those on the left. Indeed, all the talk of “resistance” is about resisting Biblical teaching. The sad truth is that pastors of large UMC churches find themselves in a position where they choose compromise over Biblical integrity for one of two reasons: (1) They have made the personal decision to abandon historic teachings of the church, which makes them wolves in sheep’s clothing; or (2) they simply find that standing up for what they know is right is too costly professionally.

But, that is enough for now on the Special General Conference. After all, only a year from now there will be the regularly scheduled General Conference. I have some ideas for the next several posts, and none of them are specifically related to any UMC issues.

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.

 

 

 

The Shocker in St. Louis

I did not think it would happen, but it did: the UMC took a conservative stance on a social issue at a General Conference. Much to my surprise, the Special General Conference passed the Traditional Plan – the one I had hoped they would. With the bishops throwing their weight behind the One Church Plan, and throwing in a big name like Adam Hamilton to speak on their behalf, it looked like the fix was in. But, thankfully, many brothers and sisters in Christ took a stand and upheld what the United Methodist Church already stated in its Discipline. Yes, you read that right. Despite some out there claiming that something new and sinister was passed at the General Conference in St. Louis, the truth is that the church voted to affirm and actually enforce what is already codified in The Book of Discipline. So, when you read a news story like the one produced by a Florida news station, just know that there may be a spin and more investigation is warranted.

It should be pointed out that the plan still has to go before the Judicial Council, which meets in April. However, there is certainly reason for traditionalists in the United Methodist Church to celebrate. The Church should be about the business of transforming culture, not being transformed by it. The UMC took a stand. Praise be to God.

It’s time for the UMC to Split

It is time… In fact, it is past time for the United Methodist Church to go through an amicable separation. For far too long we have been playing the game of trying to stay together and pretend everything is well. The reality, however, is that everything is not well.

I believe it was at the 2008 or 2012 General Conference that mention of an amicable separation was mentioned, only to have the typical knee-jerk spasmodic reaction that we typically have when someone mentions the idea. People were up in arms, calling for unity, and speaking about how foreign such an idea was. Garbage. The idea was not foreign. Indeed, many of us have thought about it for a number of years. The reaction of  many of the representatives at General Conference reminds me of the way the media reacted to the 2016 election: we never saw that coming. No kidding. To see something like that coming you have to get out of whatever ivory tower you are in and visit the commoners that populate the churches on Sunday morning. There you will find a wide range of folks. There will be everything from people who abhor the idea of a split to those who have their metaphorical “bug out” bags packed and ready to go.

If we would have taken seriously the words spoken at that General Conference years ago, a lot of heartache and ill will within the denomination could have been avoided. The new denominational structures would already be up and running by now and we could all focus on ministry instead of figuring out how we can muck up things for a while longer.

If you have been following all the chatter around the special General COnference this year, then you have probably formed an opinion about which plans you like and don’t like for moving forward. For me, the Traditional Plan is the way to go. Now, I understand a split will undoubtedly follow this move, but it will be good in the end. The Bishops seem to be obsessed with the One Church Plan, but unless following the PCUSA down the same path they took is your idea of good plan, then I would avoid this like the plague. The other plan they have been tossing out there, where we essentially have different jurisdictions of the church based on theology overlapping geographically, is the ecclesiastical version of a house of mirrors – you never know what you are looking at.

I think I’ll leave it at that for now.

Can the United Methodist Church Survive?

The United Methodist Church is rapidly approaching a fork in the road that has enormous consequences regardless of which direction it chooses.  For years the church has been embroiled in a controversy of its own making.  On the one side are traditionalists who want to turn the church back toward its theology of origin.  On the other side are those who wish to set aside traditional ways of thinking for more progressive.  And, in the middle are those with their heads in the sand hoping the denomination can continue pretending that all is well.

Those in the middle are in a hopeless situation to say the least.  That leaves the traditionalists and progressives to determine the future of the church.  Can the two sides be reconciled? Let me answer this with a clear and emphatic “no!”  When one side or the other speaks of reconciliation in matters of theology, what they are actually saying is, “Come over to my side and we will be reconciled.”

I, myself, am counted amongst the traditionalists.  And, I do think the church needs to split.  Staying together like we are is helping no one.

Now, let me speak briefly to something I typed in the opening paragraph.  I wrote that this controversy is of our own making and I mean every word of that.  Refusing to stand firmly on beliefs only leads to the degredation of those beliefs.  The old syaing goes, “If you let the nose of the camel intio the tent, you let the whole camel in.”   In the same way, when the United Methodist Church refuses to enforce its own Book of Discipline, it cannot help but to collapse under the weight of all that soon follows.  This is where we are now: a camel is in the tent.  It is time to either move on, or learn to live with a camel.