Seeking opinions on an article about the UMC leadership

[Filia Mariae]

Hi all

I read this article a couple of weeks ago in Crisis Magazine about the leadership in the UMC. Not having personal experience in the UMC myself I am wondering if you disagree or agree with this guy's assessment.

The guy who wrote this article is very critical of some of the UMC leadership. I am honestly seeing your opinions and insight on the matter, and have no intent to start some kind of flame war. I know that there are a lot of committed Methodists here at CF, including some clergy, so I thought it would be a good place to hear the thoughts of Methodists who know what they believe and are committed to their church.

I contacted WesleyJohn and wvmtnkid before posting this, and they agreed that it would be fine, although they wanted to establish some ground rules for the thread. So, please don't post before they get the moderator post in. When I contacted the mods, I told them that I sincerely would like your opinions on this article but that I didn't want to create a strain between Wesley's Parish and OBOB, since we have a good relationship with now. So please- do not interpret my post as an attack. It is a sincere attempt to hear your perspective and experience.

Guest Column II
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Reborn Methodists
By Dave Berg

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The United Methodist Church (UMC) has been reborn from a certain death, as moderates and conservatives have dramatically but quietly taken back their church. But the brethren should withhold their hallelujahs for now. The church’s future remains in question until it makes a very painful but necessary decision to prune itself of its parasitic left-wing leaders.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At its recent quadrennial governing general conference, more than 1,000 delegates voted to reaffirm and strengthen the church’s stance against homosexual practices. The importance of this historic vote cannot be overstated. The message was clear to the left-wing leadership, which has had the church in a 30-year chokehold: We’re not like the Episcopalians, so back off. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The delegates essentially voted to reaffirm existing church prohibitions against practicing homosexual clergy, same-sex unions in churches, and church funding of pro-homosexual advocacy. They also voted to uphold the church’s requirement that clergy be celibate if single and monogamous if married.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Suggested compromise language, which said that Christians disagree about homosexuality, was defeated in favor of existing definitive language calling homosexual practice “incompatible with Christian teaching.” Delegates also voted to give the full support of the UMC to civil laws that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The delegates decided to put teeth in their pro-family votes by electing new moderate and conservative members to the Judicial Council, the church’s highest court, whose job it will be to uphold church policies on marriage and sex. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The secular left media ignored the event. (Of course, when the Episcopal Church upheld the media’s “enlightened” views a year ago by electing an openly gay bishop, there was no shortage of stories. Never mind that the rift in that church has become so severe that it may never recover.) [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But the actions taken by the UMC is a huge story. Mark Tooley, a seasoned and knowledgeable Methodist critic and observer, described the United Methodist actions as a “sharp rebuke to those who claim the acceptance of homosexual behavior is culturally inevitable.” Tooley also grasped the true significance of the Methodists’ actions: “The vote against same-sex marriage by an often liberal-leaning denomination was especially noteworthy for showing that this issue is important to more Christians than simply the ‘religious right.’”[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Middle America has finally spoken out against gay marriage, and you can’t get much more middle-American than a typical Methodist who goes to church every Sunday.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But the story of the UMC doesn’t end here. The Methodists closed their conference by approving a resolution affirming the unity of the church. That was a mistake. There is no unity in the church, and there never will be, until the liberals leave and form their own denomination. Conservatives did call for an “amicable separation,” and that’s fine. They can use whatever antiseptic words they want, but the fact is the liberals have to go. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Liberals have never represented the majority in the church, but they’ve weaseled their way into positions of leadership and have shamefully misrepresented the moderate membership. When the Rev. Karen Dammann got “married” to a woman recently, she should have been ousted from the Methodist church where she serves as a pastor.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The United Methodist Book of Discipline, which is the church’s “book of law,” specifically condemns Rev. Dammann’s actions. It says, “Self-avowed homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers or appointed to serve in the United Methodist Church.” [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But a jury of 13 Methodist pastors didn’t see it that way: “We searched the Discipline and did not find a declaration that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings.” They said the references to homosexuality in The Book of Discipline are not really a “declaration.” Perhaps they had seen the movie Pirates of the Caribbean one too many times, where the pirate captain Barbosa refers to the pirate code as something more akin to “guidelines.”[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Liberals will never voluntarily separate from the UMC because they know their numbers are too miniscule to form a thriving church, but that’s really not the UMC’s problem. If the liberal remnant remains, the church will not survive. Under liberal leadership, church membership has seriously declined. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Typical Methodist parishioners don’t like to make trouble, so they tend not to confront their leaders. But while they may not be talking the talk, they are walking the walk...right out of their churches. Three million members have left in the last 30 years, which coincides with the rise of leftist leadership in the church. The UMC officially says it has more than eight million members, which is a stretch. Many observers contend the real figure is closer to three million.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you take politics out of the mix, Methodist bishops should have been thrown out for bad management practices alone. Their only answer to the hemorrhaging membership is a multi-million-dollar marketing campaign called “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors.” The costly campaign has done nothing to improve membership. (Perhaps it should be called “Open Wallets” for the poor members who have to pay for the mistakes made by their incompetent leadership.) To make matters worse, the spots never refer to Jesus because the marketing surveys showed that His name was a turnoff to nonchurchgoers. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Many conservative Methodists know in their hearts the UMC cannot go on as a divided house. The liberals, particularly those in the Western states, say they have been deeply wronged and feel they have the only true vision for their church. Maybe they do. Perhaps they should leave the UMC to pursue that vision, and they shouldn’t worry about being hit by the door on the way out. It is, after all, open. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dave Berg, a former Methodist, is a columnist and a television producer in Hollywood.[/font]

http://www.crisismagazine.com/guest.htm#2[/font]

 

[wvmtnkid]

Mod Hat On

Before replying to this article, there are a few restrictions that will be imposed concerning this one thread.

#1) Since this article is concerning the leadership of the United Methodist Church, only those members belonging to the United Methodist Church will be allowed to respond.

#2) Do not turn this into a debate about homosexuality. Please keep the responses on topic-which is the leadership of the church. If it turns into a debate about homosexuality, the thread will have to be moved into one of the forums that allow for that type of debate, and that isn't the purpose of the OP.

#3) Please keep your responses limited to your opinion of the article, not your opinion of another posters opinion.

I know this may be a hot topic, but I think it is a timely topic for those of us in the United Methodist Church. Please, let's discuss this with maturity, remembering that each of us have and are entitled to our own opinions.

Thank you!

PS-I wanted to add-when in doubt, please use that handy dandy Report button! If you think something is inappropriate, please, please, please, before you get all riled up and respond in kind, report it and let the mods handle the situation! Thanks!

Mod Hat Off

 

[herev]

Hello Carly, welcome to the Wesleyan cafe--pull up a chair. I hope this won't be an unpleasant visit for you--thanks to WVMNTKID, let's hope it won't be. I think the article is right on the money mostly--I am a conservative Methodist from the Bible Belt. I also believe that a major issue in our denomination's losing members is the trend in leadership to move away from historical conservative teachings.
One thing to note: within the UMC, many things are geographical as well. Here in the Southeastern Jurisdiction, we are more conservative as a whole to those in the Western Jurisdiction, where the marriage and trial took place for the lesbian pastor. And further, the UM's in the developing nations around the world are more conservative than we are here. (that's my opinion, by the way). And the stats would seem to prove the theory of church growth. Here in the Southeastern Jurisdiction, we are one of the few Jurisdictions in the nation that is actually growing. and church membership outside of the US is growing even more.
As of now, I am not in favor of a split in the church. I think we will sort through this eventually and we will never get more to the liberal side of politics in the church than we are now. But it will take a while. We only come together every four years as a denomination, so change will continue, but it will continue to be slow--again, just my opinion.
I respect our Bishops when they uphold the Discipline---even if they are more left-leaning in their views, but when they don't uphold the Discipline, which reflects ALL OF OUR VIEWS, then they have, in my opinion, become guilty of violating church law, and no longer deserve our allegiance, support, loyalty or obedience.
We have a different system here in the UM than you obviously have in the Roman Catholic church. It seems somewhat chaotic, but I believe we will survive and come out of this stronger than ever.
Thanks for being interested. If you have any more questions, please feel free to pm me.
God Bless
Tommy Conder
PS and by the way--I am a pastor in the Western North Carolina Conference of The United Methodist Church

 

[Origen]

Hi all

I read this article a couple of weeks ago in Crisis Magazine about the leadership in the UMC. Not having personal experience in the UMC myself I am wondering if you disagree or agree with this guy's assessment.

The guy who wrote this article is very critical of some of the UMC leadership. I am honestly seeing your opinions and insight on the matter, and have no intent to start some kind of flame war. I know that there are a lot of committed Methodists here at CF, including some clergy, so I thought it would be a good place to hear the thoughts of Methodists who know what they believe and are committed to their church. ...

Hi Carly -- I appreciate your desire to do some reality checking after reading this article--the article warrants a reality check.

You asked, "I am wondering if you disagree or agree with this guy's assessment".

In a nutshell: No.

To characterize this screed as an "assessment" may be too generous. This article is the worst type of ultra-conservative spin-doctoring. If you can judge a tree by it's fruit, then the bushels of poisonous half-truths in this propaganda piece convict its author of libel. This article is not to be trusted as an honest assessment of our recent General Conference. After pointing out some of the worst half-truths in the piece, I'll point you toward some more trustworthy assessments.

It would take too long to point out all the half-lies in this piece, so here are just a couple of examples to illustrate (lack of) trustworthiness of this article:

At its recent quadrennial governing general conference, more than 1,000 delegates voted to reaffirm and strengthen the church’s stance against homosexual practices. The importance of this historic vote cannot be overstated. The message was clear to the left-wing leadership, which has had the church in a 30-year chokehold: We’re not like the Episcopalians, so back off.

The delegates essentially voted to reaffirm existing church prohibitions against practicing homosexual clergy, same-sex unions in churches, and church funding of pro-homosexual advocacy. They also voted to uphold the church’s requirement that clergy be celibate if single and monogamous if married.

This is a half-truth, misleading and deceitful. First, only a faction of the "1,000 delegates voted to reaffirm and strengthen the church’s stance against homosexual practices." There were about 1,000 total delegates present (half clergy, half laity), so only 501 votes would have been needed to enact changes.

Two missing facts here are: 1) the changes enacted this quadrennium were minor tweaks to the BOD, to close what were seen as loopholes; and 2) the tide is slowly turning against the conservatives.

This second point merits highlighting: the votes to tighten up language against an inclusive church has been shrinking quadrennium by quadrennium; conservatives still hold a majority vote, but their majority is shrinking by about 4% per quadrennium. At this rate the conservatives will lose their majority status in eight or twelve years. From the inclusive viewpoint, it may appear that it is darkest before the dawn, but let there be no doubt that dawn is coming, the tide is turning. This change can be seen by comparing vote results on similar petitions in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004. (Look for yourself here http://www.gc2000.org/ and here: http://www.gc2004.org/ .)

Suggested compromise language, which said that Christians disagree about homosexuality, was defeated in favor of existing definitive language calling homosexual practice "incompatible with Christian teaching."

Another half-truth. This quadrennium votes against an inclusive church usually garnished about 60% of the delegates (down, again, about 4% from the previous quadrennium). This vote, however, was much, much closer. The subcommittee actually approved by a 70% margin this language: "We recognize that Christians disagree on the compatibility of homosexual practice with Christian teaching and affirm that God's grace is available to all." This language was dropped on the plenary floor, but the vote was very close: 11 to 9. Given the close vote, the statement "Christians disagree on the compatibility of homosexual practice with Christian teaching" is true on it's face. Unless, of course, you believe that 45% of United Methodists are not real Christians.

But the actions taken by the UMC is a huge story. Mark Tooley, a seasoned and knowledgeable Methodist critic and observer, described the United Methodist actions as a "sharp rebuke to those who claim the acceptance of homosexual behavior is culturally inevitable." Tooley also grasped the true significance of the Methodists’ actions: "The vote against same-sex marriage by an often liberal-leaning denomination was especially noteworthy for showing that this issue is important to more Christians than simply the ‘religious right.’"

Mark Tooley is the last person you'd quote looking for an objective assessment of the UMC. Tooley and his "UM Action" office within The Institute on Religion and Democracy make Good News and the Confessing Movement seem warm and reasonable by comparison. If there is a more shrill, far-right, ultra-conservative voice in United Methodism, I'd invite one to point them out. (For more information on these groups, start here http://www.mfsaweb.org/news/NEWSInformationProject.html or here http://www.zionsherald.org/specialreportJan.html ; and again, if these advocacy groups don't represent the far-right, ultra-conservative wing of United Methodism, who does?.)

But the story of the UMC doesn't end here. The Methodists closed their conference by approving a resolution affirming the unity of the church. That was a mistake. There is no unity in the church, and there never will be, until the liberals leave and form their own denomination. Conservatives did call for an "amicable separation," and that’s fine. They can use whatever antiseptic words they want, but the fact is the liberals have to go.

We start to see the columnist's true color here, and those colors are not Methodist colors. After the schismatic ultra-conservatives (IRD, Good News, and Confessing Movement) proposed splitting the church, the General Conference rebuked them in the harshest terms; the United Resolution passed by a vote of 869 to 41, a +95% majority. The Unity Resolution reads: "As United Methodists we remain in covenant with one another, even in the midst of disagreement, and affirm our commitment to work together for our common mission of making disciples throughout the world." (For more information on the schismatic's proposal, start here http://www.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=17&mid=4686 or here http://www.reporterinteractive.org/features/GC04/hs051904.htm ; and for more information on the Unity Resolution, start here: http://www.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=17&mid=4698 .)

Carly, that ought to be enough to start to give you some idea of how untrustworthy this column is. Please let me know if you have other questions, and thanks for checking on the (un)credibility of this source.

 

[WiredSpirit]

Well, if conservatives have "taken back" the denomination Tooley must only be referring to the position on homosexuality being reaffirmed. We are still one of only a handful of evangelical churches that allow women to be pastors, still support the UN and globalization, and still support abortion rights.

I used to go to a 20,000 member non-denominational church and when I first started attending in 1994 they were very open to different points of view and interpretations. Since then it has become extremely conservative and extremely political like most other large churches. I was attracted to the UMC because the members seem to think independantly and they aren't afraid of differing opinions.

 

[wvmtnkid]

Mod Hat Off

The opinions I am about to express are purely my own, not to be confused with any opinions of the staff as a whole. I started to post under a separate account, but hopefully noting I express this not as staff will be sufficient.

I am a bit conservative. To be honest, I did not know the Methodist Church was considered a liberal denomination until I came to CF. Yeah, we have woman as pastors and we believe that a sprinking is just as good as a dunking. But I don't see those as liberal viewpoints, just as different interpretations of scripture.

That being said, I have to agree somewhat with the article. I am not 100% in agreement with the direction some of the liberal leadership is taking the UMC. I did not agree with the decision that was made in regards to Karen Dammann. I felt the leadership went directly against the Book of Discipline. And if the General Conference would have made changes in the Discipline to uphold the decision that was made, I would have seriously reconsidered my membership in the UMC. And I know that I am not the only person in the United Methodist Church that felt that way. I guess to some, that would seem a bit drastic, but those are my feelings.

I don't think that we, as a whole have, to agree on everything. But, if we can't agree in which direction our leadership takes us, and what constitues church law I think we are in for some trouble.

As for the division, a house divided against itself will not stand. If the division can not be repaired, I look for a split to occur. Maybe not in the next little bit, but eventually. I think it is just a matter of time. I am not advocating a split, I just think it is inevitable with the current state of matters.

 

[Plan 9]

I'm considered conservative, as is my local church congregation. Nevertheless, I agree with Origen's description of this article ("ultra-conservative screed") and that there are a number of misleading and downright incorrect statements in the article
I can't represent myself as being "up" on our church politics, since I'm stuck at home, but, so far, it's my understading that Mark Tooley and the members of hos organization are the ones atte,pting to crate division whre no should exist.
No, we don't all think entirely alike in the UMC, and if there really is a trend of our leaders moving away from whatever, well they wouldn;t be our leaders if we hadn't chosen them. Each local congregation agree that a member wishing to become a ministerial candidate is suitable to be proposed as one, and then do that.
In additon, there is the problem of defining "liberal" and "conservative". This is particularly acute at CF, at which Christians can easily be labeled as liberals for sharing basically the same view of some moral and ethical problems, but seeking somewhat different solutions to them.
I've alwaus gotten on extremely well with my more liberal brothers and sisters; not only are they no threat to me, but help prevent me from lapsing into a knee-jerk complacency in regard to my belief system, and they don't look down on me or the chuch to which I belong; they're my friend and I won'r make them my enemies.
I see no reason whatsoever to look down on them, but I can't say I think highly of an ex-Methodist Hollywood producer who either can't get hiis facts right when composing an article, or worse purposely disorts them.

 

[Celticflower]

When I first read this article i thought "this could have been written by some of the churches around here". I have run into a lot of anti-Methodist feelings since moving to the south, but I have learned to brush it aside. One gentleman, when confronted with something not to his liking in the church says "that sounds awfully Methodist to me". My response was always "You say that like it's a bad thing".
OK--Methodists are not perfect and we should never claim to be. Our leaders are human and there are problems in the leadership, but I don't think articles like this one, with skewed facts, do any good (except to the pocket of the guy who got paid to write it). I have to say I agree with more than 90% of what the BOD says and if a leader at any level is going against that he should be removed. But the church should stand up and do it, not some outside force.
I do not believe any split in the church would be good. Not for those who chose to leave or for those who remained behind. And for the UMC as a whole it could prove disasterous in the eyes of the public--Christian and non.
I feel part of the answer lies in getting back to the basics. And not just in seminary, but in the earliest days of Sunday School. While some may not like what they see is a liberal stance with the open door program, it does fall in lline with the Bible. How often did Jesus open himself up to the unaccepted portions of society? (this is one problem I have with some churches that don't want "those kinds of people" in the pews on Sundays).

We live in an ever changing world and we need to make sure our roots are strong enough to hold us steady whichever way the wind blows.

Celtie

 

[overnight]

At first I was not going to post but after reading the article and the answers a secound time I realized that I just had to say something. Comming from the bible-belt myself and now living in an area that is still very conservative I see this article as being the biggest ultra-conservative propaganda swing in a long time. In my opioin this article is nothing but a means to cause division. Being rather moderate myself I stand beside my leaders and thier decisions. I may not always agree with them but I still stand. As far as liberals go, I hope they feel the same way. They may feel slighted becasue of the language on one issue but where have the conservatives let "the line slip"?


There may come a time when the denomination splits but I for one persoanlly pray that unity will survive and that we come together and realize that it is not these petty arguments but the spreading of the gospel that matters.

One humble opinion. Peace

 

[Plan 9]

Carly, having read everyone's answers to your question (which, btw, I'm glad you posed),to me, WesleyJohn's sig expresses my hope for us far better than thousands of my own words possibly could. I pray that this truth will bring the unity of Christ's love not only to the members of my denomination, but to of all Christendom.

 

[Filia Mariae]

Thanks for your response Rev. Condor.

Hello Carly, welcome to the Wesleyan cafe--pull up a chair. I hope this won't be an unpleasant visit for you--thanks to WVMNTKID, let's hope it won't be. I think the article is right on the money mostly--I am a conservative Methodist from the Bible Belt. I also believe that a major issue in our denomination's losing members is the trend in leadership to move away from historical conservative teachings.
One thing to note: within the UMC, many things are geographical as well. Here in the Southeastern Jurisdiction, we are more conservative as a whole to those in the Western Jurisdiction, where the marriage and trial took place for the lesbian pastor. And further, the UM's in the developing nations around the world are more conservative than we are here. (that's my opinion, by the way). And the stats would seem to prove the theory of church growth. Here in the Southeastern Jurisdiction, we are one of the few Jurisdictions in the nation that is actually growing. and church membership outside of the US is growing even more.

I think that it is probably true for most groups that geographical location plays a role in idealogical alignment. It certainly is true for the Anglican Communion, which is far more conservative in Africa and other developing areas than the ECUSA is. Even within the Catholic Church, which has uniform doctrine everywhere, the actual degree of adherence to that doctrine is radically affected by geography.

In your experience, does the theological bent of people in your area cause any friction between your average church goer and their perception of the UMC leadership, or are people mainly concerned with their immediate personal experience of the congregation they belong to?

As of now, I am not in favor of a split in the church. I think we will sort through this eventually and we will never get more to the liberal side of politics in the church than we are now. But it will take a while. We only come together every four years as a denomination, so change will continue, but it will continue to be slow--again, just my opinion.

Do you see a difference in the theological positions of younger pastors vs. those of baby boomer aged pastors? I ask because in my own experience I have found our younger priests to be far more orthodox and faithful to tradition, while priests in their 50s and 60s tend to be dissenters.

I respect our Bishops when they uphold the Discipline---even if they are more left-leaning in their views, but when they don't uphold the Discipline, which reflects ALL OF OUR VIEWS, then they have, in my opinion, become guilty of violating church law, and no longer deserve our allegiance, support, loyalty or obedience.

How does the Book of Discipline work? Can it change? If so, how does that occur?

Thank you for your answers!

 

[Filia Mariae]

First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their answers.

Especially, thank you for taking this in the spirit it was intended. I was afraid that it would be seen as the same kind of thing as the "verse pondering" posts that some people use to further their agenda. You know, as in when someone comes into OBOB and says, "I was just reading my Bible this morning and I read this part that says we should not call any man 'father' and I'm just wondering what you think about that?" That kind of back-handed nonsense is idiotic, and I didn't want to be perceived as doing that, so thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

There are a few questions I have that are just for everybody in general:

1. Whether or not you support a split in the UMC, do you think it will happen?

2. Do you think your average Methodist in the pew is satisfied with the Church leadership or not? Or do you think they are more interested in their immediate experience of the UMC, with their local congregation and pastor?

3. Does anyone have thoughts on the Open Minds, Open Hearts, Open Doors "campaign"? Is there anywhere on the internet you know of that gives an accurate portrayal of the development of this theme?

Thank you again.

 

[Filia Mariae]

but I can't say I think highly of an ex-Methodist Hollywood producer who either can't get hiis facts right when composing an article, or worse purposely disorts them.

I think this is an important point and part of why I posted the question in the first place.

As a part of my own personal experience, I loathe the ex-Catholics like James McCarthy and Mike Gendron who are out there on a mission to save the pagan Catholics. They are malicious and perpetuate flat out lies about the Catholic faith. As a result, I have a suspicion of any ex-anything who criticizes his or her former faith tradition. On the other hand, I can't write them off completely because I know of other ex-Catholics like Philip Jenkins (now an Episcopalian) who gives fair and pretty accurate assessments of the Church.

Since my motto is always that people who have questions about a given faith tradition should ask the people of that faith tradition, I thought maybe I better practice what I preach.

 

[Origen]

1. Whether or not you support a split in the UMC, do you think it will happen?

No.

Again, when the schismatic ultra-conservatives floated the proposal to split the church +95% of General Conference responded with this Unity Resolution: "As United Methodists we remain in covenant with one another, even in the midst of disagreement, and affirm our commitment to work together for our common mission of making disciples throughout the world."

When we began to ordain women, some folks left the church, unable to imagine taking Holy Communion from a woman minister. Likewise, should we someday welcome self-avowed, practicing homosexuals to become clergy, some folks will leave the church, unable to imagine taking Holy Communion from a gay or lesbian minister.

How do I feel toward people who would leave the church because they can't imagine taking Holy Communion from homosexual clergy? The same way I feel toward folks who left the church when we began to ordain women: sad for them, but wishing them God's speed on their faith journey.

2. Do you think your average Methodist in the pew is satisfied with the Church leadership or not? Or do you think they are more interested in their immediate experience of the UMC, with their local congregation and pastor?

Mostly the latter, but even those who are aware of the general, wider church issues are mostly satisfied with their leadership. The Berg article was misleading in this sense: Berg portrayed a fictitious top-down structure, imagining something more similar to Roman Catholic organization. Our doctrine and our bishops, however, are derived from the bottom up. Local churches send equal numbers of clergy and laity to state, regional, and national conferences. Bishops do have quite a bit of power, but we're the ones electing the Bishops.

And just as is the case in any organization, those dissatisfied with the current leadership often make the most noise. A dissatisfied minority can often make a ruckus far out of proportion to its size. Witness the recent schismatics proposal for separation: they made a lot of noise, but then were rebuked by 95% of the Conference.

Articles such as Berg's (and similar articles recently appearing in Good News) are spin-doctoring attempts at damage control. The schismatics shot themselves in the foot last May, bungling what would have been a good Conference for them, instead overreaching far, far too far, attempting to push liberals/progressives out of the church. They were slapped down. And now they (Berg-Tooley/IRD, Good News, Confessing Movement, etc) are trying to spin history.

3. Does anyone have thoughts on the Open Minds, Open Hearts, Open Doors "campaign"? Is there anywhere on the Internet you know of that gives an accurate portrayal of the development of this theme?

Thank you again.

The Igniting Ministry campaign have been quite successful. You can find independent, third-party market research about the effectiveness of the campaign here: http://www.ignitingministry.com/research/research.aspx . The Washington Post recently carried a front page article ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41425-2004Jul10?language=printer ) which highlighted the "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors" campaign; several other denominations are starting campaigns modeled on the United Methodists effort:

Perhaps the most important cause of the [television advertising] boom, church officials said, is the success of an ad campaign launched in 2000 by the United Methodist Church. Its slogan -- "Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors." -- portrays Methodists as warm and welcoming. And, according to research commissioned by the church, first-time attendance has risen 14 percent and overall worship attendance is up 6 percent at a nationwide sample of 149 Methodist churches since the ads began appearing.

At the Methodists' quadrennial convention in May, some internal critics called the "Open Minds" slogan hypocritical because of the church's ban on gay clergy. But Methodist leaders said the campaign's results surpassed expectations, and the convention overwhelmingly approved $25 million to keep it going for another four years, on top of the $18 million that was spent from 2000 to 2004.

Other denominations have taken notice. "I've always called advertising fertilizer -- it only can fertilize a larger effort to evangelize," the Lutherans' Shafer said. "Now I think it's Miracle-Gro."

Most of the grumbling I've heard about the "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors" campaign have been from the small-church exclusivists, folks who really don't like the idea of an inclusive, diverse church.

Thank you again.

Thank you!

 

[WiredSpirit]

IMO, if a split does occur it will be at the hands of the conservatives and they will have to have more issues than just the gay thing. From the beginning the United Methodist has been on of the most progressive Wesleyan denominations.

Its hard for me to imagine a Methodist "small-church exclusivist"

 

[herev]

Thanks for your response Rev. Condor.

you're most certainly welcome and to be picky, while my family is quite used to this errant spelling, it's actually Conder

I think that it is probably true for most groups that geographical location plays a role in idealogical alignment. It certainly is true for the Anglican Communion, which is far more conservative in Africa and other developing areas than the ECUSA is. Even within the Catholic Church, which has uniform doctrine everywhere, the actual degree of adherence to that doctrine is radically affected by geography.

I agree, geography can be a shocker if you move about!

In your experience, does the theological bent of people in your area cause any friction between your average church goer and their perception of the UMC leadership, or are people mainly concerned with their immediate personal experience of the congregation they belong to?

I hate to say what I'm about to say, so read the whole paragraph before you go . I wish it caused more friction, but it does cause a lot. In my experience with the three UM churches I've served, (and probably because of our pluralistic nature), most of my congregation members couldn't tell you one thing that we Methodists believe or one thing that is going on in the larger denomination. this is not the same everywhere, but the only things my congregation seems to know are the things that make the 6:00 news . Most simply care about their own congregation and fail to realize the effects that these issues could have on their church. An example (and I am not against women pastors--I even sleep with one every night ). Most churches seem to not care that the denomiation ordains women--Our Bishop for the last eight years has been a woman and our current District Superintendent is a woman, BUT, when a woman is the first female to be appointed as a pastor of a local congregation--then they notice. (please, everybody, don't hijack the thread to talk about women in ministry--it was an example!).

Do you see a difference in the theological positions of younger pastors vs. those of baby boomer aged pastors? I ask because in my own experience I have found our younger priests to be far more orthodox and faithful to tradition, while priests in their 50s and 60s tend to be dissenters.

Not as much as you would think, it's acutally kinda like Democrats and Republicans, they come in all ages )

How does the Book of Discipline work? Can it change? If so, how does that occur?

Yes, most parts of it can be changed every four years, when the General Conference meets (delegates for all over the world who represent clergy and laity from every area). Technically, there are things such as the orignial (at least back to 1808) Wesley articles of faith--that cannot be changed, but beyond that--it's fairly well open to change.

Thank you for your answers!

you are most certainly welcome--by the way--I don't pretend to be an expert, so correct me anyone if I am in error. At the present, I am taking UM classes in seminary and teaching them in church, so it is fairly fresh on my mind, but anyone can make a mistake.
God bless!

 

[wvmtnkid]

Mod Hat On (for just a minute)

I just want to thank everyone for complying with the restricitions that were set forth at the start of this thread. It's been very interesting to read everyone's responses and not have to put out a lot of fires in the midst. So I just wanted to say thanks, it's very much appreciated!

Mod Hat Off

Whether or not you support a split in the UMC, do you think it will happen?

I live in a fairly conservative area, on the fringes of the Bible belt, so that is were most of my perspective comes from. As I said earlier, I don't advocate a split, I am not marching around carrying signs calling for a split, but I do think that if some of the liberal agenda continues to be pushed, there will be one somewhere down the road. Not everyone in the United Methodist Church is of the liberal mind set. But that doesn't make those of us that are more conservative any less of a United Methodist. I do hope there is some common ground both sides can find without dividing the church.

Do you think your average Methodist in the pew is satisfied with the Church leadership or not? Or do you think they are more interested in their immediate experience of the UMC, with their local congregation and pastor?

This is an interesting question. My opinion is that most are more interested in their local congreation and their pastor. I didn't say all, but most. If things are alright in their church and they agree with how things are run in their local congregation, then everything is ok. Unless there is something that hits nationwide, like the lawsuit this past spring that causes them to evaluate where they stand themselves on issues and to take a look at where and how the leadership is following it's own set of rules.

Does anyone have thoughts on the Open Minds, Open Hearts, Open Doors "campaign"

I like this campaign. I also like the television ads that run along with this campaign. I like that we don't limit who we allow to come into the church membership. However, that doesn't mean that everyone that comes into the church is ready and suited for a leadership position. In turn, that doesn't mean you throw those folks out. You minister to them, disciple them, fellowship with them and reach out to them with love and caring, helping them to grow. We have people in our church who 5 or 10 years ago would have never believed that they would be holding the leadership positions they have today. But through the love and spiritual growth offered by the church, they have been able to take on these positions, and do them well.

 

[overnight]

First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their answers.

Especially, thank you for taking this in the spirit it was intended. I was afraid that it would be seen as the same kind of thing as the "verse pondering" posts that some people use to further their agenda. You know, as in when someone comes into OBOB and says, "I was just reading my Bible this morning and I read this part that says we should not call any man 'father' and I'm just wondering what you think about that?" That kind of back-handed nonsense is idiotic, and I didn't want to be perceived as doing that, so thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

There are a few questions I have that are just for everybody in general:

1. Whether or not you support a split in the UMC, do you think it will happen?

2. Do you think your average Methodist in the pew is satisfied with the Church leadership or not? Or do you think they are more interested in their immediate experience of the UMC, with their local congregation and pastor?

3. Does anyone have thoughts on the Open Minds, Open Hearts, Open Doors "campaign"? Is there anywhere on the internet you know of that gives an accurate portrayal of the development of this theme?

Thank you again.

I would first like to say thank you for this great thread. Some rep points going your way. Now to the questions

1. No/ The possibility is always there but I tend to think it will not happen anytime soon.

2.Yes/ BY far I think the average pew sitter is far more interested in their immediate experiance.

3. I like the campaign. I recently saw a tv commerical featuring it. I think it allows for people who often feel uncomfortable with the "God-thing" to feel comfortable to enter a UMC. I think that a move away from fundamental Bible betting and shoving Jesus down peoples throughts is actually a good idea. People want to feel that they can come to church just the way they are and think the Open minds... campaign does that very well.
Peace.

 

[Filia Mariae]

you're most certainly welcome and to be picky, while my family is quite used to this errant spelling, it's actually Conder

Sorry!

 

[Filia Mariae]

Another general question for all (and then I will stop harassing you I promise! ):

One theme I seem to hear a lot from Methodists on all ends of the ideological spectrum is that a split isn't necessary because "we're all Methodists even if we disagree on some things."

What would you say are those things that are absolutely essential to remaining (theologically speaking) within the Methodist tradition? I guess I am asking what, beyond the most essential parts of Christian doctrine in general, is essential to Methodism. Obviously, Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Redeemer is something that is essential to Christianity in general, but what is essential to Methodism in particular?