What Are You Going to Do When the UMC Splits?

[bekkilyn]

I'm remaining regardless of the decision and refuse to allow petty politics to interfere with proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ and making disciples.

 

[Anto9us]

That's a good attitude, Rebecca.
I too will most likely remain regardless.
I am curious about the big Nazarene church in town, though -- it has grown so much -- daycare, playground...
I will at least visit it, an enthusiastic young girl from there that I met wants to become an Air Force Chaplain (only small formalities like college and seminary remain).

 

[Kersh]

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."

I really wonder if the COTN is really that far behind the UMC. They have already distanced themselves from the doctrine of inerrancy. Without biblical inerrancy, I'm not sure what keeps the church from adopting the relativism that is destroying the UMC.

 

[bekkilyn]

I really wonder if the COTN is really that far behind the UMC. They have already distanced themselves from the doctrine of inerrancy. Without biblical inerrancy, I'm not sure what keeps the church from adopting the relativism that is destroying the UMC.

Perhaps they do not wish to become idolatrous by putting the written word above the living Word. It is very possible to retain scriptural authority while at the same rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy.

 

[Kersh]

Perhaps they do not wish to become idolatrous by putting the written word above the living Word. It is very possible to retain scriptural authority while at the same rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy.

Having spent most of my Christian life believing as you do and having come to the conclusion that I was wrong, I would love to debate this point with you. But, I want to be sensitive to the OP by not derailing the thread in a discussion of biblical authority and inerrancy. Suffice it to say, when I recently left my old church (for reasons unrelated to this thread), one of the reasons I steered clear of the COTN is because of their stance in inerrancy. If I were to pick solely in denomination, I probably be in a Wesleyan or FM Church. But, I have a special needs child, and I am finding that very few churches of any denomination (or non-denomination) are welcoming of special needs children.

 

[Striver]

This question is still on my radar.

We're unsettled on where our (my family's) future church home will be. I am a Conservative-leaning Moderate in orientation. My grandparents grew up first in Brethren Churches and Methodist Churches, and they had the sort of classic Conservative mainline beliefs that I've slowly developed.

I've grown up in SBC churches and Methodist churches. I would say that I don't 100% fit the SB mold even though I am okay with sitting under their preaching.

Our local Methodist church seems quite typical of this persuasion. They recently developed a contemporary service (typically the mark of more conservative theology) and yet they maintain a thriving traditional mainline service as well. There are liberals and conservatives who attend the church. I'm not aware of the issue coming up locally, but know that the congregation has had members of various sexual orientation quietly participating for a time.

I am concerned about my family attending this church in some ways. I took some religious studies classes with the then District Superintendent and the guy was very liberal theologically. This was just prior to the current brou-ha-ha developing. At that time, I was more concerned with the theology part given that the guy bought into pretty much every recent theological innovation.

At the same time, I still think one could co-exist with him in the denomination and survive without compromising things.

It's good to see what appear to be similar minds here. I hesitate to make this issue an end-all-be-all issue, but it seems like both sides insist you are a terrible person for not insisting on full, absolute acceptance of their position. I'm prayerful that we don't continue to rip one another into pieces.

 

[Anto9us]

I recently was made aware of yet another option for me -- should UMC adopt a stance that I cannot live with -- though I remain fairly positive that a mediating position will develop. There are many SBC churches in my town of Waco, Texas, but there are also a handful in the General Baptist Convention. One of these, right across the street from the Methodist church where I grew up, has an author of Arminian books, (Roger Olson) a professor at Truett Seminary of Baylor University. He has a blog that I responded to and he responded back promptly, I am looking forward to getting some of his books.

Historically, early Baptists were divided between General Baptists (Arminian) and Particular Baptists (Calvinists). So options abound -- stay UMC, consider Nazarene, Wesleyan, Assembly of God, General Baptist, or go non-denom or something else.

 

[hedrick]

It's good to see what appear to be similar minds here. I hesitate to make this issue an end-all-be-all issue, but it seems like both sides insist you are a terrible person for not insisting on full, absolute acceptance of their position. I'm prayerful that we don't continue to rip one another into pieces.

I think the question is what an acceptable middle position looks like. To me, it means that members, congregations and pastors can disagree, but they can also act in accordance with their positions. I'm afraid a lot of people think a compromise is that we can have people who think homosexuality is OK in our congregations, but they can't act on it, i.e. they can't be ordained or married. That's not a compromise.

In the PCUSA (which is the mainline church I know the best), we haven't tried to force gay marriage or gay clergy on congregations that don't want it. So I'm not sure your characterization of the gay-accepting position is right. Do we think conservatives are terrible people? I don't. I'm not sure how commonly people do.

I'd love to see some new ideas come from the UMC, but generally "local option" has been pretty much the only compromise anyone has seriously considered. I believe the liberals in the UMC would be OK with that.

 

[Striver]

I think that is a huge question.

I'm not certain that I agree with your assessment, and I think this is why it's very difficult to have much of a calm discussion in many areas, because inevitably the positions retreat to the same ramparts with fundamental divergences of opinions and interpretations.

You're always going to hear from the loudest elements of each party on any social, cultural, etc issue. I'm still trying to discern what the middle is in all of this, because it's a very difficult line to walk. I full-well admit I do not claim to know exactly where the line is even at.

However, the rub seems to be the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ in every aspect of ministry. It would seem that a middling position would be a way to give the parties each what they want, but the outcome it suggests would be a conservative wing on the church (on this issue) and a liberal wing. The conservative churches would be able to specifically not appoint LGBTQ+ people as clergy, but there would ideally be a level where they could safely participate in church life, perhaps even in certain lay roles (speaking as a Methodist). In liberal churches, it would be full participation.

I have no idea how you partition this out. Larger cities could obviously have one, or more, of the same denomination where one church functions in one way and another in the other. I would hope and pray that both sides could overcome their opinions of the other guys and gals and come together in other areas. The UMC local option would seem to come close to this, and it would at least offer LGBTQ+ the ability to walk safely and easily into any church. At absolute bare minimum, this should be a mark of a Christian church.

With that said, conflict over leadership is going to arise at some point, and I believe this is ultimately what is holding back the local option?

Lastly, where both sides retreat into the mantra of not compromising comes when the conservatives don't want to even fellowship with groups who ordain LGBTQ+. On the liberal side, the couching is probably a little better, but I've seen the word compromise be expanded to mean full assent or affirmation.

 

[hedrick]

In case you're interested, here are details of the three plans: https://um-insight.net/in-the-church/a-way-forward/court-docket-details-proposed-plans-for-umc/. The traditional plan looks harsher than I expected, except that it makes it easy to exit. I still think that's what will happen, and that the UMC will be back to northern and southern churches.

I'm sympathetic to Striver, but I don't think the votes are there.

 

[Basil the Great]

You could well be right, hedrick. It is hard to believe that many of the Southern conservatives would accept a compromise approach which would potentially allow gay marriage or gay pastors in their denomination, even if such would almost certainly not happen in their part of the country.

 

[hedrick]

Here's the final plan: http://s3.amazonaws.com/Website_Pro...ents/Way_Forward_Report_-_Final_-_ENGLISH.pdf. The traditional plan is really a plan to split the Church, forcing progressive to form a separate church, which might retain some affiliation.

A number of churches have gone through conflict over homosexuality before. However this is the first denomination I've seen where conservatives set out to split their church. The main hope for the One Church plan is the fact that it's not just speculation whether there would be a split; it's part of the plan.

There are also two additional plans put forward by groups other than the Way Forward committee. The Wesley Covenant Association has proposed a plan for dissolution of the denomination, https://wesleyancovenant.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Plan-of-Dissolution-as-Way-Forward.pdf. This would force creation of at least two successor denominations. It differs from the traditional plan in that it requires conservatives to create a new organization just like progressives.

The Queer Clergy Caucus has also proposed the "Simple Plan," https://www.umqcc.org/a-simple-plan/. It removes anti-gay language from the discipline, without making any other changes. This is basically the approach that other denominations have taken. It doesn't contain the explicit protections for conservatives that the One Church plan does, but it also doesn't have any mandates that should cause them problems. While not stated in the plan, for other reasons the central conferences (i.e. Africans and others) would be unaffected because they have their own Disciplines.

 

[Annie Proclivite]

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?

If the UMC declares LGBT relations as okay, then I’m leaving for a more conservative denomination that doesn’t tolerate sinful sexualities.

 

[SWIll]

My wife and I were both born and raised in the UMC. 50 plus years. We have decided to leave and are exploring options now. We are leaning non denomination.

 

[hedrick]

If the UMC declares LGBT relations as okay, then I’m leaving for a more conservative denomination that doesn’t tolerate sinful sexualities.

It’s weird that the people talking about leaving seem to be traditionalists. The most likely outcome is that the UMC will adopt a plan that includes a purge of liberals. It would be a shame to remove the liberals and find conservatives leaving anyway.

 

[SWIll]

It’s weird that the people talking about leaving seem to be traditionalists. The most likely outcome is that the UMC will adopt a plan that includes a purge of liberals. It would be a shame to remove the liberals and find conservatives leaving anyway.

It’s weird that the people talking about leaving seem to be traditionalists. The most likely outcome is that the UMC will adopt a plan that includes a purge of liberals. It would be a shame to remove the liberals and find conservatives leaving anyway.

While the change on the denominational level has much to do with our leaving, changes on the local level also had an effect. It's very strange to be in your fifties and considered one of the young ones.

 

[bekkilyn]

I think people who are already planning to leave before any decisions about anything have even been made have typically been already looking for some "excuse" to leave and this special conference provides a convenient "out".

 

[SWIll]

I think people who are already planning to leave before any decisions about anything have even been made have typically been already looking for some "excuse" to leave and this special conference provides a convenient "out".

There is some truth to that.

 

[hedrick]

I think the traditional plan is close to suicide. The UMC isn't an evangelical church, exactly. It's probably not going to turn into one, nor would evangelicals likely go there. If you eject everyone who wants to accept gays (and the traditional plan really does institute a purge), will the result be a church that with mission that can actually work?

There's one other concern that hasn't been noted here. The traditional plan allows churches to withdraw for any reason. There's speculation that many of the megachurches may leave for financial reasons. They pay a fairly large amount to the denomination, and may feel they can survive without it.

The worst case is that the UMC loses everyone interested in the Methodist social witness and the largest evangelical congregations, and can't attract either evangelicals or moderates.

 

[dreadnought]

My wife and I were both born and raised in the UMC. 50 plus years. We have decided to leave and are exploring options now. We are leaning non denomination.

Maybe you should wait to see what happens at the February meeting meant to deal with this.