First, a bit of history that should be well known to most of us. The United Methodist Church was formed by combining two denominations in 1968. The first General Conference of the new denomination was in 1972. As part of creating the Social Principles, the phrase “homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” was inserted to the Book of Discipline, the denomination’s governing document.
Progressives have been trying to get that phrase removed at every General Conference since then. Conservatives have for just as log been trying to add restrictions to LGBTQ people (can’t serve as pastors, can’t be married) using this incompatibility phrase as justification. Some of those restrictions have been approved.
In the 1980s the vote to remove the incompatibility clause lost by about 80% (I don’t have exact numbers). By 2008 the vote lost by only 54%. That was enough for me to feel 2012 was our year and I went to General Conference as an observer to experience the joy when the clause was removed.
That year it lost by 60%. It was a painful day. Conservatives were waiting with more restrictions, such as requiring church trials for pastors who officiated at same-sex weddings. We avoided more harm by running out the clock.
In 2016 tensions were high. More harm was avoided by creating the Commission For a Way Forward, which culminated in the just concluded special General Conference.
So, on reflection, I’m not surprised the Traditional Plan, the one to heap on more LGBTQ punishments, passed. Yes, disappointed, but no longer surprised. A good number of its provisions were ready to be voted on in 2012, a time when the denomination was getting tired of negative publicity of pastor trials, yet conservatives wanted them to continue. I suppose I should be heartened that this year the plan passed with only 53% rather than the 60% or more of 2012. Given a chance to approve more restrictions on LGBTQ people, GC did.
In yesterday’s post I wrote about the influence of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, a non-Methodist group funded by the Koch brothers who also fund the GOP and the Tea Party. Though not naming names, a letter this morning from Reconciling Ministries Network confirms my understanding:
The Traditionalist Plan was passed by the efforts of organized opponents to gospel inclusion who have funded and promoted the demise of Christian witness across denominations who have dared to call out a white nationalist strain of Christianity. For decades, they sought the decline of biblical justice-rooted Christian traditions and have built the infrastructure and narrative that has now risen to power in The United Methodist Church. What has transpired today is an effort to weaken the Church and the local church, its global witness and reach, and the work of the Holy Spirit.
I see this mess as a failure of leadership, mostly a failure of the United Methodist Council of Bishops. They guide the denomination (under the BoD set by General Conference), but there hasn’t been a lot of guiding over the last several years. This is a longstanding complaint and comes from many people. Some of my complaints:
Before General Conference I told people I couldn’t predict an outcome. As I mentioned above I’m not surprised by what happened. But I think the bishops should have had a strong understanding of the likely outcome. If they didn’t want this outcome, they could have prepared to prevent it. They didn’t.
The bishops put together the Commission, but didn’t do such things as actively promote what the Commission recommended. Once the Commission was done the bishops didn’t make sure the GC was about the outcome they recommended. Instead, they offered options – allowing GC to choose the worst one.
The progressive plans were written by the Commission and were designed with the rules of the denomination in mind. According to Rev. Jeremy Smith of the blog Hacking Christianity, the Traditional Plan was not written by the Commission, rather a small group of conservative bishops. There are a lot of ways this Plan was outside the normal channels. Since it was not a part of the Commission’s work, it did not need to be a part of this General Conference. The bishops had a chance to halt this plan before it was included in the GC agenda.
A big part of the GC in 2012 and 2016 was about preventing more harm, preventing harsher penalties from being approved. And here the bishops essentially handed conservatives an opportunity to do a great deal of harm.
The bishops have consistently chosen unity over harm reduction of LGBTQ people. I agree that we would be better as a denomination with both progressive and conservative members. But conservatives were insisting on more and more harm. It has been clear to me for quite a while that to reduce harm a split should be made to happen. Instead, harm continues.
There has been talk since at least before the 2012 GC to implement a way for American congregations to make decisions about LGBTQ people without conservative votes from Africa. The Africans already have the ability to change the global rules to fit their culture. The American church cannot. Efforts to make this change didn’t get much support from the bishops and didn’t get very far.
The bishops didn’t call out the influence of outside groups such the Institute for Religion and Democracy. This influence and money has damaged the church.
The bishops haven’t prepared for a split. The conservatives have, creating a structure congregations could move to if the GC vote didn’t go in their favor. There is no such structure on the progressive side.
The Traditional Plan has been approved. It has, I think, 17 parts. Half of them were declared in violation of the denomination’s constitution. Some were modified before voting. But, yeah, delegates voted for a proposal they knew didn’t have constitutional approval. They approved it anyway. The Judicial Council will convene in April and will likely invalidate many of the parts. Even with them gone, the remaining pieces are still pretty bad for LGBTQ people and their allies. Those pieces will officially become part of denomination law. Also approved proposals about how congregations exit the denomination and still protect pensions. But GC did not address anything about how the denomination might split in two. That will likely (hopefully) be a big topic for next year’s GC.
Yes, I’m angry. I’ve been a member of the United Methodist Church ever since I’ve been old enough to be a member of any church. What happened yesterday has a very good chance of destroying the denomination, the conservative side because few youth want to be associated with such bigotry, especially against their LGBTQ friends, the progressive side because of a poor effort to gather the leaving congregations into a connected denomination and because a much smaller denomination may not be financially sustainable.
As some of my progressive friends have said to blow up the United Methodist Church over this issue is silly and stupid. I agree.
The only ones who win in this situation are IRD. The destruction of the denomination is their goal.
There is a lot of muttering about the conservative Africans, that if they didn’t vote on American issues the Traditional Plan wouldn’t have passed – that the American delegation was 2/3 in favor of the One Church Plan that would have allowed each region to set its own rules for how to treat LGBTQ people (and allowing African congregations to keep restrictions).
But don’t blame Africa. Though African delegates supplied the votes, the effort and desire to get the Traditional Plan passed came from conservative Americans, including the IRD, which isn’t a part of the denomination and not even particularly religious. That conservative effort has, over the years, included some shady methods by the Americans to get the Africans to vote their way.
So now what?
There is a regular two-week General Conference 14 months from now. Will the bishops guide what happens or will they be bystanders? Will they help create a progressive structure for congregations or regions that refuse to operate under the restrictions of the Traditional Plan? What about the other denomination assets, such as the United Methodist Building just north of the Supreme Court in Washington? What about the publishing company? Boards and agencies that advocate for justice? And the one I’m most worried about – UMCOR, the United Methodist Committee on Relief, which rivals the Red Cross and certainly outdoes FEMA in responding to disasters. Are plans being proposed about how to handle all this so that GC in 2020 can approve it?
I’ve thought of leaving the denomination and my local church. However, I’m willing to stick around long enough to see what happens at GC 2020.
No comments:
Post a Comment