As we awaited the final report to be published from the Commission on a Way Forward, I resolved to not pledge support to any of the proposals until I had an opportunity to read the reports for myself. With all of the rumors and speculation about what the plans will and won’t do swirling around on social media and elsewhere, I found this difficult to do but I held on to this because I feel that the future of the United Methodist Church is too important to base opinions on some tweets or the views of bloggers (which may be a bit ironic seeing as I am a blogger). So, I continued to wait. Finally, my and everyone else’s patience paid off.
I have had an opportunity to review all of the proposals. I have to admit, I have a hard time supporting any of them. For example: The “traditionalist plan” is not specific enough for me. With the accountability models proposed, I can see a lot of potential for abuse and for witch hunts to ensue. This is not something I can support. I can see a day where clergy are called to the carpet and questioned for basically anything that could even be potentially considered support for homosexual marriage and ordination.
I don’t want a bunch of wannabe Delores Umbridge-types running the church.
The proposal I have the most issues with is the One Church Plan. This may be surprising to read since I consider myself a moderate and One Church has been touted as the proposal that moderates can get on board with. In a nutshell, One Church provides for a local option. Annual conferences and congregations would be able to decide for themselves whether or not they will allow homosexual marriage and homosexual clergy. This is a terrible idea and a proposal that needs to be soundly defeated.
Here are the reasons why I believe One Church is bad for the UMC.
- One Church would change the polity of the UMC. The United Methodist Church has a connectional and episcopal polity. In a nutshell, this means we have a body – General Conference – that decides matters such as doctrine and theology and sets the official positions of the church. The Bishops oversee the congregations within their assigned annual conferences, appoint pastors, and so on. Congregations are not allowed to decide their doctrine and annual conferences are not allowed to decide which clergy they will and will not accept. This authority rests solely with General Conference. One Church would change this by giving congregations and annual conferences the ability to decide their doctrinal positions on homosexuality for themselves. This may sound like a good compromise but this is a Pandora’s box that should not be opened. If a congregation or annual conference is able to make decisions on human sexuality for themselves, what’s stopping them from deciding that they will not ordain female clergy? What about going against infant baptism? The polity of the United Methodist Church is not congregational. These matters are not for congregations and annual conferences to decide.
- The United Methodist Church will only be more divided. Congregations that decide they can not abide by the doctrine decided by their annual conference will be given a way to leave the denomination or affiliate with another annual conference of their choice. This will only sew the seeds for further discord and schism within the United Methodist Church. The issue of human sexuality has been very polarizing and tribalism is very strong within the church. We see this with caucus groups such as the Reconciling Ministries Network and Wesleyan Covenant Association and all of the fighting that members of these and other groups have engaged in. One Church will do nothing to support unity and will instead increase division within the United Methodist Church.
Make no mistake: The future of the United Methodist Church is very much hanging in the balance and General Conference 2019 will be a pivotal time for the church. One Church is not going to solve all of the problems and will only increase them. One Church is not “a moderate’s dream come true” as someone stated on Twitter. One Church will only increase the division and tribalism that we are seeing.
But let’s be real: Regardless of which proposal is passed – or if none are passed (yes, that is possible) – we have only seen the beginning of the drama. Congregations and clergy are going to leave the church no matter what. The only question is which ones. I predict that ten years from now we will still be fighting over property and pensions from those who do leave. I have no idea what the “ideal” solution will be but one thing I know is that One Church is not it.
God help us.
From my end; I am Presbyterian. And yes, the General Assembly a few years back essentially told us how we were to do things. The resentment I have is that they imposed various rules of which you also are addressing for the exact reason, and did so without our consent at all. Personally, I just don’t think that the powers to be are so much more endowed with the knowledge or wisdom above me. I am not the smartest one on earth, but I do have the ability to research, to weigh evidence and to think. Finally, it comes to the following or at least who follows or why we should if our point of view was ignored. In the end, just as any other government, in order for it to persevere, to last, then it must be run by consensus. On such difficult topics such as the ‘Gay’ issue, we all need as much consensus as possible. Even as you wrote here in your very sensible blog…they don’t have yours for their proposal. And while I must back whatever was adopted, I do it and don’t feel they adopted the correct one which advances the cause of the gospel which should take priority. Thank you for your post. i hope to read more from you in the future.
It’s interesting that you bring up Episcopal oversight. I will be interested to see what the Judicial Council says about the “One Church” plan. I’m wondering if ¶19 of the Constitution (Article III, Section III) in the Restrictive Rules comes into play.