Remain: What does the #UMC Stand to Lose in a Split?



Comments (4)

Comment Feed

I don't want a split either

I want those who have looked to the book of discipline as the authority over the bible to readjust their glasses. I would like the ones who believe the LGBTQ person is not welcome as a sinner in the church to show me where that is in the Traditional plan. Because the Church's BoD and the Bible hasn't changed, then who has? I would point to the LGBTQ+ people who have hijacked the woman's rights movement, the civil rights movement, and have tied their sexual preferences to their salvation as what has changed. If you use the disability argument as a base for your objection, then you equivocate LGBTQ to a disability. If you equivocate the women's movement to the Traditional Plan passage to discrimination, then you are ascribing something that does not fit. If you ascribe racism to the T plan, then you are assuming the LGBTQ group is a race. The problem with a split is it will hurt the progressive LGBT supporters more than the traditionalists. It will hurt the whole Church and be a missed chance to reform the LGBTQ's communities of their ideas of identity as fallen individuals and obedience to God. We are all fallen and have our own crosses we bear.

Brian more than 2 years ago

DIVORCE is the answer when reasons to split outweigh reasons to stay

Ever hear of "we stayed married for the sake of the children"? I'm Blessed that I have never faced that either as child or parent, but I cannot imagine what an unhappy, un-loving, un-nurturing home that would be. Has the UMC not become a very large example of a truly dysfunctional family? Is the UMC family not in open rebellion with itself? We have now so many people, on opposing sides, planning or threatening to leave and the opposing side saying, "Don't forget your hat." Who wants to worship in a house of hostility?
Yes, there will be many sad situations when the inevitable split occurs. And, as with divorce where the children suffer most, our least fortunate will likely suffer more. That is why we need to accept the inevitable, shut -up about the past, sit down together to develop the best, least painful divorce possible. We owe it to the "children" and to He we claim to serve.

Reese more than 2 years ago

What Rebecca missed ...

are two major realities that would ensue after a split.
The first, and most significant (IMO) is the disappearance of the United Methodist Church (and its predecessors), to which all ordained Elders/members in full connection made their vows of loyalty.
What 'disloyalty' on the part of an Elder would look like is clear and obvious (or so we think).
But what about the faithfulness of the United Methodist Church itself as a corporate body to continue to be the manifestation of the Body of Christ with which all ordinands vow to be in a relationship of faithfulness and integrity?
And what about the faithfulness of ALL ordinands to continue to uphold the integrity of the UMC by their actions, rather than to do their best to undermine or dissolve its bonds?
I'm naming you guys: the Reverends Lambrecht, Dunnam, Renfroe, Billy J. Abraham, and Boyette, among others, plus Bishops Scott Jones, Michael Lowry, Mark Webb, and Gary E. Mueller among others.
Until now no ordinand has ever imagined that he or she promised to be loyal to the Church of Humpty Dumpty.
So what happens after the Church with which we took mutual vows of loyalty disintegrates into fragments and no longer exists as that body with which we vowed to be in covenant?
What happens to episcopal authority, including the final authority of appointment and the 'guarantee' of appointment?
What happens to an Annual Conference when a formerly-UMC local church group of renegades can 'steal' real estate owned by the Annual Conference to conduct and supervise United Methodist ministry in that place?
The second major reality that would ensue from the implosion of the United Methodist Church into fragments is a devastating dissolution of the group of those called and in training to enter professional ministry.
Those willing to jump into ministry within a Traditionalist Methodist denomination would be a small group of True Believers untouched by any greater vision of ministry within a larger theological/ecclesial framework.
That pool of potential ordinands would spell doom to the Traditionalists over a longer time frame than the life span of any who are currently trying to destroy the United Methodist Church. In other words, those guys (some of whom I mentioned above) have planted a time bomb that will undo the 'pure' church they want to leave behind when they die.
As well as (more obviously) undoing the integrity of the current United Methodist Church they vowed to uphold.
IMHO, of course!
And then there's the reality of dissuading United Methodist seminarians from affiliating with any of the post-implosion 'expressions of Methodism.' Many will choose to plant their gifts for ministry in more fertile fields elsewhere and find more sustenance for their spiritual growth among those who fight less and love more--and are more generous to ALL who are drawn to their work (LGBTQ included).
And now I just can't wait to hear from Betsy, Anonymous, Kevin, td, and the rest of the Usual Suspects on this site!

Wayne more than 2 years ago

Here you go.

Your description of us breaking into fragments isn't where I think we are. This issue is moving to the annual conference level now. It's a fairly easy process to break this down to the annual conference level (or at least in my construction of the world, it is, but we will be proving that out this summer). But once it moves to the annual conference level the dynamics change as that's where the power is. It's been a lot easier to say that there are these other people that are preventing us from doing x, y or z. But now everyone will have to start making declarations on what they believe. And you see them doing that. It's a lot harder to keep everyone together when its your bishop telling you "because I said so".

I clearly have an opinion on what seems right to me (which is real close to our tradition compromise position, even though it doesn't work as well now that LGBT have the legal right to get married). But I'm going to go with the considered opinion of my annual conference. I'm not sure what they are going to do, but I'm 100% against a fragmentation of our annual conference. But if the annual conference wants to negotiate some type of settlement, I'll chalk it up to us having hard hearts and move on. I don't think they will do that, but that's a guess on my part. People aren't disclosing what they would or wouldn't do, so you just can't know. Whoever is left, I'm going to try to love as best as I can.

Anonymous more than 2 years ago