Liberal United Methodists “Not Optimistic” about Future of Denomination

on July 18, 2013

By John Lomperis (@JohnLomperis)

As more and more liberal United Methodists admit that they are “not optimistic” about the direction of our denomination, they are increasingly mulling over their future options.

“[T]here is there is no indication that given the present structure of our United Methodist Church the official policies and positions” which affirm biblical standards on sexual morality “will change.”

That declaration was made in a resolution adopted in 2012 by the heterodox-dominated New York Conference of the United Methodist Church and reaffirmed by the 2013 session of the same conference last month.

Meanwhile, in its March Katalyst newsletter, the Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN), the main caucus agitating for United Methodist endorsement of homosexual practice (as well as other varieties of sex outside of man-woman marriage), revealed that through a recent large-scale survey, they have learned that now its own constituency is divided in half between those who are committed to staying within the denomination and angrily fighting other United Methodists to the bitter end and others who say, in one representative comment, that they are “[d]one waiting four more years” for the next United Methodist General Conference to  liberalize church policies and that “RMN should be helping people talk about separation.”

Our denomination’s last governing General Conference, which met in Tampa, Florida, in 2012, was dubbed by heterodox activists as “the most conservative General Conference ever,” affirming biblical standards for sexual morality by a GROWING majority, and with many further points of evangelical reform only being stymied (until next time) by indefensibly Machiavellian, anti-Golden-Rule tactics shamelessly adopted by the liberal protest caucuses.

As we have reported earlier, in response to the United Methodist Church increasingly being liberated from the theological liberalism which has oppressively dominated our denomination for decades, last year two of the most heterodox-dominated United Methodist conferences, New York and California-Nevada, adopted identically entitled resolutions calling for “A Study Committee for an Inclusive Conference” to promote structural alternatives for heterodox United Methodists. The California-Nevada resolution openly mentions the creation of a new, liberal Methodist denomination as one option for such an alternative structure, while the 2012 New York resolution drew encouragement from other oldline denominations that have caved in to the sexual revolution.

Liberal New York City-area United Methodists are now making clear that such talk is more substantial and sustained among heterodox United Methodists than a short-lived emotional outburst.

The New York Annual Conference Study Committee on a More Inclusive Church was structured to exclude supporters of biblical teaching on sexual morality. After a year of regular meetings, this Study Committee is maturing into its next stage. Its 2013 resolution, adopted by the Annual Conference session, reiterated the 2012 resolution’s protest of General Conference’s orthodoxy on sexual morality, expressed fear over what future General Conferences may do, and called for all United Methodist congregations in the conference to send a representative to a November 16 forum to discuss the evolving, heterodox-led movement for structural alternatives.

On the one hand, the Study Committee expresses a commitment to making the United Methodist Church more sexually liberal, and neither its report nor its resolutions explicitly endorse schism as a possibility.

But on the other hand, the Study Committee’s report states “We are not optimistic that there will be a timely openness to change that would make greater LBGT inclusiveness possible, given the present disposition of the General Conference….” The report shares that the Study Committee “took comfort and courage from” looking at how John Wesley’s strong prejudice against church schism was balanced with his conviction that he “should be under an absolute necessity to separate from” a body of Christians if the price of remaining was “lying and hypocrisy,” preaching contrary to his own beliefs, or other perceived sins of commission or omission. Thus, the group is “consider[ing] ways we might remain in communion with The United Methodist Church, but with the ability to establish enough room for the inclusiveness to which we are committed.” In these efforts, they are “actively networking with other Jurisdictions and Conferences across the connection that share our goals” of “loyalty to our denomination, tempered by our growing unwillingness to participate in the on‐going and in our view discriminatory exclusion” of homosexually active clergy candidates.

Of course, an independent new denomination could both be “in communion” with the United Methodist Church while doing whatever it pleases in terms of its internal policies on sexual morality and other matters. It is not clear what other long-term, sustainable, and politically realistic options would meet the standard of both “remain[ing] in communion with The United Methodist Church” and “establishing enough room” to have official, sexually liberal policies.

For over four decades, activists in the “Reconciling” movement have devoted massive amounts of time, energy, and money to try to get General Conference to directly liberalize our denomination’s governing Book of Discipline – only to lose a large and growing amount of ground on that front.

A few years ago, such liberal activists eagerly championed the informally nicknamed “Global Segregation Plan,” which would have given United Methodists in the United States some freedom to set their own policies without the input of largely orthodox African United Methodists. But that plan went down in flames as evangelical United Methodists in America understood why sexually liberals were so eager for it while United Methodists in Sub-Saharan Africa understood that its primary practical effect would be to drastically squelch their voice in denominational affairs. An effort by the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA), a liberal caucus group, to revive a version of this plan at the 2012 General Conference received a grand total of five supportive votes in a committee of 62 delegates.

At last summer’s Northeastern Jurisdictional Conference, a liberal clergywoman’s resolution to “Eliminate Jurisdictional Conferences” was referred to that jurisdiction’s College of Bishops. At last month’s New York Annual Conference session, the conference Study Committee on a More Inclusive Church submitted a resolution “expressing concern” that the Northeastern bishops have not prioritized this and demanding to know why they are taking so long. But even if cleverly framed as an effort “to eliminate jurisdictional conferences,” such proposals to create a new national US-only church structure devoid of international input amount to little more than thinly disguised attempts to resurrect the already rather dead Global Segregation Plan.

In any case, it will be interesting to see what happens with such conversations increasingly taking place throughout what can already be fairly described as the Not-So-United Methodist Church.

  1. Comment by Roger Conley on July 21, 2013 at 10:07 pm

    Maybe the liberal congregations could be allowed to leave under an ecumenical “prisoner exchange” program. A liberal Methodist congregation would be allowed to separate and keep its building if it is able to convince a liberal ecclesiastical organization to free one of its congregations, so some orthodox Episcopal or Presbyterian congregations could keep their buildings.

  2. Comment by undergroundpewster on July 22, 2013 at 11:36 am

    Prisoner exchange, brilliant! And while they are at it, can they draw up a DLZ (delitigationized zone) as well.

  3. Comment by Tim Graham on July 22, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    This is so comforting to hear. I have been affiliated with the Methodist Church all of my life, and I had concerns that the Church was caving into social issues despite knowing God’s stance on them. If there are “Christians” or “Methodists” that want to have “homosexually active clergy candidates”, then have at it. Start your own “church” and base it on whatever beliefs and tenets that you want to adhere, and see who joins. Do not call it Methodist, do not call it Baptist, do not call it Catholic or Presbyterian. Those religions are already established and stand for something else that what liberals are lobbying for in their “church”. If the Methodist Church changes in the future, and I do not like the changes that have been made, I will just leave and find another Church that more closely mirrors my beliefs. I will not stand up in arms and demand that the Methodist Church change, I will simply exercise my freedom of choice to practice my religion elsewhere. It is unfortunate that others cannot or will not do the same.

  4. Comment by AJ Bernard on October 17, 2013 at 11:07 pm

    I want to echo what Tim Graham has said; there are hundreds of Protestant denominations in the United States. If the one you are currently in does not suit your theological platform, then find one that does. Those of us who are currently quite happy with the UMC’s stance on (most) issues will be grateful to you for not destroying something that we love.

    The Bible is very clear on the issue of homosexuality, particularly in places like Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6:9-10. If you have decided that the Bible is wrong on this issue, the Presbyterians would be glad to have you among their ranks. There are many other denominations which would also be glad to have you. Please don’t slam the door on your way out, and thank you.

  5. Comment by Bob Brooke on July 22, 2013 at 4:06 pm

    So glad to see that all the fiery darts of the homosexualists being thrown at the biblical stance of the UMC over four decades are being squelched by the cool balm of God’s holiness in His global church. May His will be continually in our hearts and on our minds. Pastor Bob Brooke, Oklahoma City

  6. Comment by Paul Dorsey on June 30, 2015 at 11:46 am

    Go to Hell you bigot of a pastor.

  7. Comment by Gary McDonough on July 22, 2013 at 4:22 pm

    refreshing to see that after years of being told by the liberals that the conservatives need to leave the church that they, (the liberals) have finally accepted the obvious solution to the argument.

  8. Comment by Dr Jim Roper on July 23, 2013 at 11:17 am

    Re Bro McDonough’s, the Bolshevik revolution took place because Lenin convinced the Russians that the Communists were “Bolsheviki” (i.e. “majority) and that the Czarists were “Menshiviki” (i.e., “minority”). The liberals have tried the same tactic with us, and, praise God, it hasn’t worked. My mother’s family have been Methodists ever since they left Ireland in the 18th century, and I have a great-great-granddad who was a circuit rider. I’d hate to lose this wonderful Methodists family by seeing it morally watered down by caving to the immoral left.

  9. Comment by Pudentiana on August 1, 2013 at 3:21 pm

    Mr. Lomperis has truly shone the light on relatively short history of the pro LGB etc lobby of a great church. Thank God for the Africans who have clung to Rock from which they were hewn. Now, we should have a contest to name the “new denomination of sexual liberation”.

  10. Comment by Paul Dorsey on October 20, 2013 at 11:47 pm

    I see both the UMC & the Republican Party becoming ever more irrelevant as the nation’s demographics continues to change, where young people especially, are much more accepting of liberal social policies than their parents. If both organizations don’t change, they will become irrelevant to the vast majority of the American people. For the life of me, whats the big deal to have gay and lesbian couples marry and have the same rights as the rest of society-how does that threaten the institution of marrige. Heterosexuals have done a great job of tarnishing this institution because of all the divorces!!! Please keep in mind, that the UMC, unlike all the other Protestant mainline denominations, is an aging denomination, and if its to survive and flourish, needs to be more responsive to the needs and wants of the younger members.

  11. Comment by Decimononicus on December 9, 2013 at 5:50 am

    I have to admit that I am somewhat taken aback by the vitriol on both sides. By the time the hard-liners on both ends of the spectrum have had their say, the UMC will have completed its long, slow decline. Both sides are puffed-up, self-righteous, and kind of ridiculous: right-wing biblical literalists willing to hang their hats on a dubious sexual morality encoded in a couple of verses that are contradicted by much of the rest of the gospel (on the one hand) and liberal types who see their issue in equally rigid terms. Ralph Waldo Emerson’s celebrated statement that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds surely applies to both groups. Most of United Methodist life actually transpires in fellowship halls and potlucks. What we need is more casserole and less ideology. A pox on both your houses!

  12. Comment by Tom Jefferson on December 17, 2013 at 12:56 am

    Responding to the desires of the younger generation is not what Christ charged his church with. I was raised in the UMC, and I’m in this younger generation. The church teaches that practicing homosexuality is sin. That doesn’t mean that hatred of homosexuals is righteous or acceptable. Homosexuals have a sickness, just like a drug addict or alcoholic. Sorry, but their lifestyle deviates from God’s plan, and therefore is immoral. The church is killing itself by trying to be all things to all people and shrugging off its responsibilities and principles. We build large new churches while advocating for an obviously corrupt and wasteful government to provide food, housing, and healthcare to the poor. Those things are the church’s job. Jesus didn’t install Peter as a governmental entity and charge him with caring for the sick and poor. He made him the rock upon which the church is built and charged that church with performing these ministries. Jesus did not tell us to condone deviant lifestyles from ourselves or our fellow man. The Methodist Church has become a soap box for left-leaning statist, and I for one will not darken the door of a UMC ever again for that very reason. The church may be willing to justify these decisions before God someday, but I will not.

  13. Comment by Jean on March 10, 2014 at 3:03 am

    Easy solution: join the presbyterian church USA which is a progressive , very liberal, politically oriented group. Not much spirituality in this denomination, but plenty of liberal policies inline with the democrat party

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.