Rage Against the UMC: The Traditionalist Plan



Comments (13)

Comment Feed

Saving Lives

I find the traditionalist comments on this particular page rather frightening.

Do you all not realize that the very reason progressives are fighting for full inclusion of GLBT members is due to a desire to save our very lives?

While, admittedly, I do not know any UMC people who run around hanging/murdering people, it is a fact that thousands of years of church bigotry towards various populations (blacks, gays, etc.) has fueled the murderous rage of many towards said populations. Violent individuals use church rhetoric to justify physical violence towards the GLBT population.

Not long ago, it was almost a tradition in a large segment of the US to follow Sunday services with a pot-luck and lynching. It was, again, church rhetoric that encouraged and validated such behavior.

G-d forbid this should continue. Traditionalists may believe whatever they choose to believe, but we must clear the BOD from all rhetoric that would continue to fuel violence.

This is not about politics, people. Do you not see we are trying to save lives?

Benjamin more than 3 years ago


Yes, the traditionalists are raging against the (progressive) bishops, but let's not forget that this rage is based on HATRED for LGBT people.

In other words, the Traditionalist Plan is based on HATRED, not rage.

Benjamin more than 3 years ago

Have you even read any of the Traditionalist comments?

Comments? If so, maybe you can discern that Traditionalists have no HATRED toward LGBTs. Progressives such as yourself don’t seem to consider Traditionalist’s beliefs; it seems easier for you to try and make this personal and you yell (the sky is falling, LGBTs are hated, Traditionalists are discriminating against us). WE ARE NOT making this personal, we don’t hate LGBTs, and we are not discriminating against LGBTs.


1. Following our beliefs that homosexuality is a sin and such behavior if unrepentant, is unworthy of a leadership position within theUMC.

2. Following our beliefs that marriage is a blessed union between a man and a woman.

3. Convinced that our beliefs are true and following God’s word, as they are biblically based.

So, please stop the chicken little imitation and try reading the Traditionalist postings on this and other articles. Most of us, myself included, have LGBT friends/coworkers/family members. We don’t hate them, we disagree with them. Just as two people can love each other but disagree, Traditionalists in general love our LGBT brethren, but firmly disagree with them.

I am tired of Progressives saying we don’t love our LGBT brothers and sisters. Some of us believe in “tough love” to ensure our LGBT members understand that their behavior is sinful before God. We believe in sharing the truth to those members BECAUSE we love them and not take the easy way out and go along with their behavior to keep from rocking the boat. Those people are shunning their responsibility as Christians, clergy, Bishops, etc. So, PLEASE rethink your agree equals love; disagree equals hate thinking.

Your loving brother in Christ,


Steve more than 3 years ago

I agree

Thank you Steve for your comments. I agree that we don't hate the people, we hate the sin. This whole who can yell the loudest going on in America is dividing us more than anything.

John more than 3 years ago

Thank you

Thank you Steve for putting the traditionalist view in clear perspective. Just like progressives call people racist or homophobic as a means of intimidation, using the word "rage" is another slanderous way to describe a plan that is trying to be faithful to the scriptures, separating the sin from the sinner. Love all people but don't support their sin. Thank you.

Pat Andersen more than 2 years ago

Why is it that progressives

Demand that their beliefs be honored at the expense of everybody else's beliefs? Who are they that they have the "correct answer" for everybody? I know what I believe and I would love to be with like-minded believers. But I have no desire to force anybody to believe as I do.

I also agree with Reese that this mess has been allowed to go on for too long; the reason it has is because of how many of the Bishops' perceive themselves. For whatever reason, the Bishops' perception of themselves has morphed into something that is outside of how the church is designed to function. It is not the current set of Bishops' fault, it has happened over time. They no longer see themselves as defenders/keepers of the faith.

betsy more than 3 years ago

I agree with Betsy

As usual, Betsy has put into words exactly my thoughts. I would add that while progressive believe the traditionalists are evil, the traditionalists believe the progressives are simply misguided. That's a big difference.

Sarah more than 3 years ago

This plan is too late; the fat lady is not only singing, she's on the second verse!

After so many years of not enforcing the BOD rules, allowing gay clergy to not only serve, but to organize, allowing a lesbian bishop to continue, ignoring same-sex weddings, who thinks that new, tight rules now will not only be ignored, but will invite a landslide of lawsuits? For homosexual activists and their liberal lawyer pals, this new "traditional" plan will offer a target-rich environment for discrimination filings. Some churches will need to add extra parking tor the lawyers. I am a traditionalist, but I am also a realist who can see what's coming. Feckless church leaders let this go too long and too far and it is now too late. Just fairly and evenly divide the UMC, and move on. If you need a new challenge to keep you busy, try putting toothpaste back in the tube - that will seem easy in comparison

Reese more than 3 years ago

I agree with Steve

It is the progressives who elevated the discussion of sexuality to a "do or die" situation when they indulged in disobedience to "get their way". I will grant it was a well intentioned act, but it only exacerbated the situation. All along, it is progressives who have refused to accept the word of General Conference on this and other matters. All along it is progressives who refused to understand that there were people who sincerely believed differently than they do including that General Conference was consistently coming up with a reasonable answer. There was no WCA until the progressives pushed the traditionals too far with their overt disobedience that left us no way to function. What progressives do not seem to understand is that disobedience--no matter how well intentioned-- brings consequences because nobody lives in a vacuum.

Furthermore, a Wesleyan/Methodist understanding of the catholic spirit does not require anybody to change their beliefs simply to accommodate somebody else who believes differently. A Wesleyan/Methodist understanding of the catholic spirit says be firm in your beliefs, be open to other understandings, give them due consideration but do not willy nilly abandon your current beliefs. I have listened to progressives, I have given their views due consideration and found them lacking—mainly because they are promoting a “new and improved” Christianity that significantly veers from historic Christianity that has a proven track record. I will support and respect their right to believe differently from me, but I do not feel compelled to share a church with them.

betsy more than 3 years ago

Tradtionalist plan

This plan is the true one church plan. I think it has a better chance of passing over the other two plans. If it does pass be prepared for some seroius screaming on the progressive side but at least it has an exit plan.

Kevin more than 3 years ago

It’s not rage, it is a carefully weighed response

To the situation we find ourselves in. Remember, it was the progressives who chose not to enforce the BOD and hold clergy accountable that forced us into the present situation. Traditionalists want to ensure that doesn’t happen again.

In my opinion, the plan isn’t restrictive enough. Any clergy who were members of the Reconciing Network, ever led their members within or participated in a gay pride parade should also be encouraged to seek a new denomination or defrocked. Also, the certification which clergy sign should make it clear that the New UMC does not follow a social justice agenda and that any attempt to introduce social justice issues into the New UMC is grounds for dismissal. As I’ve said before, the LGBT issue isn’t the only reason why a split is needed from Progressives. It is simply the most egregious, but going forward the New UMC needs to focus on evangelism and missions.

After reading your description of the Traditionalist Plan, I have hope that enough GC19 members will see their way to vote for this Biblical Plan and return the UMC back to its directive to share the Good News. Thank you Jeremy for giving me hope I can remain a UMC member.

Steve more than 3 years ago

What does "Social Justice" mean to you?

We really need a new term to describe what progressives mean by "social justice issues." They use that phrasing to attack conservatives as being against walking with Jesus Christ, but what they truly mean by "social justice issues" is "government-oriented solutions" the church must support. Social justice in the real sense should begin with the individual, but that's not how progressives see it, they feel like the UMC as an institution should be pushing for gun control, medicare for all, gay marriage, planned parenthood, and basically every other progressive-oriented issue campaign. Conflating the "social justice" with big government is not by accident, it's deceptive and destroying the UMC from within. My church just got a new pastor who actually prays and believes in God. This is the first pastor we've had in years who truly demonstrates they actually believe what they preach. The sermons spread the Good News and aren't new age college lectures designed to garner support for whatever issue campaign the mainstream media is pushing that week. We must do a better job of being clear in describing what we mean by social justice and what they mean by social justice. The two may share some qualities like taking care of the poor on missions, but the similarities and solutions stop there.

Daniel more than 3 years ago

Social Justice

I am not sure I can give a complete definition of what social justice means to me but I will give it a go. In general, everything the progressives are for, I am against and vice versa. These include gun control, global warming, minimum or living wages, sustainable development, not eating meat, and basically getting the government to pay for things that should be paid by individuals (I.e. taking personal responsibility for your needs). The last group would include those who want the government to pay for college, housing, healthcare, retirement, etc.

Of course the one social justice issue which I think the New UMC needs to address is abortion and we need to affirm our Pro Life position as a Church.

The other social issues should not be the focus of the church. They invite secular humanism into the church that dominates discussions and displaces the purpose of the church to share the Good News of Jesus Christ and the salvation he delivers.

Steve more than 3 years ago