'One Church' Plan Will Split, Not Heal, UMC



Comments (17)

Comment Feed

One Church Plan

This really boils down to nothing but an economic fight: the "progressives" in the UMC have no genuine love for the conservatives and they don't really want to be associated with them. (Sorry to say that, but it's true.) However, without the One Church Plan, to get their way they would be the ones who would have to leave the UMC and start their own denomination - and they would have to do so without taking any of the real estate or endowments currently owned by the UMC with them. If the UMC were to split amicably and divvy up the resources of the UMC between the progressives and the conservatives, then the progressives would not benefit from the more substantial giving made by the conservative parishioners in the future - which would mean the ultimate demise for the new progressive denomination. Therefore, they want to be able to decide for themselves the issues that are dividing the UMC while still siphoning off of the UMC trough. They can’t do this with votes at a general conference, so they are trying to do an end run around the whole process by appealing to the bishops. Essentially, the progressives not only want to have their cake and eat it too - they also want to eat the cake of the conservatives. That is the essence of the One Church Plan.

Berny Patmann more than 1 year ago

Based on?

You can have a church based on the word of God, or a social institution based on peoples opinion and preferences. The word of God warns us of false teachers and taking the broad popular way to destruction.
There will be a split with a separation of wheat from chaff. God has not changed and his word will stand forever and ever.

Arnold more than 1 year ago

This post and most of the comments say "SPLIT!" So, why no "Split" option in the options?

In lieu of a fair and balanced poll of UMC members, we can add up posts like this and the responses to them to see where the PEOPLE are. The bishops probably know, but do not want to admit, that the mood of the UMC is "remove thyself from me" and Splitsville is the destination of choice by MOST. This post and its above-average responses indicate the split is it! Oh glory; traditionalists and progressives agree: ""Split!" Wonder why the most devout and dedicated ABOVE US did not see this obvious mood among we the mass of lowly pewsters? Wonder why they did not guide the highly expensive, and well traveled, way forward to give us all a "way out" option? I'm sure its not about money because that, being the root of all evil, is well below the considerations of UMC bishops!

Reese more than 1 year ago

working together

I wish the author and some like minded progressives would work with WCA and goodnews and come up with a plan that they could present to GC that would fairly separate the two sides. This is the only sane way to bring this conflict to an end. Then we can both go on and do the work we believe the Lord has called us to. As to who is correct, let God decide, in the meantime we should seek peace over unity.

Scott more than 1 year ago

Sidesteps a key point

All sides need to stop talking about "allowing the other side to leave". We need a formal split where both sides depart to something new while amicably and fairly dividing up the assets. This way there would be no "winners" and no "losers".

Our differences are doctrinal at their core. Let's stop fighting over who will gets to keep the "UMC" brand. Instead of one side holding the door while the other departs, let's both walk out the door at the same time.

My expectation though is that for many progressives this will not be acceptable. For those who see it as a civil rights imperative to force all in the church to embrace full LGBT inclusion and affirm that LGBT behaviors are not sinful, wouldn't they see allowing a split as "selling out"?

Paul W. more than 1 year ago

I don't have a problem

...with members of right-wing cauci forming their own church or whatever. It's a free country, so far. But to depart while in possession of UMC resources over an issue so entirely motivated by bigotry should not be painless for them.

I don't think anyone expects to be able to "force all in the church to embrace full LGBT inclusion." You can embrace it or not embrace it. We have people today who never have or will embrace the Union's victory over the Confederacy at Appomattox Court House, but the fact is they live in the United States, not the Confederate States. Don't embrace anything you don't want to. But by not doing so you reveal who you are. And that is what the right-wing fears the most.

George Nixon Shuler more than 1 year ago

Definition of progressives

I always thought progressive came from progress. “ to make progress “ to make improvements. Bad name for group of folk trying to tear down what has been built that has worked for years

Ernie p more than 1 year ago

One Church Model

Interesting. My opinion is about 180 degrees from Gilbert Viera. I see passage of the One Church Model as the next step in the “progression” of the “progressive” agenda. Once this model is in place, there will be a mass exodus of those who adhere to Biblical orthodoxy from the UMC, leaving the “progressives” with the numbers to pass language at the next General Conference that is more odious and exclusive to those who adhere to Biblical orthodoxy. Do not be deceived. If you reread the Gilbert Viera article and the comments thus far, you can see that “open hearts, open minds, open doors” is closing the doors to the proponents of Biblical orthodoxy. Oh, and by the way, I find the term “Traditionalist” offensive and harmful ( dare I say “hate speech”?). I prefer to be considered a follower of Jesus who adheres to the teachings of the Holy Bible, and not a traditionalist or conservative or whatever derogatory label you wish to call me.

Scott more than 1 year ago

This is self-deception

A "follower of Jesus" would not embrace hatred of LGBT people.

George Nixon Shuler more than 1 year ago

Who hates who?

I am deeply offended to be labeled as one who embraces hatred of LGBTQ people by someone who only knows me by my post above.

Scott more than 1 year ago

Scott ‘s

I like traditional better than “progressive “ name All this fussing could stop if we just follow God’s Holy word It is simple the Bible is a guide book for living. God knows we were not gonna be smart enough to make correct decisions so he had The Holy Bible written to make right decisions. This is a duh moment

Ernie fmom more than 1 year ago


"I join with those who find something disingenuous about an effort that allows us to pretend we are united, when we are not and haven't been united, substantively speaking, for a long, long while. A more forthright and principled position is for us to declare we seek a fully inclusive church, with no apologies and with no judgment of those who disagree, and simply let the door swing for those who in good conscience cannot remain."


Ben more than 1 year ago

United... no.

I totally agree with you! I have said to my Pastor and to so many others that we are not “United” and we don’t have “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors”. The UMC does so many good things but on this issue the need to either truly have OH,OM,OD. or let the Evangelicals split from those of us who are progressive.

Kathy Young more than 1 year ago


Your statement displays a lack of knowledge as to the amount of financial support the jurisdictions supporting total inclusion get from the more orthodox jurisdictions. If you want a new doctrine, go.

Carl more than 1 year ago

Jurisdictions are not 100% "orthodox" or otherwise

By keeping together we serve to protect those young people in right-wing churches from their elders demanding their political correctness.

George Nixon Shuler more than 1 year ago

Very realistic

Very well stated, though my perspective is more Traditionalist. We need to be realistic about intractable differences and work towards a grace-filled plan that allows both sides to go their separate ways as painlessly as possible.

John more than 1 year ago

UMC split should be along annual conference lines

I find it difficult to imagine a solution that involves splitting up within the annual conferences. Liberal conferences in one church and conservative conferences in another. If I'm right about that, then everyone at some point will also realize that and no one will want to leave.

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong and something else will happen. :-)

Chad more than 1 year ago

We Invite Your Support to Cover
A New Era 

     The year 2020 bodes to be a momentous time in United Methodist history. United Methodist Insight invites your financial support to bring you news and views on events.

     TEXT your contribution to 84-321 with "(amt) Insight" via your smartphone or go to https://ststephenumctx.churchcenter.com/giving/to/um-insight Your additional contribution of the 2.2 processing fee will make your donation go farther. Make checks payable to our sponsoring congregation, St. Stephen UMC, and write "UM Insight" on the memo line. Then mail to United Methodist Insight, c/o St. Stephen United Methodist Church, 2520 Oates Drive, Mesquite, TX 75150.