Joel Watts: Vote No on UMC “Centrist Movement” petition

on March 12, 2015

Joel L. Watts is a happily married father of three in West Virginia. He is the author of two books, with a third on the way, and a PhD student in New Testament Studies at the University of the Free State. On church issues directly related to homosexuality, Joel takes a more affirming stance than IRD/UMAction. UMVoices contributors speak only for themselves, and do not necessarily agree with IRD/UMAction‘s mission and values. 

Here, Joel responds to a proposal of the West Ohio-based United Methodist Centrist Movement, a new group which touts a four-point platform, but appears to be largely focused on effectively liberalizing our denomination’s current bans on same-sex union ceremonies and homosexually active clergy. This piece originally appeared on Joel’s blog, Unsettled Christianity.

 

Across the several UMC-orientated groups on FB, representatives of the Centrist movement have started to post the below and ask people to take it to their annual conferences:

 

Whereas Jesus Christ has made clear his intention that His Church live and witness as a united body (John 17:20-21).

Whereas when the Church was deeply divided on the question of to what degree were gentile Christians expected to adhere to the law, the early Church followed the leading of the Holy Spirit in crafting a compromise measure at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-29).

Whereas the United Methodist Church is deeply divided on questions of same gender marriage and the ordination of self-avowed practicing homosexuals.

Whereas committed, Spirit-filled, fruit-bearing disciples of Jesus Christ reside on all points of conscious in regard to these questions.

Whereas there is an undercurrent within our blessed church believing “schism” or “amicable separation” is an option in response to our differences on these questions.

Whereas there are persons who have or are in in the process of crafting “middle-way” plans which will result in United Methodist Christians and congregations to continue together in shared ministry within one denomination while making space for both progressives and traditionalists to live out their convictions on these questions.

Whereas the monumental work of considering all of the middle-way plans, choosing one and perfecting it for consideration by the 2016 General Conference over the course of just ten days is both virtually impossible and unwise considering the size of our denomination and all the resources at stake.

Therefore, (insert your annual conference) calls for the 2016 General Conference to create a theologically balanced task force charged with prayerfully considering all middle-way plans to keep our beloved church united in Jesus Christ. The task force will choose one middle-way plan and work to perfect it over the course of a quadrininium (2016-2020). The plan will be considered by the 2020 General Conference.

Recognizing that new possibilities may emerge via the Holy Spirit’s leading, the task force will also be given wide latitude to create a new middle-way plan not yet conceived with the purpose of allowing the United Methodist Church to remain united despite our differences on the questions of same gender marriage and the ordination of self-avowed practicing homosexuals.

The United Methodist Centrist Movement (West Ohio)

(Feel free to insert your name or group if you have not yet organized a UMCM group in your conference).

 

I have addressed concerns about the Centrist Movement before and find their lack of focus on the actual issues — no shared orthodoxy, no real shared creeds, lexicon, or mission — disturbing.

Number one on the UMCM’s list? Fiscal responsibility. Ironically, the UMCM born and raised in the West Ohio Annual Conference, which due to some changing numbers, is expecting a windfall return on investment in the coming year.

But, to the basic point. I cannot support this nor would I want my Annual Conference to support this. The preamble is bad theological exegesis. If we are to strive for Christian unity, then let us reunite with other Wesleyan denominations, then back to the Anglican Communion, and then back to Rome. Further, the Council in Acts was not about moving forward for the sake for moving forward, but attempt to discern what God was doing with the Gentiles because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To suggest the First Council is somehow related to what will happen at General Conference is to stretch the passage in so many ways it should be a new Yoga move.

To restrict the plans to so-called middle way plans – a bogus concept if there ever was one – would mean to force again, at a future GC, another fight. It does nothing to address the issues at hand, to restore trust, or to honor our Wesleyan heritage. It does nothing to honor the people in the United Methodist Church. Further, if diversity within unity is what the Centrist movement is really about, then shouldn’t they consider all plans? What, exactly, would be the litmus test for a “middle-way” plan?

Unlike Via Media which is concerned with orthodoxy as a uniting vision of the church, third way/middle way/centrist groups are concerned with unity for the sake of unity. Only a church firm in doctrine is prepared to discuss ethics.

If I see this at WVAC15, my voice will be raised against it. I hope you do as well.

  1. Comment by Orter T. on March 12, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    View from the pew: Currently, on paper, the United Methodist Church has a singular belief when it comes to marriage. If any of the plans to allow both sides to co-exist under the name United Methodist Church are accepted, we will officially be declaring that we do not know who we are or what we believe.
    After spending a significant amount of time monitoring a myriad of voices from within the UMC, I agree with Watts that the root problem is there is no consensus when it comes to belief in who God is and who we are; what the church’s role is in relation to society; what the church’s mission is; or the role of General Conference and the Book of Discipline in the life of the church. What is to be gained by publicly and unequivocally confirming that? Will people then be beating down our doors to join when we state we are an organization that has absolutely no clue what we are about? Is that the type of organization that people want to put time, effort and money into?

  2. Comment by Dan on March 12, 2015 at 7:44 pm

    True quote from UMC member – “I really like the UMC, you can pretty much believe whatever you want and it’s O.K.” Tells you something about the state of theological education and understanding among the laity (the clergy do not seem to care what prospective new members believe as long as they profess to be be somewhat christian in their outlook), and the laity is presumed to be more orthodox than the clergy at present.

  3. Comment by John S. on March 20, 2015 at 7:26 am

    “Open doors, open hearts, empty minds”; a truer PR campaign was never designed.

  4. Comment by Namyriah on March 13, 2015 at 9:50 am

    Speaking as an ex-employee of one of the UM national agencies, I can assure everyone that peaceful coexistence is not the goal of the liberals within the UMC or any of the mainlines. Ideally, the liberals would like to convert all UMs to their way of thinking, but obviously that hasn’t happened and never will. Failing that, the liberals settle for a denomination with fewer members, but all of them members who support (or go along with) the liberal agenda. Despite liberals’ habit of pasting COEXIST bumper stickers on their hybrid cars, real coexistence is the last thing on their minds. They’re hoping for the day when the UM is like the United Church of Christ, 100 percent liberal, none of those nasty reactionary Christians hanging around to drag their feet.

  5. Comment by Dusty H on March 13, 2015 at 11:29 am

    “I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” -Revelation 3:15-16

    It boggles the mind that we, the UMC, have learned nothing from what has happened with: The Episcopal Church, The Evangelical Lutheran Church, The Presbyterian Church USA, and the United Church of Christ.

  6. Comment by Pudentiana on March 13, 2015 at 3:00 pm

    Sadly, there are many much more comfortable with lukewarm pews than fiery sermons.

  7. Comment by Andreas Kjernald on March 13, 2015 at 7:32 pm

    Comedian Tim Hawkins said it best: “What denominations do we have here tonight? Catholic? That’s ok, but it is hard for you to clap with one hand while holding a wine glass with the other, eh? Any Methodists? Meh! Any other denominations represented here tonight…”

  8. Comment by Byrom on March 19, 2015 at 11:56 pm

    I am a fairly “new” Methodist in some ways, having recently joined a relatively conservative Methodist church after being away from church membership for many years due to certain circumstances in my family life. But I have been a member of Methodist churches for a long time before that. I have followed IRD and discussions such as this long before I rejoined the Methodist church. I did it with my eyes wide open and my feet planted firmly on the ground. I am at my particular church, because God told me I needed to be there – period. If you were to ask me what kind of church I attend, I would tell you that I belong to the church of Jesus Christ and not “the church of the world.” At some point, church members – the intended body of Christ – are each going to have to decide to which church they belong. As our pastor said in a recent sermon, if you worship what the culture worships and not the Living God, your life will be miserable and it will ultimately destroy you. I basically see unhappy, miserable people in the groups that advocate abandoning the teachings of God and Jesus Christ in favor of accommodation with the world. Whatever happened to “being in the world, but not of the world”?

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

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.