The Elephant in the Room

[GraceSeeker]

Have you all read Adam Hamilton's recent proposal? If not, here it is: A Way Forward.

I've got some personal reflections on it, but I don't want to interject those until people have had a chance to read and reflect on his proposal for themselves. Maybe I'll get around to posting my thoughts, and a few others' thought on Monday. So, you got till then to think for yourselves before I tell you what you should be thinking.

 

[BryanW92]

Have you all read Adam Hamilton's recent proposal? If not, here it is: A Way Forward.

I've got some personal reflections on it, but I don't want to interject those until people have had a chance to read and reflect on his proposal for themselves. Maybe I'll get around to posting my thoughts, and a few others' thought on Monday. So, you got till then to think for yourselves before I tell you what you should be thinking.

His "Way Forward" is just a continuation of the same battle, but broken up on smaller battlefields.

His solution boils down to this:

"Churches could vote to adopt a more inclusive policy allowing for homosexuals to be married in their churches and welcoming gay and lesbian clergy. Conversely, they might take the position that their members are “not of one mind” on this issue and therefore postpone any decision until they gained greater clarity on the issue. "

So, if the answer is "YES", then it is yes. But, if it is anything other than "YES", then it is "sorta yes", or "maybe", "just try harder". This sounds like the defense of Date Rape! "She kept saying no, but her body said that it needed more clarity."

"So I gave her more clarity! Badda-boom!"

What would a friend tell a woman whose boyfriend operated like that? She'd tell her to get OUT...NOW!

I'm sure that in Hamilton's "Way Forward", any church with just one "YES" vote would be a church that gets battered again and again until they vote "correctly".

The FL Conference Bishop, Ken Carter, recently spoke to the RMN gathering in Orlando where he outlined Hamilton's "Way Forward" and seemed to agree with it. So, now we're going to have to fight the battle one church at a time with the proponents of the gay agenda picking us off one by one.

Splitting the UMC is the only way forward, but only if the gays agree to leave the church that they didn't get alone. If they just take their prize, cast it aside, and renew their fight to take over the new church, then we'll have to do this again and again.

So, the new church must be a Confessing church with the ability to just declare, "We aren't voting on that. End of discussion!"

 

[raschau]

Theologically speaking, there are already plenty of conservative alternatives: the Church of the Nazarene, the Free Methodist Church, and the Wesleyan Church being three of the largest.

If United Methodists really want to attend a conservative Wesleyan church, they don't have to look very far to find one. But I don't think that's what they want. They want their Mainline church to reflect a view of society that they think is being subverted -- but the rot among the UMC certainly isn't United Methodist theology. It's the state of society itself. Not a whole lot we can do about that.

 

[BryanW92]

Theologically speaking, there are already plenty of conservative alternatives: the Church of the Nazarene, the Free Methodist Church, and the Wesleyan Church being three of the largest.

If it were only that simple. In my town, we have five UMCs, no FMCs, one very small CotN that is disintegrating, and a WC that is also failing.

If we had a massive diaspora from the UMC, those two failing churches would probably be restored to prosperity and three of those 5 UMCs would probably close (I know the state of their finances now and a loss of significant numbers of their membership would doom them).

If Hamilton's "Way Forward" would include a promise that a "no" vote would be honored in the same way than a "yes" vote would be honored (i.e. "the decision has been made and it stands!"), then we might be able to make it work.

 

[WiredSpirit]

I just don't see that this is as big as they're making it out to be. I know we have disagreement in my own church, but you know how much time we spend talking about it? None. When a new associate pastor came I remember he did ask privately in our men's group what our attitude on this was and one person said we had a lot of members whose kids were gay and they would take a stand on that issue. That was the most I ever heard about it. We're busy being a church. We are very service/mission oriented. We aren't a large church by CoR or Ginghamsburg standards, attendance fluctuates between 350-500 depending on the school year, and compared to the size of other churches in our community we are very average.

 

[WiredSpirit]

I just don't see that this is as big as they're making it out to be. I know we have disagreement in my own church, but you know how much time we spend talking about it? None. When a new associate pastor came I remember he did ask privately in our men's group what our attitude on this was and one person said we had a lot of members whose kids were gay and they would take a stand on that issue. That was the most I ever heard about it. We're busy being a church. We are very service/mission oriented. We aren't a large church by CoR or Ginghamsburg standards, attendance fluctuates between 350-500 depending on the school year, and compared to the size of other churches in our community we are very average.

To clarify my thoughts further, if the UMC did take a positive stand only a very small percentage of us would leave over it because it changes very little. We may lose a large number of churches, but how healthy are those churches anyway?

 

[circuitrider]

I have a lot of respect for Rev. Hamilton. But I also don't see this as a good solution. All this will do is move the fight to the local church and only churches that are solidly in agreement will avoid fighting. Or, chuches where the pastor just refuses to bring up the issue.

 

[Joykins]

Local option seems to be working out for the Presbyterians and the Lutherans. Yes, they have a somewhat different ecclesiastical structure. They also have more conservative (non-mainline) denominations, but, as has been pointed out above, so do we.

I'm not really sure it is "working out" in the same way for the Anglicans. Lawsuits and such, and the movement of US churches to African dioceses.

 

[Reverend Greg]

Local option seems to be working out for the Presbyterians and the Lutherans. Yes, they have a somewhat different ecclesiastical structure. They also have more conservative (non-mainline) denominations, but, as has been pointed out above, so do we.

I'm not really sure it is "working out" in the same way for the Anglicans. Lawsuits and such, and the movement of US churches to African dioceses.

I'm not so sure it's working for the Lutherans. I was ELCA for nearly 20 years and still have quite a few friends and family in it. The denomination is losing people and churches and there is no end in sight.

 

[circuitrider]

The Presbyterians and the Luthers aren't appointed to their churches. When I was an American Baptist pastor you'd just not go to a church that disagreed with you on these marriage issues. That isn't an option for UMC clergy.

It also changes our polilty in that UMC pastors decide whom they will perform weddings for and not the congregation. Also the congregation is not a "unity" in the UMC structure. The Charge is the basic unit under the conference. What if you have more than one church in your charge and they disagree on your performance of weddings?

It honestly sounds like a congregationalist solution when we aren't congregationalists.

 

[Joykins]

I'm not so sure it's working for the Lutherans. I was ELCA for nearly 20 years and still have quite a few friends and family in it. The denomination is losing people and churches and there is no end in sight.

This is true of pretty much every denomination now, though.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Local option seems to be working out for the Presbyterians and the Lutherans. Yes, they have a somewhat different ecclesiastical structure. They also have more conservative (non-mainline) denominations, but, as has been pointed out above, so do we.

See, I don't think it is working out for the Lutherans. The policy adopted by the ELCA a few years ago looked pretty much like Hamilton's plan -- enough that I'm wondering if Adam didn't just copy it from them. But it didn't stop a split; it actually was the catalyst for precipitating one. In the ELCA synod I once served in northern Illinois, several churches completely left the denomination. Others split with the congregration voting to remain, but many of the members leaving to start a new congregation of a newly created Lutheran denomination.

Now, some consider this working. After all, many of the split off congregations that formed are actually growing. And those that they split from tell me that they don't experience conflict in the church anymore. But I question that there is any profit to the kingdom. The growing churches are made up primarily of disaffected members from other ELCA churches and even some angry UMC folks. The churches have paid a high price for the elimination conflict as they are less than half the size they were before. And as many as a third of people who were once part of ELCA congregations don't go anywhere anymore. So, while many consider this working, it isn't something I would wish on the UMC.

 

[Rhamiel]

I have a lot of respect for Rev. Hamilton. But I also don't see this as a good solution. All this will do is move the fight to the local church and only churches that are solidly in agreement will avoid fighting. Or, chuches where the pastor just refuses to bring up the issue.

i agree, making it a parish by parish issue will only bring the fighting away from the district conferences and bring it into everyone's "back yard" so to speak. Since the UMC already seems kind of divided on this issue, doing it on a parish by parish basis would only make it worse.

Also, it would be kind of weird, like what if you are married in one Methodist church and then you move and the new Methodist church does not recognize your marriage?

 

[GraceSeeker]

Also, it would be kind of weird, like what if you are married in one Methodist church and then you move and the new Methodist church does not recognize your marriage?

That can happen just by moving across a state line right now, regardless what church you're in.

 

[FergusonTO35]

I dont think a split in the UMC would be such a bad thing. I think it might be to everyone's benefit. The church split in 1845 over slavery, there were devout Methodists on both sides of that issue. The denomination had gone on as long as it could accommodating, or at least stalemating, both sides. Neither side would capitulate to the other and everyone was sick and tired of the issue. I believe both sides wanted to get back to the essential functions of a church and the split allowed them to do that.

We could split into two new denominations representing the two current overarching themes of American Protestant practice. A liberal denomination which affirmed gay marriage, emphasized a communal salvation, and was overtly ecumenical or even somewhat Universalist. A conservative denomination which rejects gay marriage, emphasizes individual salvation and the conversion experience, and emphasizes the Bible and evangelism. I think it might just make both sides stronger.

 

[Rhamiel]

I dont think a split in the UMC would be such a bad thing. I think it might be to everyone's benefit. The church split in 1845 over slavery, there were devout Methodists on both sides of that issue. The denomination had gone on as long as it could accommodating, or at least stalemating, both sides. Neither side would capitulate to the other and everyone was sick and tired of the issue. I believe both sides wanted to get back to the essential functions of a church and the split allowed them to do that.

We could split into two new denominations representing the two current overarching themes of American Protestant practice. A liberal denomination which affirmed gay marriage, emphasized a communal salvation, and was overtly ecumenical or even somewhat Universalist. A conservative denomination which rejects gay marriage, emphasizes individual salvation and the conversion experience, and emphasizes the Bible and evangelism. I think it might just make both sides stronger.

my mom is Methodist, her church is in the suburbs of Columbus Ohio and there are still a lot of old farming families in the area, it is more conservative then the urban Methodist churches less then 10 miles away.

I do not want to be argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative, volunteer this information about my Mom and her church to let you know that even though I am Catholic, the UMC has a place in my heart, if it was not for the local pastor and the church community, my Mom would not be a Christian today, gratitude is too weak of a word for what I feel for the UMC.

a split now would kill your church
the pro-gay marriage branch would just be another liberal mainline denomination, now hurt from such a split, with less infrastructure, less ability to do outreach to other countries as the Methodist Church in Africa and South America is much more conservative on these issues.

and the more conservative Methodist church would be mostly confined to more rural areas, more of an ageing population, while more in line with global Methodism, it would be reduced in number in the USA to the point where it would lack the ability to bring about real change

the Catholic, Baptist and Methodist Churches are three of the biggest in the USA
many Baptist and Evangelical churches are independent, yes they work together on social issues, but that independence does hamper cooperation a bit.
The Catholics and the Methodist Churches are both known for doing good for social justice (I am not saying that is the first goal of a Church, preaching the Gospel is first, but social justice is VERY important too) and part of politics is a numbers game, to split the UMC now would be like ripping out its vocal cords, and this is a time where America really needs strong Christian voices

I hope I do not seem too presumptuous or too nihilistic
God is Lord of All, and through just 12 Apostles He set things in motion that changed the world.... so it is known He can do great things even with small numbers....
this is just how it looks to me

again, sorry if I seem to be too presumptuous

 

[FergusonTO35]

You're not presumptuous at all, I think your ideas are strong and well reasoned. Good post!

 

[BryanW92]

and this is a time where America really needs strong Christian voices

This is why a split is the only answer. One set of strong Christian voices in the UMC says that the bible is authoritative (not necessarily inerrant) and all scripture belongs in one basket.

Another set of strong Christian voices believes that scripture can be separated into the three baskets, with "love your neighbor" as the only scripture that is undeniable.

And then we have the majority of the denomination, which are weak Christian voices. They don't care that much as long as the coffee is good, the preaching is inoffensive, and the music isn't too loud (or too quiet, depending on their age). When the split occurs, these lukewarm Methodists who really characterize our denomination to the rest of the country will be shocked to learn that there was ever a controversy.

 

[Rhamiel]

politics is about numbers

numbers of members
number of cities you have parishes in
how much money you can give

cutting the UMC in half will not make you stronger, it would just cut off whatever political influence your church still has

 

[BryanW92]

politics is about numbers

numbers of members
number of cities you have parishes in
how much money you can give

cutting the UMC in half will not make you stronger, it would just cut off whatever political influence your church still has

That's the point. Who cares about how much "political influence" our church has. In the new America, Christianity has very little political influence anyway unless it agrees with the politicians and then the politicians only use the church as a prop for a photo op. But, political influence is not the purpose of the church and I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that it is!

If there is a split, the two new denominations can pursue the things that are important to each of them without wasting energy on trying to convince the other half to agree with their position.