The Elephant in the Room

[WiredSpirit]

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.

I am all but certain one of our pastors would fall on the conservative side of the issue and the others would support equality. Those our the attitudes right now. I cannot imagine there ever being a split over the issue no matter what the general conference decides. Are you suggesting we're weak?

We live with all sorts of disagreements, and for some reason you guys act like we're ready to go to war over this issue. Why haven't the progressive churches already split? Are the conservatives just bigger babies who can't live without getting their way?

We are not lukewarm. Most of us have an opinion on the issue, and we know the debate is happening. The thought of splitting over it, however, is absurd. Who is calling for this split? Can you show me their website? I'm sure whatever you find, they're not supportive of the wider church now. They might as well already be on their own.

 

[BryanW92]

Why haven't the progressive churches already split? Are the conservatives just bigger babies who can't live without getting their way?

We are not lukewarm. Most of us have an opinion on the issue, and we know the debate is happening. The thought of splitting over it, however, is absurd. Who is calling for this split? Can you show me their website? I'm sure whatever you find, they're not supportive of the wider church now. They might as well already be on their own.

The progressives haven't left yet because they don't want to walk away from their pensions and seniority (for the clergy) and from the buildings that they've paid for and built over the years (for the laity and clergy). Everyone is waiting for an amicable split that preserves each of our investment. Call that unbiblical of you want, but its the truth. Our polity does not permit a church to leave and take its property, so we all have to wait for a negotiated settlement.

Another reason why the Progressives haven't just left is that they are winning. Its been a slow fight, but they gain a little ground every four years. The Conservatives know that the Leftists will eventually win, but that isn't a good reason to join them. In fact, scripture tells us to avoid letting your love of worldliness take over Christ's church.

As for websites, there are plenty. Just Google "Methodist Renewal" for a start.

The "absurdity" however is the willingness of your side to destroy the church over gay pastors. Because that's the only serious issue. We already have gay people in our churches and they are quite welcome. If a married gay couple walks in to the church, we don't declare them "unmarried". The ONLY issue is gay clergy. How much damage are you willing to do for this issue?

YOU are the people who would kill flies with a shotgun and not care about the destruction as long as you get your way.

 

[jacks]

I don't believe the church should split over this issue. We would be better served if we tried to reconcile our differences while remaining one church. It is somewhat cowardly and certainly counter productive to "run away" when you disagree with someone. What if we treated our marriages this way?

Further where does it end, do we keep splitting when we have disagreements until we are all churches unto ourselves? Are we really this intolerant and unable to work together?

 

[Joykins]

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.

Plenty of people in the pews are not prioritizing this controversy or split issue because they are going about the business of being the church--visiting the sick, praying, running VBS and Sunday School, doing missions trips, feeding the homeless, etc. etc. etc.

As for "scripture," scripture is clear that we are not under law, which seems to put some in the business of enshrining selective laws based on taking sides in a particularly contemporary controversy, and puts others in the business of figuring out for themselves what is not only permitted but beneficial.

I don't want a split; on some level I believe that conservatives and liberals need each other to build a healthy and vibrant church.

 

[GraceSeeker]

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!

What is the purpose of the church? If it isn't political (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens"), then what is it?

Jesus tells us that he came proclaiming good news of the Kingdom of God. This Kingdom good news message is about a lot more than just dying and going to heaven. In fact, I submit to you that those who focus on that aspect of the message have missed more of the message than they have gotten. For in the end, even heaven itself comes to earth as God seeks to restore the world to the fundamental relationships he created it for in the first place. And in this new heaven and new earth, the business of the King is primarily one of relating to the citizens of his kingdom in such a way that he can look out over his creation and once again pronounce it not just good, but very good.

No, that isn't what most people mean by political, but then in a world where everything is fallen, everything also needs to be redeemed. I suggest that we don't just wait around for the King to return, but that in the intervening time, the King has sent us ahead to a world that does not recognize his authority as his ambassadors (there's a political term for you straight from the scriptures, 2 Corinthains 5:20 to be precise). We who belong to Jesus are harbingers of this restored Kingdom of God and the Gospel that we have to share is that it isn't some far off in the distant event we are talking about for the Kingdom has already come on earth in the person of Jesus and anyone who wants to be part of it can enter it through the simple act of faith -- i.e. trusting that Jesus really has inaugurated this Kingdom and begin to live in obedience to the ethics of this new kingdom rather than the ways of the world. But, don't be surprised if living by Kingdom values involves us in challenging the values of the present world and THAT, whether we like it or not, is going to involve us in the politics of this world as well.

All persons who belong to Christ and yet live and breathe in this fleshly world are persons of two different worlds then, and we must relate to both of them. Citizens of one (heaven) making it known here (on earth). Please, don't pray, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" unless one is willing to be political.

 

[FergusonTO35]

A split or large exodus is guaranteed if UMC Christians permit firebrands on either side of this issue, or any other, to have their way. In 1844 both the abolitionists and slavery apologists managed to effectively shut out the moderates and the schism became inevitable.

 

[GraceSeeker]

The progressives haven't left yet because they don't want to walk away from their pensions

Actually, no one will lose any pension either way. Since 1983 the money that is invested in one's pension account is the individual's money. They own it, not the church. Even if one gets kicked out, the pension is still theirs to keep and take with them.

and seniority (for the clergy)

Presumably, if there was a split, there would be large numbers leaving, maybe as much as 1/3. If that happened, the two (new) denominations would still be the 3rd and 5th largest protestant churches in the USA. There will still be need for clergy in both groups. Again, presumably, those for whom seniority was a concern would still have the same sort of seniority in the new group that they had in the old. We aren't talking about a lot of new folk being added from outside.

and from the buildings that they've paid for and built over the years (for the laity and clergy).

Yep, that's a concern, but maybe not as big as many might think. For the most part ever since the Pacific Homes debacle all of the denomination's institutions (schools, camps, healt and welfare institutions) are operated as corporations in their own right. As such, they are already independent of the denomination. i was the chair of the United Methodist Village, a retirement community the church operates in our conference. But the relationship is such that we elected our own directors, hired our own administrators, raised our own operating expenses and capital funding. Our relationship with the conference was as simple as they gave us a few benevolence dollars (and by few I mean roughly $6000 on a $10,000,000 budget), and allowed us to do fundraising using the United Methodist name. Nothing would prevent similar sort of agreements from being made with one or even both succeeding denominations if there were to be a split.

Our polity does not permit a church to leave and take its property, so we all have to wait for a negotiated settlement.

Well, yes and no.

No, the people leaving can't take the property with them. But the people left behind can sell it to anyone they want at any price they want. The trust clause only comes into play when property has been abandoned. Then, and only then, it provides the annual conference's trustees the authority to dispose of it. Until then, if a local church's trustrees wanted to make it a gift to some other Christian organization, like has been done in the past in giving United Methodist church property to another denomination like the Salvation Army, they can.

Another reason why the Progressives haven't just left is that they are winning.

This to is both Yes and No.

Yes, in the United States it appears that their numbers are increasing.
No, in terms of worldwide numbers the conservatives numbers are increasing.
Indeed, one of the things that is bringing this to a boil at the present time is that the Progressives can see the writing on the wall. It is projected that by 2020, there will be more United Methodists in Africa than any other continent. And our African brothers and sisters are much more conservative than anywhere else in United Methodism. Progressive, looking at trends in the US, which is where UM membership is highest, thought that they had the numbers going in to 2012 to make some of the changes they wanted to see made. That they didn't took them somewhat by surprise. They realize that 2016 is make or break for some of these for the forseeable future. It is for this reason that you are seeing some of the debate being not just about theology, but also about church administration. However, if the US can be administratively separated off from the global church, then Progressives will have the upper hand for those who are concerned about the UMC in the USA.

The "absurdity" however is the willingness of your side to destroy the church over gay pastors. Because that's the only serious issue. We already have gay people in our churches and they are quite welcome. If a married gay couple walks in to the church, we don't declare them "unmarried". The ONLY issue is gay clergy. How much damage are you willing to do for this issue?

I'm not sure who the "your side" refers to. I don't know that WiredSpirit feels so differently with regard to gay pastors than you do, Bryan. But, you make some good points here:

[There] are ... people who would kill flies with a shotgun and not care about the destruction as long as [they] get [their] way.

I seems to me that no one side of this issue has a monopoly on the attitude you've identified.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I don't believe the church should split over this issue. We would be better served if we tried to reconcile our differences while remaining one church. It is somewhat cowardly and certainly counter productive to "run away" when you disagree with someone. What if we treated our marriages this way?

A split or large exodus is guaranteed if UMC Christians permit firebrands on either side of this issue, or any other, to have their way. In 1844 both the abolitionists and slavery apologists managed to effectively shut out the moderates and the schism became inevitable.

Further where does it end, do we keep splitting when we have disagreements until we are all churches unto ourselves? Are we really this intolerant and unable to work together?

Hear, hear, hear!!!

 

[Rhamiel]

A split or large exodus is guaranteed if UMC Christians permit firebrands on either side of this issue, or any other, to have their way. In 1844 both the abolitionists and slavery apologists managed to effectively shut out the moderates and the schism became inevitable.

if I am not mistaken, the Methodist church was the largest denomination in the USA before the 1844 split

 

[FergusonTO35]

Yes, they were. I find that the willingness to divide and create new churches and denominations is a historic strength of American Christianity. It has created a true marketplace of Christianity, where the believer can find a fellowship that best fits his/her needs. I was over in Ireland on vacation recently and was amazed at the lack of church variety there. In most towns all that is available is Catholic and the Church of Ireland (which is Anglican I think). One town had a small combined Methodist and Presbyterian fellowship. If there were any other churches I sure didn't notice them.

I don't really have feelings one way or another about the necessity of a split or staying together. If it does happen I think the long term effect will be good for Methodism and Christianity in general. Divide and multiply is the main strength of our religious economy!

 

[Rhamiel]

Yes, they were. I find that the willingness to divide and create new churches and denominations is a historic strength of American Christianity. It has created a true marketplace of Christianity, where the believer can find a fellowship that best fits his/her needs. I was over in Ireland on vacation recently and was amazed at the lack of church variety there. In most towns all that is available is Catholic and the Church of Ireland (which is Anglican I think). One town had a small combined Methodist and Presbyterian fellowship. If there were any other churches I sure didn't notice them.

I don't really have feelings one way or another about the necessity of a split or staying together. If it does happen I think the long term effect will be good for Methodism and Christianity in general. Divide and multiply is the main strength of our religious economy!

yeah, the Church of Ireland is in communion with the Anglicans
I am sorry, but I find this "willingness to divide" and making the faith more like a "market place" to be very foreign concepts, or atleast viewing them as good things seems very foreign

 

[BryanW92]

But the people left behind can sell it to anyone they want at any price they want. The trust clause only comes into play when property has been abandoned. Then, and only then, it provides the annual conference's trustees the authority to dispose of it.

That's interesting. My church sold its parsonage about 12 years ago. We had to get permission from the Conference to do so and they mandated that we sell it and keep the money in a trust that could ONLY be used for a new parsonage or a new building on the church property (but not on new property--even the adjoining lot). The reason given was that all real property belongs to the Conference and not the incorporated local church.

Did we just get bamboozled? We bought a new parsonage last summer and used those funds as a down payment. After the closing, we received a letter from the Conference stating that the agreement on our parsonage funds was settled (or closed or discharged--I forget the exact legal term).

Also, at AC where we vote on the voluntary discontinuances, the property always reverts to the Conference. This year, we had one small rural church with a cemetery that voluntarily closed and the Conference made it a point to state that it had "donated" that property to a newly-formed cemetary corporation to maintain the cemetery. But, there is never a mention of the local church being able to sell or donate the real property.

 

[BryanW92]

This to is both Yes and No.

Yes, in the United States it appears that their numbers are increasing.
No, in terms of worldwide numbers the conservatives numbers are increasing.
Indeed, one of the things that is bringing this to a boil at the present time is that the Progressives can see the writing on the wall. It is projected that by 2020, there will be more United Methodists in Africa than any other continent. And our African brothers and sisters are much more conservative than anywhere else in United Methodism. Progressive, looking at trends in the US, which is where UM membership is highest, thought that they had the numbers going in to 2012 to make some of the changes they wanted to see made. That they didn't took them somewhat by surprise. They realize that 2016 is make or break for some of these for the forseeable future. It is for this reason that you are seeing some of the debate being not just about theology, but also about church administration. However, if the US can be administratively separated off from the global church, then Progressives will have the upper hand for those who are concerned about the UMC in the USA.

That's what I meant when I said that the Progressives are winning. They are growing in the US, even as the African church is growing faster. So, they are beginning to shift their focus to the administrative solution that you mention and/or Hamilton's administrative solution, "The Way Forward!". If they can isolate Africa from the US church, then they win. They're very good at framing every argument in the "we're compassionate and you're racist, sexist, exclusivist, etc" so they have a good chance of succeeding at this by claiming that they are "helping" the African church by letting them split off from our "confusing politics that really don't affect them anyway."

 

[GraceSeeker]

Did we just get bamboozled?

You got what most people think the Discipline says. And, yes, I think you got bamboozled.

 

[BryanW92]

You got what most people think the Discipline says. And, yes, I think you got bamboozled.

LOL. One of my pastors used to say "never trust a DS."

So, we could vote to sell our property and move to a storefront church? Once we have a few key old people "go on to glory", that would be the best thing for the church I currently attend.

 

[GraceSeeker]

So, we could vote to sell our property and move to a storefront church?

I believe you can. You're going to have to be able to get ministry reasons for the decision, and cite pertinent BOD paragraphs. But, in short, YES. You are the present trustees of the property until such time as you abandon it. Now, when it comes to new property purchases, that does have to be approved by the District Committee on Buildings. So, if they give you a hard time, don't buy it, rent it. And if they don't like your plans for selling the church, don't sell it, rent it out. I'm sure you can come to terms that will be acceptable for whoever is interested, though you may have to think a bit outside the box to do so.

The A.C. has nothing to say about renting or leasing. Once the congregation has moved out and not utilizing a building for worship, the A.C. has no interest in trying to maintain it. As long as you can illustrate that you have a plan for your future, you'll be able to do pretty much what you want.

 

[BryanW92]

I believe you can. You're going to have to be able to get ministry reasons for the decision, and cite pertinent BOD paragraphs. But, in short, YES. You are the present trustees of the property until such time as you abandon it. Now, when it comes to new property purchases, that does have to be approved by the District Committee on Buildings. So, if they give you a hard time, don't buy it, rent it. And if they don't like your plans for selling the church, don't sell it, rent it out. I'm sure you can come to terms that will be acceptable for whoever is interested, though you may have to think a bit outside the box to do so.

The A.C. has nothing to say about renting or leasing. Once the congregation has moved out and not utilizing a building for worship, the A.C. has no interest in trying to maintain it. As long as you can illustrate that you have a plan for your future, you'll be able to do pretty much what you want.

That's some good information. Thanks!

 

[GraceSeeker]

I tend to look at problems like a game. I find that I win most games that I play. People don't understand how I do that. The answer is simple. I never worry about playing the competition. My goal isn't to beat them at the game. My goal is to understand the design of the game and play to beat it.

If one wants to do something in the church where you really do need permission from someone, don't try to get permission. Figure out why they want you to ask for permission. What was that rule put in there to protect? Meet those concerns and they will let you do whatever it is that you want.

 

[BryanW92]

I tend to look at problems like a game. I find that I win most games that I play. People don't understand how I do that. The answer is simple. I never worry about playing the competition. My goal isn't to beat them at the game. My goal is to understand the design of the game and play to beat it.

If one wants to do something in the church where you really do need permission from someone, don't try to get permission. Figure out why they want you to ask for permission. What was that rule put in there to protect? Meet those concerns and they will let you do whatever it is that you want.

I agree completely. I'm a big believer in "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission".

Most non-safety rules are put in place to protect the rulemakers anyway! I'm sure that if UM churches started selling their property and donating the proceeds to the CotN or WC down the street and then voluntarily discontinuing, the Conference would do something to block them, but not to address the reasons why they are doing it.

 

[Pastor Don]

The elephant in the room for me in all of this is popularity. Numbers is not the name of the game. It never was and never will be. When we consider whether or not we are fruitful in our ministry it is not based on how many butts are in the seats of our sanctuaries but by how many lives have been touched and by those relationships, introduced to Jesus Christ. Popularity contests push churches into follow the trends of society around them. This is not what we are called to do. In fact, we are called to do the exact opposite; to be the city on the hill, the light to those around us, the salt that flavors the outside world. If we are going to bend to the will of the world every time the wind changes then we are not fulfilling the great commission at all we are just trying to be main stream spiritualists that worship a variety of gods in a house dedicated to God.

Jesus told us that we were going to know suffering because we followed Him. The fact is that our standing firm in our resolve means that we truly believe what we say we believe and that peer pressure does not force us from what we know God has told us about certain behaviors. Knowing that we are to love all and yet we are also to submit ourselves to God should make things very clear that though we are all sinners, only the grace of God can truly save us. It is not a court case or a decision from legislature. It will be God that will pass the judgment on us that will truly matter for all eternity.

So, I suppose we have to ask ourselves then whether it is time to address this elephant called popularity. Is it so important to us that we fill our churches through the sacrifice of our own spiritual integrity? Do we give in to peer pressure and the pleasures of the flesh/emotions in lieu of dying to self and living in Christ? Does the focus of the church now look at man as its god or are we still looking to God as our beloved Father? Popularity is an idol that stands in front of us hungry for our attention. Do we keep feeding it or do we throw it out of God's house and stand fast in His promises to us..

Blessings to all,

Don