Reaction Round-up for Adam Hamilton’s Episcopalianizing “Way Forward” for UMC

on July 2, 2014

In case you have not heard, mega-church pastor and prominent author Adam Hamilton has organized a bunch of United Methodists to endorse “A Way Forward for a United Methodist Church” (emphasis original). The proposal calls for the UMC to let every local congregation and regional annual conference to be allowed to set its own standards about homosexual practice.  Which is basically the same policy on sexual morality that ultimately split the Episcopal Church.

You can read that statement here.

Here is a round-up of responses from around the UMC world:

Privately, I have been told that an expert on United Methodist church law has determined that even in the unlikely event that Hamilton’s plan was adopted at the 2012 General Conference (after the last couple General Conferences have been decidedly trending in a more orthodox direction), it would be struck down by the Judicial Council, for betraying the heart of our denomination’s connectional ethos.

Rev. Bill Bouknight, Associate Director of the Confessing Movement, shows how the debate within the UMC is fundamentally not about sexual morality but rather whether or not we accept the high view of biblical authority in the United Methodist Doctrinal Standards. He addresses head-on the Hamilton-Slaughter statement’s articulation of United Methodist liberalism as treating the (acknowledged) biblical prohibitions of homosexual practice “like scriptures related to the subordination of women, violence and the acceptance and regulation of slavery.”

Rev. Dr. Timothy Tennent, President of Asbury Theological Seminary, offers a seven-part response in which he identifies deeper theological and ecclesiological problems in the UMC which “A Way Forward” avoids, critiques the proposal’s post-modernism, explains how it would lead to “more conflict and division, not less,” notes how it fails to address the realities and pastoral needs of self-identified members of the LGBTQIA community, and observes that “not a single verse of Scripture is actually quoted in A Way Forward.” He concludes his series by tentatively suggesting the outlines of a plan for the UMC to “Multiply, not Divide.”

Rev. Dr. Chris Ritter argues that the Hamilton-Slaughter proposal “doesn’t solve anything,” “put[s] the ball in the wrong court,” “divides the church into ill-defined rosters,” and “calls for unilateral disarmament” on the part of traditionalists. Since “even those striving for unity admit we are going to end up with two types of churches and pastors,” he suggests, similar to Dr. Tennent’s idea, dividing the U.S. portion of the UMC into two jurisdictions with their own standards.

Rev. Dr. David Watson, Academic Dean and Associate Professor of New Testament at the UMC’s United Theological Seminary, outlines both what he finds helpful and the serious problems he sees in the proposal.

Rev. Dr. Bill Arnold of Asbury Theological Seminary critiques the proposal for replacing the connectional ethos at the historic core of Methodist communal identity with an atomized congregationalism. In light of this, he encourages a full, careful re-reading of the “trust clause” – through which local United Methodist congregational properties are held “are held, in trust, for the benefit of the entire denomination” (emphasis original to the Discipline).

Rev. Matt Lipan argued (before the public release of the Hamilton-Slaughter proposal) that such an allowance for different regions to set their own ministry standards would exacerbate the serious problems our denomination has, both internally and externally, with our “lack of brand consistency.”

Rev. Lauren Porter notes that the recent move by the Presbyterian Church (USA) to dramatically (though not yet completely) liberalize its sexual-morality standards “seems very similar to what Adam Hamilton has proposed in A Way Forward.”

Rev. Stephen Rankin, University Chaplain at Southern Methodist University, observes that the Hamilton-Slaughter plan “is not at all a middle position” but rather “a milder version of what most of us recognize as the progressive position,” with potentially far-reaching consequences.

Rev. Matt O’Reilly explains how this proposal is not “really a compromise” but rather “would lead us ever further down the path toward schism” as conservative United Methodists felt compelled by conscience to leave the UMC. Rev. Drew McIntyre critiqued O’Reilly’s critique and asserted that the Hamilton proposal “has potential” and “with work, it might just be a legitimate way forward.” And O’Reilly responded back here.

In my initial response, I noted how this plan would reward the any-means-necessary tactics of the liberal protest caucuses, and thus encourage more of the same, while imposing the painful divisiveness of General Conference on potentially every local United Methodist annual conference and congregation. I further noted how theologically liberal United Methodists have already clearly demonstrated the short-lived nature of the sort of tolerance they would offer to more orthodox believers in our denomination.

I also treated the proposal to a very detailed, paragraph-by-paragraph analysis.

Revs. William J. Abraham (a premier Wesley Studies scholar), Rob Renfroe (President of Good News), Chuck Savage, and Greg Stover issued an “Open Letter” to Hamilton and Slaughter thanking them for recognizing the “untenable” nature of the UMC’s current crisis, arguing that this local-liberalization plan would not be a truly constructive “way forward,” inviting them to reconsider their proposal, and respectfully expressing openness to “proposals that would keep us united, but not at the cost of condoning a practice that we believe is contrary to Scripture and the teachings of the Church Universal.” Both IRD President Mark Tooley and I are among the signers of this open letter.

Hamilton responded to this open letter on his personal blog, defending his proposal. Hamilton’s response does not respond to, or show much evidence of wrestling with, some of the fatal flaws of his proposal that I identified in my own detailed analysis. Hamilton, does, to his credit, admit that the open letter raise “a very good” question by asking “what guarantee could be given that this compromise would end the battles being fought at General Conference.” Hamilton’s response: “I believe the left would have to enter into this negotiation with good faith and that they would need to agree to restrictive language regarding these concerns.”

But what reason for hope is there that those who have recklessly broken covenant with the rest of the church and refused to keep their own ordination vows would suddenly demonstrate “good faith” by just abandoning their long-standing goal of eventually imposing liberalization on every part of our denomination?

Rev. Jeremy Smith, the social-media coordinator for the liberal caucus coalition at the last General Conference, withholds his explicit “endorsement” while giving the Hamilton-Slaughter plan a generally very positive review, since it syncs well with Smith’s worldview that history is evolving in an increasingly “progressive” direction as “we embrace progressivism at different rates.” In other words, it’s a favorable liberal take on the Hamilton-Slaughter proposal, because of how it would incrementally bring about the more thorough theological liberalization Smith desires for the UMC. (Note: Smith should not be seen as a reliable source of objective facts, given his history of fabrications, like tweeting out some bizarre fantasy about how IRD/UMAction allegedly “distributed leaflets and phone calls to a local town and ran a #UMC minister out.”)

But Dr. Dorothee Benz, chair of the Reconciling Ministries Network’s New York metro-area chapter, Methodists in New Directions (MIND), faults the Hamilton-Slaughter “way forward” for allowing ANY local congregation or annual conference to continue adhering to biblical teaching on sexual self-control. Interestingly, she says that “[t]here is no neutrality” and that “the belief that that one can design structurally neutral solutions that punt the substantive struggle over whether we will continue to discriminate to another level of the church is an illusion.” Furthermore, she calls this proposal “DOA at General Conference,” since “[i]t is abundantly clear that all proposals to allow some kind of local or regional autonomy on matters of discrimination” stand no chance there.

Meanwhile, Amy DeLong and her “Love Prevails” gang released their own “Open Letter,” opposing such a “local option.” The liberal United Methodists leading the way in breaking covenant and disrupting church meetings declare that even allowing any “pockets” of United Methodist congregations or annual conference to not bless homosexual practice amounts to completely unacceptable “prejudice and discrimination.” They declare that “[t]here is not a way to ‘nice’ our way out of” the denomination’s current controversies.

It is important to note that another key part of the Hamilton-Slaughter proposal largely opposed by activists in United Methodism’s “Reconciling” movement is its calling for gay and straight clergy alike to be held accountable to a standard of “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness.”

So far, I have seen no strong, official public reaction from either RMN or Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA), likely reflecting division in their ranks. But “A Way Forward” has been at least individually endorsed by MFSA board members Laurie Hays-Coffman and Neill Caldwell, RMN Communications Director Andy Oliver, and RMN board member David Meredith. I would not expect any of these people to retain their positions in the liberal caucuses for five minutes if they actually supported Hamilton’s call for liberal “good faith” acceptance of any restrictions on homosexual practice in any part of the UMC.

Thus, the reaction to the Hamilton-Slaughter proposal among theologically liberal United Methodists generally ranges from expressions of support – since it would dramatically if incompletely move our denomination much closer to their long-term goal of a thoroughly liberalized UMC – to more forceful, all-or-nothing insistences on total victory.

The latter make clear that there is no realistic basis for expecting the protest caucuses who are disrupting meetings and breaking covenant today to ever abandon their destructive, any-means-necessary tactics until they have bullied every “pocket” of our denomination into either submitting to their will or else leaving the denomination for them to take it over completely.

  1. Comment by Dan on July 2, 2014 at 9:12 am

    If you want to solve the UMC problems quickly, all you need to do is remove the “held in trust for the UMC” clause from the denomination and let each individual church form a religious corporation that will hold title to its own property. Also, make apportionments into askings – no more threats to churches that don’t pay 100% of their apportionments. Finally, allow for directed giving with apportionments. Let congregations stipulate, if they want, what church boards and agencies should not receive any of their apportionments. You would quickly find boards like GBCS withering away for lack of funding.

    If these actions are taken then you not be able to have the UMC bureaucracy rule over the local churches like the medieval papacy. It’s all about the money, honey – this is where the UMC agencies and boards get their power. Remove the money and their power wanes. If they are truly confident that they have a “better way” let them prove it by making support of it voluntary, not coercive. And let’s get rid of the whiny “Wesleyan connectionalism is what binds us” pleas.

  2. Comment by Wes Andrews on July 2, 2014 at 7:20 pm

    Bingo, right on target

  3. Comment by Brian s on July 3, 2014 at 8:11 am

    Progressives in the UMC (I include Adam Hamilton as a stealth progressive) know that they are losing the fight on the gay agenda. The UMC in the developing world will never vote for this agenda and it will prevent the General Conference from changing the Book of Discipline. Hence, it will be ‘divide and conquer’ just as it has happened in the US in general.
    Some states okayed gay “marriage” and some did not. Now the progressives use the judiciary to overturn the “discriminatory” laws of the states that do not go along with their radical agenda. The Progressives will use something similar to impose their agenda on the rest of us. They cannot be trusted.
    The Presbyterians have it just about right. Have two denominations where individual churches can decide where they want to belong. The Progressives do not like this because they will continue to shrink while the orthodox church will be freed from its stranglehold of liberalism and grow again.
    Kudos to Dan as well.

  4. Comment by Jane Henley Neal on July 3, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    Oh, my . . . “live and let live”, “local option” . . . what a strange suggestion for the church sworn to connection. Shall we “make nice” or “stand firm in our beliefs”? I suppose we must now consider just what it is that we believe. Lord, hear our prayer. In our distress, save us.

  5. Comment by Scott on July 3, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    Why would we as Methodists want to be “united” if we have fundamental differences? So one church follows Biblical teaching and another doesn’t and yet we are presenting ourselves to the world as “united” in our mission to go forth and proclaim the Gospel? If I were unfamiliar with the Christian message and were subjected to two different “United” Methodists espousing fundamentally different messages, I would pass right on by and conclude that such a schizophrenic church is not for me.

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

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.