What Are You Going to Do When the UMC Splits?

[Tree of Life]

In 2019 a national conference is scheduled to finally solve the homosexuality question for the UMC. No matter how it ends up, the denomination will split. When it does, what will you do?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

When I was in a UMC church, if they started breaking the commands of Yahweh willingly and without repentance, I left. Same with LCMS years ago.

It seems odd that this was/is necessary, since the leaders did not or if they would not disfellowship the unrepentant sinners as God commands in His Word though, there was no other choice as far as I could see, nor that anyone offered in harmony and understanding of and with God's Word and Plan.

 

[Anto9us]

I don't know that a split is DEFINITE - but surely may happen.

I grew up Methodist -- but it is really Wesleyan/Arminian theology I am committed to; of which Church of the Nazarene, Assemblies of God, and Wesleyan church would be options.

If the April 2019 decision of the UMC is too radical for me, I might go Nazarene on their buttocks.

But as Yogi Berra says "It aint over til its over."

 

[dreadnought]

In 2019 a national conference is scheduled to finally solve the homosexuality question for the UMC. No matter how it ends up, the denomination will split. When it does, what will you do?

Why are you sure the congregation will split?

 

[hedrick]

Why are you sure the congregation will split?

Most congregations won't split. Even jurisdictions may not. However based on experience in other churches, here's the most likely result:

* the "traditional model," i.e. leave the Book of Discipline alone. The Western Jurisdiction is in direct violation. Unless the leadership decides to ignore it (and I think there's enough opposition to make that hard), the Western Jurisdiction will be disciplined in a way that will force them to leave. Most likely some other jurisdictions would join them.

* the "one church model". Requires changing the Book of Discipline to allow local option. Quite likely no jurisdictions will leave. But some congregations probably will (based on experience with other mainline denominations). Some African groups may feel the need to separate.

I've already speculated on what's likely to happen. I don't it adds anything to do so again. But you might find it interesting to look at the relevant articles at the UMC Insight web site, https://um-insight.net/topics/umc_schism/. If you read a sampling of those articles, the picture is not encouraging. Liberal groups are insistent, and conservatives want a purge and something closer to a credal denomination. Let's hope this is scare-mongering.

 

[dreadnought]

Most congregations won't split. Even jurisdictions may not. However based on experience in other churches, here's the most likely result:

* the "traditional model," i.e. leave the Book of Discipline alone. The Western Jurisdiction is in direct violation. Unless the leadership decides to ignore it (and I think there's enough opposition to make that hard), the Western Jurisdiction will be disciplined in a way that will force them to leave. Most likely some other jurisdictions would join them.

* the "one church model". Requires changing the Book of Discipline to allow local option. Quite likely no jurisdictions will leave. But some congregations probably will (based on experience with other mainline denominations). Some African groups may feel the need to separate.

I've already speculated on what's likely to happen. I don't it adds anything to do so again. But you might find it interesting to look at the relevant articles at the UMC Insight web site, https://um-insight.net/topics/umc_schism/. If you read a sampling of those articles, the picture is not encouraging. Liberal groups are insistent, and conservatives want a purge and something closer to a credal denomination. Let's hope this is scare-mongering.

I find whole the thing quite depressing. My church is in the California-Nevada Conference, which I've been told, is very pro-homosexual. I've also been told our bishop is a lesbian.

 

[hedrick]

I find whole the thing quite depressing. My church is in the California-Nevada Conference, which I've been told, is very pro-homosexual. I've also been told our bishop is a lesbian.

Yeah, but in most mainline churches nobody is trying to force gays or gay marriage on congregations that don't want them.

The question is what you want. I'm in the PCUSA. My congregation has people for whom affirming gays is important, and Trump supporters. We elect both to leadership. We also have a large population of Indonesians from areas where Christians aren't treated well. We like this kind of diversity.

The Methodist Church historically has had influences both from the mainline tradition with its social witness and evangelical Christianity. At some point you'll have to decide whether you still want to be in such a church. Unfortunately the US as a whole seems to be splitting. To stay in a denomination that doesn't allow gay marriage anywhere, you'll probably have to go to a church that's a lot more conservative than what you're used to.

 

[dreadnought]

Yeah, but in most mainline churches nobody is trying to force gays or gay marriage on congregations that don't want them.

The question is what you want. I'm in the PCUSA. My congregation has people for whom affirming gays is important, and Trump supporters. We elect both to leadership. We also have a large population of Indonesians from areas where Christians aren't treated well. We like this kind of diversity.

The Methodist Church historically has had influences both from the mainline tradition with its social witness and evangelical Christianity. At some point you'll have to decide whether you still want to be in such a church. Unfortunately the US as a whole seems to be splitting. To stay in a denomination that doesn't allow gay marriage anywhere, you'll probably have to go to a church that's a lot more conservative than what you're used to.

Which is a problem, because I love my church.

 

[Anto9us]

But dreadnought, for a person disturbed about allowing the gays in - YOU ARE ALREADY IN AS ABOUT AS BAD AS IT GETS - yet your own local church, you like -- that's where I am, no lesbian bishop (actually no homosexuals go to my local church, that I know of)
It's just like THE DENOMINATION is headed for a change, I think.

 

[dreadnought]

But dreadnought, for a person disturbed about allowing the gays in - YOU ARE ALREADY IN AS ABOUT AS BAD AS IT GETS - yet your own local church, you like -- that's where I am, no lesbian bishop (actually no homosexuals go to my local church, that I know of)
It's just like THE DENOMINATION is headed for a change, I think.

I never said I was disturbed about letting homosexuals in. I am disturbed that pastors are teaching that homosexuality is not a sin, when the Lord said it is.

 

[Anto9us]

I'm sorry, didn't mean to misrepresent you

I am not really disturbed by it either

 

[hedrick]

Which is a problem, because I love my church.

So stay there. You're in a jurisdiction that's unlikely to be changed, no matter what happens 2019. Either "one church" will pass, in which case the UMC remains a broad church, or "traditional" passes, in which case your jurisdiction is kicked out, and likely stays pretty much the same.

 

[dreadnought]

I'm sorry, didn't mean to misrepresent you

I am not really disturbed by it either

It disturbs me, because in this conference, we are being taught that homosexuality is not a sin, just the opposite of what the Lord taught.

 

[dreadnought]

So stay there. You're in a jurisdiction that's unlikely to be changed, no matter what happens 2019. Either "one church" will pass, in which case the UMC remains a broad church, or "traditional" passes, in which case your jurisdiction is kicked out, and likely stays pretty much the same.

You seem to know a lot more about this than I, and I find what you say interesting. I was under the impression that the liberals were gaining control, but by what you say, it sounds like the conservatives are in control. That is good, though it apparently means our conference might be booted out of United Methodism.

 

[hedrick]

You seem to know a lot more about this than I, and I find what you say interesting. I was under the impression that the liberals were gaining control, but by what you say, it sounds like the conservatives are in control. That is good, though it apparently means our conference might be booted out of United Methodism.

Moderates are in a majority in the US. I call them moderates because they don't all accept homosexuality, but they are willing to coexist with those who do.

However the General Conference is 38% Africans. The constitution of the UMC is a bit odd. African churches are quasi-independent. They have their own Books of Discipline, which can differ from the US's. But no one thought to do the same thing for the US. So the US church can't interfere with the African churches, but Africans can determine US policies, because they are voted on by the whole Church. It doesn't take many US conservatives voting with them to allow Africans to dictate policy for the US church. Most Africans have little sympathy with gays. Furthermore, in some countries the UMC could be made illegal if it accepts gays.

This means there's virtually no chance that 2019 will result in a policy accepting gays, or even allowing some churches to accept gays. It will almost certainly result in keeping the official policy, and starting a purge of liberals from the denomination. That won't just return it to a point before gays were an issue. Conservatives have in mind a more hard-line conservative approach, which may end up looking more like Southern Baptists.

Unless Africans do something very unexpected, like support the creation of one or more US churches with the same degree of independence as the African churches, the real question isn't whether there will be a schism, but how unfriendly it will be. My ideal outcome would be creation of two quasi-independent US churches, conservative and moderate. In that case congregations could be allowed to choose which they wanted to be part of. But that would require a degree of graciousness that is very unusual in church politics. (Actually, my ideal is the "one church" plan, but there's no way that will be accepted.)

Africans actually have a reason to support that. I'm hearing complaints that discussions in the UMC are dominated by US concerns, even though there are almost as many Africans as US. But that's inevitable as long as US policies have to be decided by the global body, and African policies can be decided in Africa. If homosexuality wasn't the issue, I suspect Africans might favor making the US church just as quasi-independent as the African churches, leaving the global body for global missions. However if that happened the US church would certainly allow "local option" on gays. I think it's unlikely that very many Africans will support any move that might result in any portion of the church accepting gays, even if the change would otherwise be a good idea.

 

[dreadnought]

Moderates are in a majority in the US. I call them moderates because they don't all accept homosexuality, but they are willing to coexist with those who do.

However the General Conference is 38% Africans. The constitution of the UMC is a bit odd. African churches are quasi-independent. They have their own Books of Discipline, which can differ from the US's. But no one thought to do the same thing for the US. So the US church can't interfere with the African churches, but Africans can determine US policies, because they are voted on by the whole Church. It doesn't take many US conservatives to allow Africans to dictate policy for the US church. Most Africans have little sympathy with gays. Furthermore, in some countries the UMC could be made illegal if it accepts gays.

This means there's virtually no chance that 2019 will result in a policy accepting gays, or even allowing some churches to accept gays. It will almost certainly result in keeping the official policy, and starting a purge of liberals from the denomination. That won't just return it to a point before gays were an issue. Conservatives have in mind a more hard-line conservative approach, which may end up looking more like Southern Baptists.

Unless Africans do something very unexpected, like support the creation of one or more US churches with the same degree of independence as the African churches, the real question isn't whether there will be a schism, but how unfriendly it will be. My ideal outcome would be creation of two quasi-independent US churches, conservative and moderate. In that case congregations could be allowed to choose which they wanted to be part of. But that would require a degree of graciousness that is very unusual in church politics.

Africans actually have a reason to support that. I'm hearing complaints that discussions in the UMC are dominated by US concerns, even though there are almost as many Africans as US. But that's inevitable as long as US policies have to be decided by the global body, and African policies can be decided in Africa. If homosexuality wasn't the issue, I suspect Africans might favor making the US church just as quasi-independent as the African churches. However if that happened the US church would certainly allow "local option" on gays. I think it's unlikely that very many Africans will support any move that might result in any portion of the church accepting gays, even if the change would otherwise be a good idea.

There is a difference between accepting homosexuals and teaching that homosexuality is not a sin. I believe in accepting homosexuals, but I don't believe we should disobey the Lord by teaching that homosexuality is not a sin. Out here your pastor will ridicule you if you stand by the Lord's commandment that homosexuality is a sin.

 

[hedrick]

There is a difference between accepting homosexuals and teaching that homosexuality is not a sin. I believe in accepting homosexuals, but I don't believe we should disobey the Lord by teaching that homosexuality is not a sin. Out here your pastor will ridicule you if you stand by the Lord's commandment that homosexuality is a sin.

Does that include your own pastor?

 

[dreadnought]

Does that include your own pastor?

Yes, the fellow we had until June 30.

 

[hedrick]

Yes, the fellow we had until June 30.

Then you may have a problem. Conservatives will almost certainly win on the national level, but there will almost certainly be a schism. It's hard to be sure, but probably your conference and jurisdiction will retain their current orientation.

I would never support ridiculing someone for accepting the traditional position. The liberal pastors I know wouldn't either. That's uncalled for. If your congregation is moderate or conservative, your leaders should have a discussion with your District Superintendent.

 

[dreadnought]

Then you may have a problem. Conservatives will almost certainly win on the national level, but there will almost certainly be a schism. It's hard to be sure, but probably your conference and jurisdiction will retain their current orientation.

I would never support ridiculing someone for accepting the traditional position. The liberal pastors I know wouldn't either. That's uncalled for. If your congregation is moderate or conservative, your leaders should have a discussion with your District Superintendent.

I don't know what the congregation is. I only know what the pastor says. The Conference is liberal. The Bishop is a lesbian. I wouldn't feel confident a talk with the District Superintendent would do much good. He's 135 miles away in West Sacramento.