United Methodist Church & Global Methodist Church

 

Saying goodbye is not easy, so I feel the pain of those congregations and pastors who are leaving the United Methodist Church. My situation as a retired pastor of the United Methodist Church, one who has moved away from his home conference in Indiana, and one who has not immediately re-engaged after retirement, means an existential crisis does not face me in the split of the UMC. I choose to remain in a denomination that is changing into something different from that which I joined in 1982. I am not sure the forming Global United Methodist Church would accept me. However, I have been in favor of such a split for a decade or more, but now that it is on the immediate horizon, I offer a few words.

            For the United Methodist Church, I wish nothing but the best. I have agreed with your Wesleyan-Arminian theology. I have appreciated the spiritual roots of John Wesley in the protestant and catholic devotional tradition. I have appreciated the evangelical tradition of Wesley, Edwards, and Whitefield, and the rich heritage of the revivalist tradition. I have preached and taught the grace of God as prevenient, justifying, and sanctifying in its transforming power. I have preached and taught the priority of scripture, the value of tradition in guiding our reflections upon scripture, the use of our rationality to understand it all properly, and the application of what we believe to hearts and lives.  That tradition has had a keen sense of uniting the gospel with care for the social stresses of each generation. I appreciate the classical liberal tradition of openness to contemporary thought and to social involvement. I love the United Methodist Church. Nothing has changed my love for the UMC. If it remains true to its mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, then our hearts unite, and we are friends of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

            Having an honest conversation is difficult. Our post-modern differentiation into various groups creates an environment that looks suspiciously and condescendingly toward those with whom our group disagrees and embeds us further into the group with which we identify. Respect for our commonality in our creation as the image of God and in our goal of the Holy Spirit conforming us into the image of the Son seems lost amid our differentiation. The most heart-wrenching issue of all, however, is that the world needs Jesus, now more than ever. As the world dissolves into increasing differentiating into groups that justify anger and violence toward others, the responsibility of the church to point the way to Jesus becomes harder to fulfill. The external pressure would be difficult enough. The church has increased the pressure on itself as it experiences multiple cultures. 

            I do have concerns regarding the emerging expression of United Methodism. 

            One concern is the abuse of power by the bishops. The UMC has established a tradition that if bishops disagree with the decisions of General Conference, they have the right to view themselves as being prophetic and heeding the next progressive calling as a word from God. Their pledge to govern by the discipline no longer means what it used to mean. Gone are the days when one could say that they disagree with the Book of Discipline but will govern by what it says. I view this as a danger to the denomination.

            Two is the concern that while the denomination has made the embrace of a non-traditional approach to sexuality a dividing-line between the good and righteous position versus the bad and evil position of the traditional approach, the risk is a new form of fundamentalism and self-righteousness. Leaders of the denomination seem willing to sit in judgment of not only two millennia of Christian tradition, but well over three-fourths of the Christians in the world today. Leadership sits in judgment of those who hold to the traditional view of human sexuality within the UMC.

            Regarding sexuality, we can all agree that sexual desire is strong for most human beings. We can also agree that few Christians have adhered to the highest ideals of Christian teaching in this area. We can agree that we need to have much grace toward each other in this critical area of our lives. I hope we can agree that there are some forms of sexual expression that are beyond the approval of the church. I may disagree with the leadership of the UMC as to where that line might be but assume we can agree that there are proper lines to draw. I am sure you do not think that our love for our neighbors means we must embrace what they believe or what they do. In the area of human sexuality, you make it sound as if it is impossible for me to love people who do not embrace traditional Christian expressions of our sexuality. I strongly disagree.

            When I give myself time to reflect upon my four decades with the United Methodist Church, I question two oft-quoted but rarely practiced values today. One is that United Methodism is a big tent. Such a notion may be impossible in our post-modern age of differentiation. As one who has come to accept conservative political beliefs and as one who values the traditional beliefs of the church, the United Methodist Church does not feel like it has a large enough tent to include me. Thus, my concern is that as it gravitates toward beliefs and values embraced by the current expression of progressive thinking, it will subordinate any theological positions it takes to a progressive political ideology. The UMC claims it is a global church. Yet, the agenda of many American church leaders is to distance the American church from the African and Asian churches, which are in the process of becoming the home of more United Methodists than does American Methodism. 

            I think the United Methodist Church lost a fantastic opportunity. It could have separated itself from the narrow fundamentalism of some groups and invite people into thoughtful, biblical reflection. It could separate Itself from the narrow progressive ideology that pervades the academic, entertainment, and media worlds. It could have been an agent of healing during the divisive American political climate in the way it encouraged respectful conversation within the bounds of the covenant as represented in the Book of Discipline. It could refuse to march in lock step with neither the progressive movement nor with the political right. It did not have to continue the colonial spirit toward brothers and sisters in Christ in other lands. It could have had the opportunity of engaging fellow believers in thoughtful biblical and theological discussion. It could discuss matters of truth. It could discuss what constitutes good, holy, and sanctified lives. If it genuinely wanted a way forward, the possibility was present to do so. It could do so in way that unites with the concerns of Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions, recognizing that a conciliar approach to the practice of theology is the wisest course when considering major changes. John Wesley provides an example of drawing from the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions in forming his view of Christian perfection. It could engage the matter of human sexuality in a comparable way. It needed to exercise great care that theology does not follow the whims of the current cultural and intellectual climate. In other words, rather than alienating itself from so much of historic Christianity around the globe, the UMC could open the door to deeper conversation.  

            Most of the bishops as well as general boards and agencies long for acceptance within the progressive ideology in American politics. It embarrasses them that the UMC has stood firm on a traditional view of human sexuality. Its abortion stance is also too conservative for some. These leaders of the UMC look down upon the many persons who are conservative and/or evangelical. The positions of the UMC regarding sexuality are an embarrassment to these leaders, especially when they are in meetings with their progressive friends. Given the nature of post-modern differentiation, the progressive culture demands conformity, and the UMC is not yet in full compliance with the progressive agenda. The failure of American leadership to drag the denomination into the progressive orbit is notable. The responsibility for their failure is due to organizing efforts of conservatives, evangelicals, as well as the growth of the denomination in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. As a political conservative, I have been glad that at least a few provisions in the Book of Discipline reflected something from the conservative-traditional side of the spectrum, at least in its official documents. I knew the hierarchy devoted itself to the progressive cause, but at least its official statements it had moderate elements. They tried to find a middle way. The statements on human sexuality and abortion represent that middle way.

            Here is the difficulty the UMC faces. If it says the Bible is not the guide regarding the good life (holiness, sanctification), then it will not be long before it also starts setting aside the Bible regarding its witness to the revelation of truth. If I were to give an exposition of that truth, I would turn to John 1:1-18, Romans 1-11, Galatians 3-4, II Corinthians 5-6, and I Corinthians 15. I would also turn to the creeds of the church. For many Christian leaders today, the allure of following a different lord than the Lord Jesus Christ is strong. For many persons in the West, progressive political and economic ideology has become the god and the progressive elite in academia, media, and entertainment have become the community to which they want to belong.

            The UMC is on its way to adopt the full agenda of the LGBTQ caucus. I stress that we are to love our neighbors, regardless of lifestyle. In my view, this caucus promotes a culture of sexual confusion. In American and western European culture, due to the influence of the caucus, authorities are making decisions that affect female sports based upon the “T” part of the caucus. These decisions will make it increasingly difficult for women to compete successfully. Making gender a matter of personal decision is the ultimate in perspectivism in philosophy and the ultimate in the denial of biological fact. Beyond this specific caucus, I do have a concern that the logic will lead toward a demand to accept polyamorous relationships as well. 

            This leads me to say a word to the moderates and conservatives who choose to stay within the United Methodist Church. You will make peace with the idea that some United Methodist pastors and congregations will embrace teachings and behaviors that you cannot. If your Annual Conference forms a covenant with you that says it will respect your views and send you pastors to accepting congregations and send conservative congregations agreeable pastors, I wish you the best. I mean that sincerely. However, my concern is that with what I have seen from progressive bishops, the covenant cannot last long. You see, they view you as bigoted and unjust because of your position in upholding traditional Christian sexual ethics. If you are a conservative pastor, I predict your bishop will eventually compel you to endorse beliefs and behaviors you presently find objectionable. If your congregation is conservative, I predict your bishop will eventually force you to receive a pastor who does not respect your beliefs or values. I want to be wrong about this. 

            I have been part of the Confessing movement in Indiana. I have attended Wesleyan Covenant Association worship gatherings. The spirituality and fellowship I found in such gatherings have touched me. I have appreciated the love I have felt there for the United Methodist Church and for the desire to be faithful to the spirituality and theological stance of John Wesley. I appreciate the global sense of the faith, especially the growth of Methodism in Africa. It has reminded me that Christianity as Americans experience it is in the minority when we consider the two millennia of church history. 

            I am unclear what the Global Methodist Church will look like, but I trust those whom I know will be leaders to form the church well to fulfill its mission. I like the idea of term limits for Bishops. I first came across this in the Free Methodist Church and it feels right to me that bishops will have to live as pastors with their rulings. I get why the guaranteed appointment are set aside, given its potential for abuse. The smaller legislative overhead gives the new denomination flexibility to adjust to our rapidly changing environment.

            I do have a concern. 

            Legalism is not a good look for the Church that belongs to Jesus Christ. Jesus fought against it. Paul did as well. Faithfulness to what we understand to be classic Christianity is something we must maintain with humility. There are many schools of thought within the Christian tradition. Beyond that, we need to remember that the teaching itself points us to a mystery of the divine that is beyond our full comprehension. Further, the simple command to love God and our neighbor, the thought that love fulfills the law, the affirmation that faith, hope, and love abide, but the greatest of these is love, and the reminder that God is love, must always be before us. The effect of this is that no matter how weakly we do it, we welcome others and love them, regardless of how much we might differ from them in what we think or the values we hold. 

            I am thinking of specific colleagues and laity with whom I disagree. I continue to love them and hold them in esteem. I wish them the best. Obviously, I am not one who thinks that unity is something that we should seek at all costs. We live in a denominational age. It has its challenge at the point of respecting those who have differing theological traditions, systems of governance, and values. Christianity has lived with that challenge and thrived. If the United Methodist Church can divide in a respectful way, it will be a witness to the world that our oneness in Christ is far more important to us than any institutional brand we may possess.

            The biblical argument is clear. In the following brief discussion, I will be alluding to well-worn biblical material. I do so because opponents of the traditional plan have a polemical approach that seeks to lock those who hold traditional views on human sexuality into a wooden, literal approach to the Bible. One could make a compelling case that such an approach is impossible for anyone holding to orthodox positions, the doctrine of the Trinity being the supreme example. I will assume the reader has some familiarity with the biblical discussions. 

In the Old Testament, the prohibitions against sexual expression outside of marriage between a man and a woman are well known. The prophetic argument that the Lord and Israel have a marriage relationship based upon the relationship between bride and groom is an important one. The New Testament uses the image as well in the relationship between Christ and the Church. Mark 10:2-16 makes it clear that Jesus understood marriage between a man and a woman. Paul in Romans 1:24-27 makes it clear that human beings who do not have the Torah are still accountable for how they handle truth and goodness. As human beings turn away from truth, they also turn away from purity, engaging in acts degrading of the body and unnatural intercourse. Robert Mulholland has offered a good defense of the position that both Jesus and Paul knew of loving homosexual relationships. They rejected them as acceptable practice among the people of God. Their argument derived from a consideration of what God intended for human sexuality in Genesis 2. I might add the Song of Solomon as well. Now, if I heard a conversation within the Bible that some loving relationships outside that of committed and faithful male-female relationships were acceptable Christian behavior, then I would be more open to that conversation today. The only conversation within the biblical tradition in this matter is whether men can have more than one wife and can add concubines. The interpretation of the church has been on the side of a negative answer, limiting men to one wife. Now, the fact that we find no consideration of marriage relationships outside that of male and female suggests its difference with other practical matters that require thoughtful consideration. I mention just a few due to their influence on the discussion of human sexuality. These subjects have made their way into General Conference legislation to attack the traditional view of human sexuality. For example, some of the statements of Jesus suggest divorce is an absolute no, some suggest no except in case of adultery, and Paul (I Corinthians 7) even suggests other possibilities. Another example is women preachers. Paul has a conversation with himself about this, suggesting in I Corinthians 11 and 14 that women should be silent in church, but when they prophecy (!), they should respectfully wear a covering over their heads. Paul addresses females as heads of his house churches. Further, Luke makes it clear that the Holy Spirit fell upon sons and daughters to prophecy (Acts 2). All this opens the way for a conversation, when the time was right, for female clergy. For many evangelical movements, that time was in the 1800s, while many traditional denominations, including the UMC, took much longer. A third example is slavery, which both testaments assume as legal and a practice in which the people of God can engage. Yet, the humanitarian concerns in both testaments are clear. Further, the household rules of Paul make it clear that master and slave have the same Lord. The little letter of Philemon moves us in the direction of rejecting slavery. Famously, Paul can say that in Christ, we are neither slave nor free. When the time was right, thoughtful biblical and theological reflection led many faithful persons to oppose slavery. In these cases, the Bible has a conversation in process that we have a responsibility to continue, even when it means correcting the tradition. If I were to give a full account of the good life, I would go to the Ten Commandments, Matthew 5-7, Love of God and neighbor, the theological virtues (faith, hope, and love), the household rules in the New Testament, I Corinthians 13, and the list of virtues and vices (such as in Galatians 5-6) in the New Testament. We need a responsible and canonical approach to biblical material. Let us be clear. The good life is a matter of obedience because we are sinners. We struggle in different areas due to wrong desire. With sexuality, many people deal with the allure of another sexual partner. Many people struggle with a strong tendency toward deception and lying. Others struggle with coveting the possessions of others and giving in to envy. Many people wrestle with their pride and arrogance. Many people must fight against their slothful approach to life in general and to Christian discipleship. Many people succumb to the misuse of their speech, descending into empty and harmful chatter and gossip. Some people struggle with a tendency toward physical violence. Obedience is difficult for us all. It requires prayer and spiritual friendship to fight some of our deepest battles.

            I hope a reasonable person reading this would notice no hate. All persons are of sacred worth and dignity. The truth can be a hard truth to share with people you love and respect. I do have a love for truth and goodness, and I have fallen short in both. I am not sure the emerging Global Methodist Church would appreciate my approach to the Bible or the tradition that I expressed in the previous paragraph. I conclude abruptly in saying that I have some difficulty feeling like I belong anywhere in the differentiating, presently deconstructing UMC.

Church Merger, Division, and the UMC

I came across some reflections on mergers in business that made me think about some of the mergers of which I have been a part. Most importantly, while in Vincennes, IN, I was the first pastor of the merged congregation now known as Community UMC. It was the result of the merger of three congregations, one of which had been a former Evangelical United Brethren Church. Each congregation had their unique gift to offer to the merger. At least two of the three did not have to merge, in the sense that they could have continued onward for many more decades just as they were. Yet, a respected layperson in the community began to discuss the possibility of merging. Through several months of discussions, eventually they voted to merge. A fourth congregation voted not to join. The congregations knew each other well. They started doing more things together. They pondered what they could do together for the cause of Christ that they could not do separately. They received some very good encouragement from the District Superintendent and from the Annual Conference. They had good lay leadership and they kept open lines of communication. They faced the challenges with courage.

I do not follow such matters in corporate America closely. It can have the appearance of love-struck teenagers looking to date and acquire the objects of their affections. Sometimes, an older, powerful company lusts after the smaller but “sexier” one. Sometimes, it seems like the partnership of two desperate and lost souls. Of course, such adventures may cost billions rather than a dinner and a movie.

The Disney and Pixar merger was almost like a fairy tale as two creative entertainment companies became partners and generated more creativity and, of course, money. In contrast, the merger of Exxon and Mobil was a re-marriage of two companies that derive from Rockefeller in the 1800s and made the largest company in the world.

            Some mergers simply do not work.

            - The New York Central and Pennsylvania railroads merged in 1968 in the face of declining rail travel, but filed for bankruptcy just two years later, effectively killing large-scale passenger rail service in the United States.

- Time Warner and AOL merged, but quickly became a dial-up marriage in a DSL world.

A KPMG study said that the failure rate is 83%, which might lead us to ask the question of why it is so hard for people to get together, whether we are thinking of marriage or the merger of two corporate cultures. In that mix would be the difficulty of two or more denominations merging to form a new church.

Why are mergers so difficult?

Paul J. Siegenhaler, in an article in August 2010, points to a number of reasons why mergers fails. The lack of due diligence in researching one another (which amounts to ignorance of each other), poor communication and governance, lack of courage in making important decisions early, weak leadership, and a lack of a shared vision are just a few of the problems that can lead to an eventual divorce or Chapter 11.

Perhaps the biggest reason, however, is the inability to merge two different cultures into one new and cohesive culture. When employees get used to doing things one way, it is hard to do things another way. When one denominational culture and goals overshadow the other, it is little wonder that one of the ecclesial partners feels slighted. It is difficult to move forward when one side of a partnership undervalues the other, be it in a marriage, a company or a church.

What makes a merger work?

The best mergers, on the other hand, do the relational math differently. In a bad merger, 1+1 often equals a sum of two different cultures in conflict with one another, or, perhaps even worse, the sum of 1+1 equals 1.5, where one of the partners devalues and treats as unequal the other. The best merger math is 1+1=3, i.e., a brand new culture emerges that takes the value of both and adds to it. Both partners leave behind the things that divide them and invest in something completely different that adds value to everyone. In other words, be clear on what matters and why. If the merger or acquisition is not going to allow you to serve some customer better than the entities could do separately, walk away. You must create value before you can capture it.

The divisions of liberal and conservative, high church and low church, eastern and western, Protestant and Catholic, individual gospel and social gospel and even traditional and contemporary have done precisely the opposite of what Jesus intended and prayed for us.

If you study the history of the church, you discover that the church is far more about spin-offs and breakups than mergers. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to God, said Paul, but the churches find it hard reconcile to each other. The articles on the success and failure of mergers suggest the practical difficulty. The culture and values of a body of people are important and deserve respect. Differing aims, refusal to adapt, and differing values, will split apart an existing group and keep unification from occurring.

I am not sure if I dare to offer this, but the United Methodist Church is slowly allowing differing values to erode its life together. We seem to have developed two differing cultures. A strong statement of that for which we stand, in the midst of such differences, becomes difficult if not impossible. Of course, our mission is to make disciples for Jesus Christ to transform the world. How we do that when we confronted by the emerging two cultures is becoming increasingly difficult to determine. We get “nasty surprises” at meetings. We keep trying to resource congregations and pastors for the conversation, but it seems as if we glide along the surface. Having an honest conversation is difficult. How we resolve differences is unclear, given that bishops can enforce the Book of Discipline, or not, without consequence. Resolving such differences would mean courageous leadership. Instead, we have weakness. To use a boating metaphor, we are like a ship on a stormy sea. It needs strong leadership to move through the storm together. The most heart-wrenching issue of all, however, is that the world needs Jesus, now more than ever. As the world dissolves into increasing violence, the responsibility of the church to point the way to Jesus becomes harder to fulfill. The external pressure would be difficult enough. The church has increased the pressure on itself as it experiences the polarization of the two cultures.

            The United States developed two differing cultures in the 1800s. Yet, at a theoretical level, they had so much in common. Inaugural addresses affirmed the commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They happily contrasted America with the royalty still dominating in Europe. Yet, we had presidents who thought it was OK to buy and sell slaves. They owned slaves, and therefore, at some point, had to buy them. The South was so afraid to lose the way of life that depended upon slavery that it successfully made it illegal to discuss slavery in the Congress. They called it the gag rule. When John Quincy Adams finally got the rule rescinded, the floodgates opened. The South wanted to spread slavery to the West. When the Supreme Court entered the debate and said that a southerner could move anywhere in the country and keep his slave, division and war became just a matter of time. America had become a house divided. Most southern white persons would never see the incongruity of holding to the idea of liberty and the practice of slavery. Most northern white persons wanted America united in its affirmation of liberty. Most of Latin America and even the royalty of Europe had banned slavery and the slavery trade. Only the South lived in the contradiction of slavery in practice and liberty in theory. The only way to resolution was division, which was what the South sought, or forcing the abandonment of slavery, which was the path of the North.

            Some United Methodists want to affirm the LBGT agenda. They want to “affirm” in the sense of suggesting that one can express their Christian faith and life in these ways. They seem to view any opposition as bigoted and hateful.

            Some United Methodists want to affirm what we might call “traditional Christian values” in many areas of life. However, the focus of the discussion today is sexuality. The point is not some notion of legalism. The point is offering loving guidance in area full of the potential for pain. The morality we see in Jesus in the affirmation of marriage, the morality of Paul regarding vice and virtue, as well as the morality expressed in the household rules, have been the staple of Christian morality. It has been the basis of the church offering the guidance that the home, consisting of husband, wife, and children, is a place for the formation of Christian virtue, especially as we learn love, forgiveness, compassion, and faithfulness. The household rules, for example, assume the priority of the husband, doing so in a way that transforms the husband into a loving partner with his wife. It transforms the master of the slave into one who cares for and respects his or her slave. If followed, the household rules would end both “patriarchy” and “slavery.” For persons who hold such views of values, the agenda of the LBGT community represents and embodies the sexual confusion of our time. It opens the door to immense pain and hurt as people experiment outside the lines drawn by the affirmation of husband/wife/child. Fears that the agenda will undermine the family in general, and therefore the stability of society, may or may not materialize.

            How are we to treat our neighbors? Of course, we treat them with love and respect. Jesus did not say that we love our neighbors only if they behave a certain way. I can offer personal examples of people who are not living by what I have identified as “traditional Christian values.” I know Christians who have not. In fact, in the world today, it would be a rare person who has completely lived by “traditional Christian morality.” It has probably always been rare. Our sexual desires are strong.

Yet, and I offer this cautiously, is the ideal not worth holding forth? The point of such values is not legalism. The point is the kind of life that will shape character in a Christ-like way. I have heard the testimony of many persons who will discuss their sexual encounters with shame and pain. Is it best to hold forth the ideal of loving, faithful relationships between a man and a woman?