separation agreement for UMC

[hedrick]

Gack. More information: The Art of the Deal: Understanding the Plan of Separation for the United Methodist Church

It appears that annual conferences are going to have to make some quick decisions. The plan is for the May 2020 GC to have three separate meetings one after another:

1. Approve the plan
2. The WCA starts organizing a new denomination, while those who want to stay meet as a GC of the remaining UMC
3. Meetings of the regional conferences. This is when the US Region would remove the anti-LGBT language from the US version of the Discipline

With a plan like this, what could possibly go wrong? It seems that this requires pretty much everyone to be in agreement in advance. If there are attempts to stop it or hold it up, or if there are significant modifications to the plan accepted in the first day, this could easily fall apart. As the article notes, it may require a constitutional amendment to create the US Regional Conference. If so, this assumes that the Conference will start to function before the constitutional amendment(s) ratified.

 

[bekkilyn]

On a personal level, I do not like the WCA and wish to have no part of any organization or denomination they create. I left a super conservative denomination (Southern Baptist) when I became United Methodist, and have no desire whatsoever to go back under the yoke of yet another one.

With that said, as a UMC pastor, I will continue to serve my current churches in whatever capacity I am needed as God calls me regardless of where they end up, realizing that it is not really my choice, but God's, as to where I will go and who I will serve.

Also, I plan not to worry overmuch about what might happen at the conference or the future.

 

[bekkilyn]

Gack. More information: The Art of the Deal: Understanding the Plan of Separation for the United Methodist Church

It appears that annual conferences are going to have to make some quick decisions. The plan is for the May 2020 GC to have three separate meetings one after another:

1. Approve the plan
2. The WCA starts organizing a new denomination, while those who want to stay meet as a GC of the remaining UMC
3. Meetings of the regional conferences. This is when the US Region would remove the anti-LGBT language from the US version of the Discipline

With a plan like this, what could possibly go wrong? It seems that this requires pretty much everyone to be in agreement in advance. If there are attempts to stop it or hold it up, or if there are significant modifications to the plan accepted in the first day, this could easily fall apart. As the article notes, it may require a constitutional amendment to create the US Regional Conference. If so, this assumes that the Conference will start to function before the constitutional amendment(s) ratified.

I don't know about 1 or 3, but the WCA has been very well underway already in organizing a new denomination. It seems they have been planning their exit for quite some time now despite having "won" in 2019.

 

[hedrick]

I don't know about 1 or 3, but the WCA has been very well underway already in organizing a new denomination. It seems they have been planning their exit for quite some time now despite having "won" in 2019.

I see they already have a new Discipline drafted. WCA looks toward new, traditionalist church | United Methodist News Service.

 

[Rawtheran]

I see they already have a new Discipline drafted. WCA looks toward new, traditionalist church | United Methodist News Service.

Instead of starting their own denomination why don't they just merge with the already existing denominations that are also traditional such as The Wesleyan Church, Church of the Nazarene, or Free Methodist Church? I actually switched my candidacy from the UMC to the Church of the Nazarene and the differences aside from organizational structure are splitting hairs

 

[hedrick]

Instead of starting their own denomination why don't they just merge with the already existing denominations that are also traditional such as The Wesleyan Church, Church of the Nazarene, or Free Methodist Church? I actually switched my candidacy from the UMC to the Church of the Nazarene and the differences aside from organizational structure are splitting hairs

As I read the Protocol, churches that want to leave will have to affiliate with a new church created under the Protocol. In practice that is probably just the WCA. My reading of the tea leaves is that because of the WCA's influence over non-US conferences, the Protocol had to treat the WCA generously.

 

[bekkilyn]

Instead of starting their own denomination why don't they just merge with the already existing denominations that are also traditional such as The Wesleyan Church, Church of the Nazarene, or Free Methodist Church? I actually switched my candidacy from the UMC to the Church of the Nazarene and the differences aside from organizational structure are splitting hairs

The WCA seems to have a history of wanting their own way of things, which they wouldn't be able to do if they had to become part of another existing denomination, and I suspect the denominations they would otherwise seek to merge into may not welcome a group known for its political and perhaps underhanded maneuverings to get what they want. Who is to say that they wouldn't create discord in the new denomination when they bump up against something that disagrees with them there?

 

[rturner76]

I hope it's okay for me to comment, I was a lifelong Methodist (AME church) until I accepted Catholicism.

I think that this could end up being a good thing. Many people will be displaced as individuals disagree with the stance their church is taking on this issue.

Still, it will allow gay people to still read about and use the Weslyan "Method" of Holiness in public. Of course, the other Methodist branch that rejects homosexuality will believe that a Gay Pastor/parishioner is not capable of achieving holiness due to certain behavior.

I see it as a win-win but I can see how many will take it as a lose-lose by breaking up the UMC.

I never had a same sex attraction I have lived in open sin by "Shacking" some call it. Nobody in any church I was a part of made a comment about it but I'm not a Pastor.

 

[hedrick]

If it lets both halves do their ministry unimpeded, it has some potential advantages. But it has costs. First, both parts are likely to find it difficult to continue all existing services at the national level. Second, churches outside the US are going to have to decide which part to affiliate. Both decisions will have costs. Third, many annual conferences and local churches have a range of viewpoints. They're going to have to decide. This is going to create rifts within churches.

The best case is probably if only a few hard-core WCA churches withdraw, and the remaining UMC adopts something like the One Church plan. An aggressively liberal UMC, and a more even split is the most likely to produce lots of conflict in local churches.

But any split causes problems for third-world churches. They have problems being associated with any church that accepts homosexuality. But the institutions that have supported them historically will likely stay with the UMC. I assume there has been private discussions about this with African and E European leaders. Will a UMC that prohibits ordination of gays, but allows the US church to override it, give them enough protection to let them stay if they want to?

 

[Rawtheran]

I hope it's okay for me to comment, I was a lifelong Methodist (AME church) until I accepted Catholicism.

I think that this could end up being a good thing. Many people will be displaced as individuals disagree with the stance their church is taking on this issue.

Still, it will allow gay people to still read about and use the Weslyan "Method" of Holiness in public. Of course, the other Methodist branch that rejects homosexuality will believe that a Gay Pastor/parishioner is not capable of achieving holiness due to certain behavior.

I see it as a win-win but I can see how many will take it as a lose-lose by breaking up the UMC.

I never had a same sex attraction I have lived in open sin by "Shacking" some call it. Nobody in any church I was a part of made a comment about it but I'm not a Pastor.

You are always more then welcome to post here. Anyone can post here as long as they're intent is to not purposely come on here and try to troll people who hold beliefs in the Wesleyan tradition. I am however going to say the hardcore truth and not hold back when I say this. What good is it for a queer person to hear about and live out Wesleyan Holiness? Does John Wesley save? The truthful answer is no, only Jesus can save their souls. It doesn't matter because they are still people who are in danger of going to Hell because they haven't repented of their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior. Yes God loves them and he wants them to know him but what good is a liberal church to them if it can't even teach the simple truth of life and death? I truly am praying for these liberal leaders because I don't want them to someday see Jesus and all of a sudden they're included in the list of false prophets and false disciples who Jesus will speak to and say depart from me I never knew you. Also just to end on a positive note there are many testimonies of people who have been set free from the demonic powers of homosexuality after they have accepted Christ and become born again. As a matter of fact several went on to get married to women and have kids.

 

[rturner76]

Also just to end on a positive note there are many testimonies of people who have been set free from the demonic powers of homosexuality after they have accepted Christ and become born again.

Yes, this is why I think liberals accept them.

I surely don't think a practicing homosexual should be allowed to Pastor, nor an adulterous one.

I am wondering if this split on homosexuality included members. Will church members be asked to leave if they are found to be sexually active homosexuals? I'm not against truly celibate homosexuals because that's technically asexual or nonsexual in practice. People can always lie and hide it too.

I have been having a lot of discussions about what should get you kicked out of the church and what can be discouraged but tolerated in parishioners. Pastor's must be held to a higher standard and The Church shouldn't bow to society's changing trends.

In Pagan Rome and Greece, every kind of sexual debauchery and gluttony was fashionable for those who could afford it. Even in the earliest days of Christianity, they followed Christan law before secular. That's why they were executed because they wouldn't give tribute to Gods or attend their feasts.

Christianity itself is a so-called "lifestyle." It is so strange that this is the one sin that people have tried to turn into acceptable. No other sin's status has changed, except maybe slavery and forced conversion. (levity).

About the "Holiness" it is not required to follow that program but it is one that people choose as what would be called in my church a "rule" in a sense. Like we have our Christian lives but there are people who take up, for example, The Rule of St Benedict who was deemed to have a very spiritually healthy "lifestyle." So he wrote down what he did on a daily and people copied it. Holiness is similar to a "Rule" or "Method" but for Protestants. Having said that, I don't think as I say, the Method included same-sex sex.

 

[rturner76]

If it lets both halves do their ministry unimpeded, it has some potential advantages. But it has costs. First, both parts are likely to find it difficult to continue all existing services at the national level. Second, churches outside the US are going to have to decide which part to affiliate. Both decisions will have costs. Third, many annual conferences and local churches have a range of viewpoints. They're going to have to decide. This is going to create rifts within churches.

The best case is probably if only a few hard-core WCA churches withdraw, and the remaining UMC adopts something like the One Church plan. An aggressively liberal UMC, and a more even split is the most likely to produce lots of conflict in local churches.

But any split causes problems for third-world churches. They have problems being associated with any church that accepts homosexuality. But the institutions that have supported them historically will likely stay with the UMC. I assume there has been private discussions about this with African and E European leaders. Will a UMC that prohibits ordination of gays, but allows the US church to override it, give them enough protection to let them stay if they want to?

You are like a church encyclopedia and I always learn something from your posts

 

[seeking.IAM]

How do we minister to people if we kick them out of our assemblies?

 

[Rawtheran]

Yes, this is why I think liberals accept them.

I surely don't think a practicing homosexual should be allowed to Pastor, nor an adulterous one.

I am wondering if this split on homosexuality included members. Will church members be asked to leave if they are found to be sexually active homosexuals? I'm not against truly celibate homosexuals because that's technically asexual or nonsexual in practice. People can always lie and hide it too.

I have been having a lot of discussions about what should get you kicked out of the church and what can be discouraged but tolerated in parishioners. Pastor's must be held to a higher standard and The Church shouldn't bow to society's changing trends.

In Pagan Rome and Greece, every kind of sexual debauchery and gluttony was fashionable for those who could afford it. Even in the earliest days of Christianity, they followed Christan law before secular. That's why they were executed because they wouldn't give tribute to Gods or attend their feasts.

Christianity itself is a so-called "lifestyle." It is so strange that this is the one sin that people have tried to turn into acceptable. No other sin's status has changed, except maybe slavery and forced conversion. (levity).

About the "Holiness" it is not required to follow that program but it is one that people choose as what would be called in my church a "rule" in a sense. Like we have our Christian lives but there are people who take up, for example, The Rule of St Benedict who was deemed to have a very spiritually healthy "lifestyle." So he wrote down what he did on a daily and people copied it. Holiness is similar to a "Rule" or "Method" but for Protestants. Having said that, I don't think as I say, the Method included same-sex sex.

It is quite sad isn't it? I really agree with you about how it is very strange that nearly 1700 years ago Christians didn't have a problem making a stand against sin and dying for their faith. Now a days we have Christians who are afraid to even speak their mind because it would "offend" someone. Unfortunately, you will often find that in the United Methodist Church they are often times not very cohesive when it comes to standing together on the issues that are important. While the General Conference which is the main ruling body for the entire denomination has the main authority to pass laws which affect the entire church it is completely up to the Bishops and District Superintendents in each Annual Conference(Think Diocese in Catholic terms) to enforce them. Now there are some Annual Conferences that are biblical and don't allow homosexual clergy to become Ordained and will certainly take away someone's license or ordination if they are caught cheating on their wives. I know that the East and West Conferences in Pennsylvania certainly don't mess around with that. However there are also Annual Conferences that turn a completely blind eye to what their clergy and churches do. New York is a perfect example. Truthfully if my conference in West Ohio had been more conservative and actually cared about their Clergy and candidates for Ministry I might have actually stayed

 

[bekkilyn]

How do we minister to people if we kick them out of our assemblies?

While any super conservative churches who decide to leave the UMC may form their own rules that kick out anyone they don't like, the UMC has been including "practicing" homosexuals as members in good standing for a very long time now and so I wouldn't expect it to change regardless of what is decided in 2020.

 

[Basil the Great]

I do not think that this is a done deal yet. I guess we will know in May what happens, unless they put off a decision.

 

[hedrick]

Now a days we have Christians who are afraid to even speak their mind because it would "offend" someone.

There are, of course, at least as many churches where it's unpopular to support the acceptance of homosexuals as where it's unpopular to oppose it.

 

[KagomeShuko]

I really hope that the UMC can work things out like the ELCA did.

The ELCA basically came up with the statement saying, "We agree that there will be disagreements, but no matter what, even if there is an official stance against something, all people are children of God and deserve to have pastoral care and are welcome to commune at Christ's table."

And it took a 48 page document.

http://download.elca.org/ELCA Resou...1.1146694192.1578894875-1204582616.1574648581

 

[hedrick]

I really hope that the UMC can work things out like the ELCA did.

The ELCA basically came up with the statement saying, "We agree that there will be disagreements, but no matter what, even if there is an official stance against something, all people are children of God and deserve to have pastoral care and are welcome to commune at Christ's table."

And it took a 48 page document.

http://download.elca.org/ELCA Resource Repository/SexualitySS.pdf?_ga=2.55503211.1146694192.1578894875-1204582616.1574648581

Most mainline churches have tried to take the same approach. It may help, but many conservative churches leave anyway, because they don't feel they can be part of a denomination that accepts homosexuality, even if they aren't forced to.

The UMC tried this with the One Church Plan, but conservatives rejected it.

If the most recent plan happens, it's certainly possible for the remaining UMC to do something like the One Church plan. That means removing the current anti-gay language but including assurances that no one will force gay marriage or gay clergy on a church that doesn't want them.

 

[Rawtheran]

Most mainline churches have tried to take the same approach. It may help, but many conservative churches leave anyway, because they don't feel they can be part of a denomination that accepts homosexuality, even if they aren't forced to.

The UMC tried this with the One Church Plan, but conservatives rejected it.

If the most recent plan happens, it's certainly possible for the remaining UMC to do something like the One Church plan. That means removing the current anti-gay language but including assurances that no one will force gay marriage or gay clergy on a church that doesn't want them.

I was about to say the ELCA actually did have a major split as soon as the ruling came out where many major churches left to form the North American Lutheran Church. Last I heard the ELCA is really struggling to make ends meet and continue to have churches close.