Why Do “Law and Order” UMs Support a Lawless Traditional(ist) Plan?



Comments (11)

Comment Feed


I am probably a rarity in that as a Methodist lay person I watched the entire General Conference. I did it because I was ill, the weather was too bad to be out , so I used the time to clean up my home office while watching. It was very enllightening. I learned that we the UMC, are led, for he most part, by ultra liberal bureacrats. I now liken them to the "Pharisees" who were as fearful of Jesus as the progressives are of conservatives. I now see that there is no way forward for most of us in the bible belt. I see the Wesley Covenant Association as a young lion ready to spring into existense as soon as the judicial council shoots down the Modified Traditional Plan and they will because it would not allow Pharisees to stay in power. All Bishops who cannot support the will of the majority should step down and move to a denomination which shares their views. But they will not do what is right so us traditionalist should leave and be free of their smugness and sense of superiority toward us "conservative bible thumpers."

Larry more than 2 years ago

Law and order

I believe in a Creator God of law and order. Witness the laws of nature and nature’s God! I also believe in a God capable of transcending these laws of nature as we humans comprehend them. Witness the Bible stories of miraculous events! I also believe that evil and sin exist. We can choose to follow this God of law and order or we can choose lawlessness and disorder which progresses logically to anarchy and chaos. I see the way espoused by Rev. Smith and the believers in “progressivism” such as he is the way that leads to anarchy and chaos, not the human ordained world of “The Age of Aquarius “ or John Lennon’s “Imagine”. Your thoughts?

Scott S more than 2 years ago

Not much sympathy or support here, huh, Dr. J?

Why are there homosexual clergy at the conference? Why are there homosexual clergy in UMC pulpits? Why is there a lesbian bishop? According to the BoD, all these things violate "the law", but decades of weak "leadership" by our bishops and judicial "court" have allowed homosexual clergy to proliferate in our ranks. So, Jeremy's righteous indignation for "the law" is laughable.
My favorite news, however, is the amazingly high support for "Disaffiliation" Evidently, there are many,many Methodists who, like me, are just sick and tired of this debate. I don't care what homosexuals do, I'm just tired of hearing about it, tired of being blamed for their personal frustrations, or being constantly accused of hate, when I don't hate, I just want my old church back! Homosexuals have chosen to continue to join this denomination which has had written and unambiguous rules prohibiting homosexual ordination and weddings for FIFTY YEARS. So, why do they keep coming? Why do they keep whining? Why don't they leave for the most liberal churches? Well, the strong support for Disaffiliation will allow them to do just that - and take their supporting UMC churches with them.
But, best of all, the strong support for Disaffiliation means that traditional churches who do not want to continue under the poor, weak leadership of UMC bishops who have no will or courage to enforce the BoD can take their churches and go. I suffer no illusions that passing the "traditional" plan will end this drama. It will only get louder and more bitter.

Reese more than 2 years ago

A history of the traditional plan

From someone who is more "connected than I am". And yes it is from a moderate traditionalist viewpoint; Chris Ritter was all for keeping everything together right up until the election of Karen Oliveto as bishop:

"Let’s consider the unlikely path of today’s top vote-getting approach to our crisis of biblical interpretation. The Council of Bishops were so little interested in even the concept of a Traditional Plan that they left it in the form of a half-page sketch and told The Commission they could save their time by not even developing it. When the nearly final Way Forward report came to the bishops with only the OCP and the CCP, our African episcopal leaders put their collective foot down and let their colleagues know that neither of those options would fly on the only continent where United Methodism is growing. If they wanted a unified report, it would need to include something Traditionalists could support. A few bishops and commission members scrambled to write a plan to stand along side those that had been crafted over months of deliberations with professional guidance. The Traditional Plan has since weathered constitutional challenges, amendments, and relentless critiques… but (at least for today) it is our most likely outcome.
…This was a very difficult and disappointing day for many of my Progressive brothers and sisters, especially those of the LGBTQ community. I hope that my political analysis above does not come across as callous and unfeeling toward this pain. On my cynical days, I have viewed the OCP as the plan of an outmoded institution desperately grasping to preserve itself and the power of its keepers. My LGBTQ colleagues have never loved the OCP. It was just the best option they were given. I hope that maybe thorough-going Progressives will consider the horizons opened up under Par. 2801 of the Modified Traditional Plan. I believe it provides an opportunity to set a new course. If the OCP revives, I hope they will bless folks like me by adding provisions for a similar space for Traditionalists." https://peopleneedjesus.net/2019/02/25/gc2019-update-3/

betsy more than 2 years ago

You dare cite values of law and order?!

Your kind are the ones who have violated the BoD over and over again in open defiance of law and order. You have no standing!

Saem more than 2 years ago

Makes me wonder

So why is it that someone who continually urges breaking longstanding BOD rules suddenly so concerned about whether the "other side" follows rules? He who is without sin cast the first stone.

Dave more than 2 years ago

What about the current book of Discipline?

Rev. Smith wants to talk about the constitutionality of the proposed Traditionalist plan, but seems to over look the pastor's in the church who ignore the current book of Discipline. To speak of constitutionality would imply importance of following rules. So until the law is changed, shouldn't we seek to follow the current rules?
Just a thought.

Timothy Murphy more than 2 years ago


New Information means New Rules

Therefore since we now know that being LBGT is inborn, let us include ALL God's children.

Carla and Robert Skidmore more than 2 years ago


Where did you get the misinformation that “we now know that being LGBT is inborn”? We certainly now have some (and not very hard) evidence of a genetic role in determining traits that factor in to sexual orientation and desires, these lifestyles are still understood as multifactorial in origin. Basic genetics and reproductive anatomy and physiology remain as they always have been. Do not be deceived.

Scott S more than 2 years ago

What you left out

The Way Forward Commission did initially work on the traditional plan but then the Bishops directed the Commission to fully develop the One Church and Connectional Conference Plans but not the Traditional Plan. At the last minute--and there has never been a clear explanation of what happened--the Bishops changed their mind and said a Traditional Plan should also be submitted. Thus one was hastily put together and it is entirely logical that traditionalist Bishops should have been involved in that process. Bottom line is, the Traditional Plan was a last minute addition because of indecisive Bishops who could not make up their mind. Given those circumstances it is no wonder it could not pass muster with the Judicial Council--it never received the vetting of the other two plans did.

betsy more than 2 years ago

What happened

Betsy, What happened is that the US bishops tried to eliminate the traditional language of the BOD and by directing the commission not to finish the traditional plan.. When the bishops met to vote the African and Asian bishops objected to the language of both the OCP and CCP which both made gay marriage and ordination legal in the UMC. The only thing either plan offered traditionalists is either amnesty from not being forced to endorse gay marriage or ordination, or forcing traditionalists into a separate conference, still under UMC control, much like the old Central Conference. The African bishops threatened to walk out and at the last minute the other bishops allowed the not yet developed traditional plan to go ahead, shortly before the deadline for such resolutions to be sent for consideration for the GC. This one move caused more distrust of the Bishops than anything they have ever done!

Scott more than 2 years ago