Methodism at a Crossroads

Since 1972, The United Methodist Church has been wracked by an ever-increasing conflict over doctrinal issues, particularly relating to human sexuality and marriage. Disagreements over the definition of marriage and the practice of homosexuality have not only become more vociferous within the U.S. portion of Methodism, they threaten to tear the church apart. Demonstrators have become bolder in their efforts to disrupt meetings and dictate agendas. Pastors and even bishops have determined to ignore and contradict church teaching by openly performing same-sex weddings and ordaining persons living in a homosexual relationship.

Many attempts at dialog, negotiation, and compromise have proven unfruitful. The root issues are biblical authority (will we keep church teaching in line with what the Scriptures say) and institutional integrity (will the church enforce its requirements or trivialize them by ignoring violations). Neither "side" is able to compromise bedrock principles. The progressive position of affirming same-sex relationships and behavior is irreconcilably at odds with the traditional position that sexual relations are to be enjoyed only within the bounds of marriage between one man and one woman.

Meanwhile, The United Methodist Church is in steep decline. According to recently released statistics from 2014, membership and attendance losses are increasing. Our churches in some areas of the U.S. are losing 4-5 percent per year, which means they could go out of existence in 20 years. The continued conflict over sexuality is both exacerbating the decline and drawing crucial resources of time, money, and energy that could be devoted to discipleship, evangelism, and missions.

What will the 2016 General Conference do to resolve the conflict? The Rev. Rob Renfroe, my colleague and president of Good News, calls it a "cage match" - with both "sides" trapped in a cage and fighting, with neither able to leave the cage until one or the other is beaten. And if we are truly trapped in a cage match, will anything be left of the church when the fight is over?

Individuals and groups of leaders in the church have been working tirelessly over the past 18 months to try to come up with a solution to the conflict that bedevils the church. What follows is a survey of some of the proposed solutions that will come before the General Conference for consideration.

Amicable Separation. Given the deep theological divides in the church and the inability of either "side" to compromise due to reasons of conscience, it would appear that the most straightforward solution to our conflict is amicable separation. Like Abraham and Lot in Genesis 13 or Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15, the church could decide to allow those who want to affirm homosexual behavior and perform same-sex marriages to go one way, while those who desire to maintain the church's historic teachings on sexuality and marriage to go a different way. Some envision a possible third group of those who would allow each pastor and congregation to act according to their own conscience but not take a stand as a denomination on this question.

A detailed plan for enabling the denomination to separate into two or three different new denominations has been submitted to General Conference. A different proposal would form a commission on separation to write its own plan of division and bring it to a special called session of the General Conference in 2018. Either of these two options would lead to denominational separation in the U.S., while allowing the churches outside the U.S. to decide either to affiliate with one of the new denominations or to become autonomous churches.

It is unlikely that a move toward separation would pass General Conference in 2016. There is still a strong desire for unity among delegates, even with our disagreements. Many delegates, both liberal and conservative, are committed to doing all they can to preserve the institution of United Methodism. In addition, any plan of separation would require a 2/3 vote of the General Conference, as well as a 2/3 vote of approval by all the members of the various annual conferences. These factors make adoption of such an approach unlikely.

Jurisdictional Options. The Rev. Chris Ritter of the Illinois Great Rivers Annual Conference has put forth several forms of a "Jurisdictional Solution." Under his proposals, United Methodists would stay united in one denomination, while forming different non-geographical jurisdictions for the two or three factions within the church. Each jurisdiction would be empowered to determine its own stance on same-sex marriages and set its own qualifications for ordination. The jurisdictions would still be united around a common pension plan, missions program, and some of the other resources offered by the general church. However, the jurisdictions would have greater autonomy in determining their approach to ministry, and some of the general agencies would likely become jurisdictionally specific agencies, rather than serving the whole church.

While a jurisdictional solution offers some positive points in its favor, there has not been a lot of support for it. Some see it as a stepping-stone toward eventual separation, and therefore oppose it. Many on the far left object to being "segregated" in a "pro-gay jurisdiction." They also object to being part of a church that still allows what they would call discrimination against LGBT persons. Many on the far right object to being part of a church that would allow some churches and pastors to perform same-sex weddings and ordain practicing homosexuals, which they view as fatally compromising the teachings of Scripture. These proposals would also require a 2/3 vote of approval by General Conference and annual conference members, making any of them difficult to pass.

Local Option Proposal. Eighteen months ago, the Rev. Adam Hamilton, pastor of the largest United Methodist congregation in the U.S., floated the idea of a "local option" plan, sometimes called "A Way Forward." Under his proposal, the denomination's position on the practice of homosexuality would remain the same, while local churches, pastors, and annual conferences would be given the option of "adapting" the denomination's requirements to allow them to perform same-sex marriages and ordain practicing homosexuals.

Hamilton views this proposal as a compromise that would enable each pastor and local church to follow their own conscience in this matter, while enabling the church to stay united. Many evangelicals, however, are not open to this proposal because they believe evangelicals would be doing all the "compromising." Liberals would get to do what they want to do -- perform same-sex marriages and ordain practicing homosexuals -- while conservatives would gain nothing. We believe that liberals would see this approach as merely a stepping stone toward changing the denomination's position on marriage and sexuality. They would not stop fighting until the UM Church required that gay persons be married on the same basis as heterosexual persons, and that gay persons be ordained on the same basis as heterosexual persons. The "local option" would not end the conflict, but only advance the progressive cause closer to their eventual goal.

In addition, the "local option" would encourage the spread of the conflict down to the annual conference and local church level. What is now a once every four years donnybrook would become an annual affair in every annual conference until that annual conference voted to ordain practicing homosexuals. And since the "local option" would allow local churches and pastors to opt out of the denominational requirements, every local church would sooner or later have to face a request from a member to perform a same-sex wedding. Each local church would be on its own to resolve the conflict, and long-term relationships will be torn apart by deep-seated disagreement.

Evangelicals are wary of this proposal because they believe that, in annual conferences that vote to support same-sex marriage and ordain practicing homosexuals, they would be coerced into agreeing to these practices. Evangelicals who failed to adopt the "party line" of their annual conference would be discriminated against by being given poor appointments and shut out of leadership, and evangelical candidates would not be admitted into ordained ministry in those annual conferences. As with the jurisdictional solution, many conservatives would view the "local option" as fatally compromising the teachings of Scripture and therefore would not be able to remain in the church.

The "local option" might look like a way for the church to stay united with a "live and let live" approach, but it would result in escalated conflict and would probably precipitate the very separation it is designed to avoid.

Connectional Table Proposal. Two years ago, activists from Love Prevails, a pro-gay advocacy organization, took over the Connectional Table (CT) meeting through a demonstration. In response, the CT (the denominational equivalent of a church council) modified its agenda to facilitate a series of three dialogues on the church's teaching regarding homosexuality. After just the first dialog, without any strong presentations in favor of the church's current position, the CT voted to draft legislation to change the church's position.

The CT proposal removes the prohibition on same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. It also changes the definition of marriage to "two people," from "a man and a woman." Supporters of this proposal see it as a compromise - a "third way" - because it leaves intact the prohibition of using church funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality, and it alludes to the fact that The United Methodist Church "historically has not condoned the practice of homosexuality."

However, evangelicals consider the CT proposal a clear change in the church's position, not a compromise. Enacting this plan would ultimately allow same-sex marriage and the ordination and appointment of practicing homosexuals anywhere in the church. Performing a same-sex marriage or being an ordained practicing homosexual would no longer be a chargeable offense. The church would officially be allowing and even supporting behavior that conservatives believe the Bible calls sin.

If the CT plan were to pass, it would no doubt cause many evangelicals to separate from the UM Church, although this separation would probably not be amicable. Many congregations would try to leave the denomination with their property, which is held in trust for the denomination. There would undoubtedly be lawsuits and court battles, similar to what has happened in The Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA). Hundreds of conservative congregations have left those denominations, as well as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the United Church of Christ. The Episcopal Church nationally has spent over $40 million to attempt to hold on to church properties (not counting the amount spent by the churches trying to leave the denomination).

Other mainline denominations experienced a doubling of their rate of decline in the wake of changing their position on marriage and sexuality. In 2014, the UM Church declined 1.6 percent in membership and 2.6 percent in attendance. Were those figures to double, we would be losing 225,000 members per year and 150,000 in attendance per year. Our church cannot withstand many years of those type of losses.

Covenantal Unity Plan. The Covenantal Unity Plan was originally provoked by ideas from two prominent seminary professors, Dr. Bill Arnold (Asbury Theological Seminary) and Dr. David Watson (United Theological Seminary). The premise of this plan is that unity can only be restored in the church by a return to covenantal accountability -- a determination by all United Methodists to live within the boundaries established by General Conference.

Accordingly, the CUP proposes a mandatory minimum penalty of a one-year suspension for clergy guilty of performing a same-sex wedding, with loss of credentials for a second offense. CUP aims to close loopholes by requiring that any "just resolution" of a complaint must involve the person who filed the complaint and must include an apology and commitment not to repeat the offense. CUP also contains a process to strengthen accountability of bishops by making them accountable to a global committee of clergy and laity, rather than their fellow bishops. Finally, in recognition of the fact that covenantal unity cannot be coerced, the CUP contains provisions to allow congregations and clergy who cannot by reason of conscience live within the teachings of the church to withdraw with property and pension intact.

This plan has a realistic chance of passing General Conference. It has the benefit of maintaining the church's current teachings on marriage and sexuality, while restoring a level of accountability that has been lacking over the past four years. The CUP would not solve all the conflicts in the church, but its passage would be a solid signal that the church is moving in a more conservative and evangelical direction.

Conclusion. These are the more prominent plans that have been proposed over the past 18 months in an effort to end the conflict that is damaging The United Methodist Church. Only God knows whether one or a combination of the above proposals will pass General Conference and actually resolve the conflict. If nothing is enacted, the conflict will continue to escalate in the U.S., and the church will continue to weaken and decline. For the sake of God's Kingdom, we pray for wisdom and guidance for our General Conference delegates, as they negotiate these complex problems.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Links to the various plans mentioned in this article will be available at www.Goodnewsmag.org.

These are the more prominent plans that have been proposed over the past 18 months in an effort to end the conflict that is damaging The United Methodist Church.

As a former UMC church worker, I can say without hesitation that there are only two plans, and it will probably take both.

One is a massive invasion of the Holy Spirit into the churches, converting people to the truth of Christ and His Word.

The other is a split--not a schism, because the result would be the Non-Christian Methodist Church and the Christian Methodist Church. This is what has happened in virtually every other Protestant denomination--the ELCA and the LCMS/WELS, the PCUSA and the PCA/ARP, the SBC and the ABC--and it should have happened already in the nonUnited Methodist Church.

I attended a Methodist church for awhile. It had a good pastor. The good news is it is so liberal once in a while a good pastor can sneak in.

the powers that be changed pastors. New pastor dressed up like doris day on sunday eve for outreach. Even borrowed some shoes from the wife of one of the men. the men in my group were laughing about it and bragging that they didn’t get up to sing with him.

I asked the “pastor” how that honored God. He avoided an answer but I persisted with the same question and finally he told me it was FELLOWSHIP, that honored god. I told him I could get better fellowship at the bar. About that time I was told by the church council, mostly woman, I should not be talking to the “pastor”

The most amazing thing to me is not one man stood up with me to challenge the pastor.

It began with ignoring Scripture on church matters. How will the church deal with a pastor practicing adultery if other pastors are doing it openly?

And why just two people? If three men want to get married, is the homophobic UMC going to block the school house doors? :) I mean, really.

It began with the ordaining of women. No denomination can remain Christian for long after this apostasy.

No, that's just a symptom. Every domination that has embraced the theological position on liberal interpretation of Scripture have all gone into decline. Once a church tuns God's Word into a buffet line where you and pick and ignore based on your own beliefs, political leanings, and sexual desires, they might as well write “Ichabod” above the church door and rename yourself as a civic club.

PCUSA and the PCA/ARP

Right on the PCA, wrong on ARP. They have a different family tree, and were never part of what became the PCUSA. You are probably thinking of the EPC and more recently ECO which split off after the north-south merger (PCA split from the old southern branch at the time of the merger, although some churches moved across later.) OPC split from the northern church much earlier, and one can justify either adding or not adding it to this analysis).

Right on the PCA, wrong on ARP

I sit corrected (I would stand, but it's harder to bend over the type that way). Thank you for the FYI.

I happened to be in the UPCUSA (it was my first church music position) when the merger happened back I '83. I lost the position when I refused to hire an underling who was openly homosexual; the man was not hired, but the Session let me go, then let the pastor go, and that was the end of my Calvinistic experience.

The Methodist Church has historically been friendly to women preachers as the founders of the denomination John and Charles Wesley allowed women to preach back in the 18th century. I personally do not find Biblical support for the practice but it isn't exactly new.

With all the chatter as detailed in the article in the OP (liberal vs conservative) divisions it is important to understand how any splitting or compromises will effect para church organizations such as seminaries to operate. History and common sense seem to indicate that if the liberals win this battle the denomination will crumble.

The problem is that the liberals don't care about core doctrines that make up Methodism (Arminian doctrine), salvation by grace through faith and so forth. Opposing Methodist Arminianism, the Reformed/Calvinistic Presbyterian Church has the same problem with liberals attacking core beliefs from within. The result will be the same in both denominations, the church will fall apart.

Full disclosure I consider myself to be mildly Calvinistic. However I attend (not a member) of a Wesleyan Church and I was introduced to the Gospel in my teen years by a member of the Salvation Army. Both of those organizations are associated with the Methodist Movement. The Wesleyan church I attend has male pulpit preachers so I haven't had to deal with women preachers and I'm well able to study theology on my own so the Arminian doctrinal slant doesn't bother me. The Wesleyan church is in my experience more Baptist than many Baptist churches in my area.

It has always amazed me that people hang on to their denominations with such fervor. When people ask me, I tell them I am Christian. To somehow place pride in being a Baptist, Methodist, or Lutheran, is silliness for me. I went to a non denominational church decades ago after a schism in my Baptist church. My neighbors, OTOH, have gone to a Methodist church for decades and see no problem, even though many have pointed them to Scripture and what they are teaching. Just read your Bible and walk out of apostate churches and it will take care of itself. Much of this comes with preachers trying to square their politics with Scripture. If you are still a Democrat, you seem to lack the ability to read and understand. Romans 1:32 says even if you aren't a homosexual, if you approve of such, you too are guilty. Lev 18:22--30 says you can't even allow them in your land. How then can you allow them in your church if they do not repent?

If you attend a church that preaches this drivel, is it not the same as you going to a bar to get your doctrine? At some point you just declare "Ichabod" and leave for cleaner waters. I don't care what the Synod decides after that. My spiritual life is calm and the politics of the denomination fades into obscurity. That's really the only power the laity has in most denominations. The scariest one will be the Catholics when they break with teaching. (I know many say they already have, but you get my meaning) The church at Thyatira in Rev 2 is the Catholic church, and in Rev 18:4 an angel tells them to leave the church or else.

thus chuckles sayeth: The church at Thyatira in Rev 2 is the Catholic church...

I don't disagree with much of what you say however the Church in Thyatira is not the RCC. This is a stern warning to the believers in the church to stay away from unbiblical doctrine or face the music.

When I read that section of Rev ch 2 I do so knowing full well that there are some among the redeemed who are not born again and they will face judgment without victory. They look and act as if they are saved but their ultimate end is to glorify themselves and not the risen Christ.

I don’t know, I found this:

“You ask will there be a schism? Yes. The UMC has one body that speaks for it. The General Conference which meets every presidential election year. At General Conference United Methodists from all over the globe attend. The UMC is in decline in the US, slower then our fellow mainline denominations but declining nonetheless, and that pace of decline will soon pick up as more and more of our members die off. I serve a church that worships around 300 and the average age of my congregation is around 60 and we are considered young and relatively healthy. Despite the US decline there are more United Methodists now then ever, over 12 million (7 million in the US). The church is growing everywhere else in the world. The largest religion in South Korea is United Methodism. Methodism is growing in the Philippines, Latin America, and even Eastern Europe. As great as that is it pales in comparison to Africa.

The Holy Spirit is doing an amazing thing in Africa and the United Methodist Church is reaping quite a harvest for Christ. There are some estimates that say by the time we meet again at General Conference (2016) almost 40% of the attendees will be from outside the United States with most of them coming from Africa.”

From here:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-coming-methodist-schism/

Freegards

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.