Posted on 06/16/2020 7:54:02 PM PDT by lightman
After fifty years of fractious debate over sexuality, The United Methodist Church is about to divide into two or more denominations. This division would have occurred at the scheduled May 2020 quadrennial General Conference, now postponed until 2021 due to COVID-19.
If ratified next year, this schism will be the first organized division of a major national US denomination since before the Civil War, when Methodists, Baptists, and others divided over slavery.
United Methodist traditionalists and liberals have fought ever since the denomination in 1972 declared homosexual practice “incompatible with Christian teaching.” The church subsequently banned same-sex rites and reaffirmed that clergy must be celibate if single and monogamous in male/female marriage, otherwise risking defrocking.
This traditionalist stance has been upheld at every governing General Conference since 1972. These conventions of up to one thousand delegates meet for approximately ten days every four years to set denominational policy. Evangelical and moderate institutionalists in the US church sustained this teaching for decades in sync with American culture. But when the culture shifted, the church’s moderates followed.
But the church’s evangelicals gained new allies with the dramatic rise over the last twenty-five years of United Methodism in Africa, where nearly half and perhaps more of the church’s 12.5 million membership now live. The Africans are staunch theological conservatives.
As other historically liberal mainline Protestant denominations surrendered traditional Christian sexual standards over the past twenty years, United Methodism, which is the largest mainline church, became nearly the only holdout for traditionalism. US church liberals, who had long assumed history was on their side, were exasperated and unprepared for this American evangelical-African majority bloc.
The final showdown came at the February 2019 Special General Conference in St. Louis, which was summoned specifically to settle the church’s differences on sex. US bishops, with the US church bureaucracy behind them, pushed a plan to liberalize the denomination by allowing local options on sexual standards. The bishops and other US liberals were stunned when the delegates instead tightened the church’s rules against heterodox sexual behavior. Liberals complained their church had been infected by an “Ebola Virus.” Africans told of spiritual visions they had of invisible cosmic warfare at the convention.
St. Louis helped persuade US liberals that even if history is on their side, church demography is not. US United Methodism loses nearly one hundred thousand members annually, while Africa sometimes gains twice that number every year. Later in 2019, liberal and conservative church caucus groups convened to negotiate a denominational division. A bishop from Sierra Leone chaired the meetings, which were mediated by legendary D.C. lawyer Kenneth Feinberg, former Special Master of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.
In January 2020, this mediation announced agreement on a Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation, which would divide United Methodism. Liberals would inherit the church’s name and US-based bureaucracy. Traditionalists would create a new Methodist denomination that all local congregations could join by majority vote, keeping their church property (in United Methodism, church properties are held in trust by the denomination through the local conference, which is like a diocese or presbytery). Conferences, which typically follow state lines, could join by 57% vote. The new traditional church also would receive $25 million from the old liberalized denomination. There would also be smaller funding for potentially additional new denominations, which might include a radical liberationist Methodism impatient with conventionally liberal United Methodism.
Many conservative United Methodists initially reacted to this protocol for separation with indignation. Why should the global traditionalist majority “leave?” Shouldn’t US liberals who always lost the votes on sexuality instead leave to create their new denomination? But these complaints from conservatives, after reflection, have largely subsided.
The US church bureaucracy has been liberal for many decades, and few conservatives are interested in trying to reform it. It is also financially unsustainable, with the church already predicting funding cuts of 40% or more, likely exacerbated by COVID-19. Most traditionalists prefer a new denomination without the albatross of bloated church agencies.
There is also the consideration that while traditionalists are a global majority, they are only a plurality in the US. A church poll showed 44% of US church members are traditionalist, with the remainder divided between progressives and moderates. US clergy typically are more liberal than laity. A new denomination will allow traditionalist clergy to self-select into it, allowing for greater unity behind traditional orthodoxy.
The new traditionalist Methodist denomination likely will end up with larger membership than the old liberal United Methodism. About 20% of US local conferences will likely align traditionalist, with a population of about 1.5 million. Another one million or more from congregations in liberal conferences also will likely join. This 2.5 million in the US will be joined by over five million in Africa, and thousands more in the Philippines and Europe, for perhaps a total global denomination of 7.5 million or more. Meanwhile, old United Methodism will be almost totally comprised of US members, with 3.5 or four million, a number that will quickly shrink further, following the example of other denominations that liberalized on sexuality.
Of course, as this division rolls through thousands of congregations, it will not always be clean and amicable. The debate may cripple and perhaps ultimately kill many divided local churches. But overall, United Methodists have the opportunity through this organized division to avoid the chaos inflicted on other mainline denominations, where departing conservative congregations often lost their properties amid millions of dollars in litigation.
The new global Methodist Church will have the opportunity to revive the Wesleyan witness in America, in solidarity with its international members, who will be the denominational majority. Liberal United Methodism has lost more than four million members in America over 55 years and is virtually incapable of planting new churches. New, orthodox Methodism can reach cities, the West Coast, the Northeast, immigrant and nonwhite populations, and young people whom liberal mainline Protestantism largely cannot.
There is also the opportunity for a Wesleyan intellectual and theological revival. After many decades of liberal control of United Methodism’s seminaries, orthodox theologians have long operated as a minority but robust resistance. They will have the chance to shape a new global denomination with classic Methodist theology. Asbury Seminary in Kentucky, which is not officially United Methodist but produces more clergy for the denomination than any other school, will be the leader. United Seminary in Ohio, the church’s only mostly orthodox school out of thirteen seminaries, will also play a large role.
Orthodox United Methodist theologians are prominent in the Wesleyan Theological Society, where the more liberal voices are typically from evangelical denominations like the Church of the Nazarene. At the society’s recent meeting, I heard friends discuss a core group of forty-to-sixty orthodox United Methodist thinkers who could resource the new church. It was exciting to hear.
Just prior to the Wesleyan Theological Society, a group of traditional US and international bishops, pastors, and renewal caucus group leaders, including myself, convened to agree on principles for the new global Methodism. There was an encouraging spirit of unity and hope.
As a lifelong United Methodist who has spent my whole adult life (more than thirty years) laboring for church renewal, I confess I had not hoped for or expected schism. But I now believe that United Methodist division is the best course forward, and I look forward to great days ahead for traditional Methodism in America and globally.
Therefore:
Lutheran (EL C S*A) Ping!
* as of August 19, AD 2009, a liberal protestant SECT, not part of the holy, catholic and apostolic CHURCH.
Be rooted in Christ!
The August 19 date refers solely to the adoption of the gaysbian agenda, NOT to the “Full Communion” agreement.
homosexual practice “incompatible with Christian teaching.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
It isn’t.
But now the Supreme Court has rule we must all pretend that the man in a dress is a woman under penalty of law.
Wesleyan witness in America. Wow. That would be wonderful. We can hope and pray that it may be so.
Romans 1:18-32 on display.
Simply, of COURSE it would be about championing perversion. Scripture explicitly says why too.
If your congregation is in the grips of “liberals” one you should flee from having any fellowship with it.
The Court can go pound sand.
(Also, wouldn’t “isn’t” be a typo? I understand, they happen to me a lot.)
no, not a typo.
Homosexuality isn’t compatible with Christian theology.
Whew....with the double negative I actually thought you were trying to state that homesexuality was in fact compatible with Christian theology.
Yeah, when I went back and looked, it could be read differently than I meant.
That can happen...I knew you weren’t a DU troll.
It was the African clergy in 1980 who blocked the offer I had received to become a UMC associated missionary to Japan. I despised them at the time for preventing the will of God in my life. Over the decades I have come to admit that, regardless of what they had done to me, they have preserved Christian practice in the Methodist faith, even as I found myself led to the LCMS. God works with, through, and around us for the ultimate goal of bringing His church to fruition in Christ.
Your post is a reflection of true spiritual maturity.
You have chosen wisely.
I sense that you perceive this as negative.
Would you mind explaining your terms to a relatively new, non-denominational Christian?
Here's what I understand, but maybe I'm wrong:
liberal: I know that is not a good thing here. In China, a "liberal" is someone who opposes the Communists.
protestant: someone who "protested" against the original Catholic church. Martin Luther (founder of Lutheranism?) started this movement to reform the Catholic church. I can see how that is not good from a Catholic perspective, but many Christians here are "Protestant," and I think that's okay.
sect: one of various religious groups--is that a bad thing?
holy: sacred, godly. What/Who determines something's sacredness?
catholic: Roman Catholic?
apostolic: a church with apostles? which one(s) is that/are those?
church: I know it means more than just a building. A religious community? An organized Christian religion? A denomination? A group of people who believe in a certain way? The Catholic church?
Could someone please elaborate? I don't have the background in Christianity that many of you do.
In 2009 the ELCA willfully disregarded—and then discarded—the global and historical (small “c” catholic) teaching on Marriage and sexuality which has its origins in the teachings of Christ preserved for us through the Apostles in favor of the pottage of the Zeitgeist (the spirit of the age).
Separation from historic and global Christianity is schismatic and not only is the mark of sectarianism, it is a collective expression of hubris and spiritual pride.
Some additional questions:
Is the "global and historical catholic church" the same as the Roman Catholic church?
Is anything schismatic from the catholic church necessarily a bad thing?
The same schism is coming to the entire evangelical church. This has been happening since the days of John and Jude. We are all called to fight against the false teaching of our day. There will always be a remnant. Perhaps YOU are part of that remnant. If so what are you called to do?
I will take you at you word as sincerely seeking answers and not being a troll. Here is a bit to help your understanding.
Liberal : Someone who corrupts the fath by either denying or distorting the inerrancy of scripture.
Protestant: Yes, anyone who protests against the corruption of the faith and God’s word. Commonly associated with Luther and the reformation, there have been Protestants in the church since Jude and John wrote their epistles warning of false teachers in the church. Confronting those who would corrupt God’s word will be a continuing process for all generations until the return of Christ. And actually, Luther’s theology was quite different than the Lutheran church. Luther would be much more comfortable with the classic Presbyterians.
sect: Some group that thinks different from how you do
Holy: as literally translated it means “set aside”. It is something or someone that has been set aside by God for his use and purpose. God’s scripture and creation itself, tells us if something is Holy
Apostolic: Something that comes from or was taught directly by the Apostles (including Paul). The Apostles are considered New Testament prophets, and thus, their teaching is direct, infallible, revelation of God. If something is Apostolic it has the authority of God.
:catholic: catholic (Small “c”) merely means universal. The earliest universal catholic Church included the congregations in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome. None had any claim of authority over the other.
We have far too many church organizations that divide over trivial differences. I don’t care whether they baptize by sprinkling or by immersion, and the structural/theological differences between Baptist, Presbyterian, and Methodist are unimportant. It’s the big issues that count. I’d like to see most Protestant Churches merge into one of two organizations:
Group 1 - those who believe the Bible is the word of God and means what it says. Unify them as one organization, and call them the “Protestant Church”.
Group 2 - those who like having a social club with no rules. Unify them as one organization, and call them a book club, a sewing club, a pot luck dinner club, or whatever, but don’t pretend that they care about God.
I already know which church I will always choose. I pray that freedom’s enemies will not stop too many people from making the same voluntary choice.
Any predictions on how conferences will go? I’m in Southern Indiana. Obviously, it would be preferable if the conference would just move into the traditionalist denomination without our congregation having to hold a vote.
I know a retired UM pastor. Liberal to the core and very much certain that the UM church will divide. I think he is correct on this and would be very surprised if the UM church doesn’t divide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.