Back in 2016 the General Conference of the United Methodist Church was very close to schism over the issue of homosexuality. The delegates approved the creation of a Commission on a Way Forward, tasked with outlining how the denomination might stay together. The commission’s final report is done and will be given to the Council of Bishops at the end of this month. It has not yet been made public, though commission members and various bishops are optimistic. From the report the Bishops will create a proposal for what the denomination should do. It will be voted on at a special General Conference next February. This GC will consider only this proposal. The next regular GC is in 2020.
The conservative part of the denomination has always been active, insisting on prohibitions of LGBTQ clergy and members since the first General Conference in 1972. These various movements have coalesced into the Wesleyan Covenant Association, formed a few years ago. As Rev. Jeremy Smith discusses in his blog Hacking Christianity, the WCA has now announced their intentions.
If the proposal from the Council of Bishops isn’t sufficiently conservative (sufficiently restrictive on LGBTQ people) they will submit their own minority report (and in the rules of the denomination, the minority report gets voted on first). And if their report isn’t approved, they will begin a schism. Do it our way or else.
They may not demand the delegates vote on specific articles of separation. Instead, “the WCA will provide a home for laity, clergy, and churches committed to what has been historically taught...” And they’ll provide legal counsel to help churches get out of their contracts with the denomination (for example, though a congregation pays for building their church, the denomination owns it).
The big questions:
First: Will the WCA pull the moderates to their side? Over the last few decades and quite a bit through the last six years the conservatives have been building a parallel structure of of publishers, seminaries, and missionaries outside the control of the bishops and denomination agencies. At the same time they have been claiming a minority, persecuted status, especially claiming persecution by the bishops. And moderates have fallen for it.
Second: If the conservative resolution passes, what will progressives do? Will they prize “unity” over principle (which LGBTQ people feel has been happening for at least a decade) and leave us under restrictions at least as bad as what we have now? Or will progressives demand a split?
Rev. Smith notes there are three things at the center of the denomination’s current crisis:
1. A failure to develop a robust sexual ethic (mostly around LGBTQ people).
2. A failure to include minority perspectives and promote diversity.
3. A failure to play fair with the processes created by General Conference to resolve 1 and 2.
All three failures are from the efforts of various conservative groups. Rev. Smith describes it as conservatives creating a crisis and then selling the only solution to the crisis. Instead of offering a Way Forward they are pushing for a Way Out.
Much of this wrangling of the national and global denomination is of intense interest to me because the lives of fellow LGBTQ people are affected by these decisions. But, as I’ve said before, it doesn’t really affect what I will do until it affects my local church.
My local church is doing wonderful work. They promote diversity and inclusion (though they haven’t been very loud about the gay welcome lately). I feel pretty good about attending.
The General Conference decisions, in either direction, may have no impact on my local congregation. But there could be a very big impact.
* A schism may leave either or both sides with insufficient financial resources and the denomination collapses.
* The conservative side wins and demands each church crack down on their LGBTQ members. In the last two GCs harsher rules were avoided mostly by avoiding votes on them.
* The WCA entices congregations to join them or demands each congregation choose. My congregation votes on the issue and is split by it, resulting on harsh feelings all around – not good for building an institution that’s supposed to be built on love and inclusion.
We know their intentions. Do we have the time and influence to shape the outcome?
