Report to UM Action Steering Committee: Challenges and Hope for our Historic Turning Point

on April 2, 2013
Mark Tooley and John Lomperis
John Lomperis, right, directs IRD’s UMAction program. (Photo credit: Institute on Religion and Democracy)

The following remarks were delivered by UMAction Director John Lomperis to the UMAction Steering Committee on April 2, 2013.

Shortly before Christmas, I was honored to accept and formally begin my work as your new director of the UMAction program of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

America’s second-largest Protestant denomination appears to be at an exciting, historic turning point. Rev. Karen Booth, our UMAction Advisory Board member and longtime friend, perhaps said it best when she announced earlier this year that “The United Methodist Church has ‘turned a corner’ in its decades-long battle over human sexuality!”

We praise God for how the 2012 General Conference affirmed our biblical teaching statement on sexual morality by a significantly larger margin than at the previous General Conference. After this, sexually liberal activists, for perhaps the first modern General Conference ever, gave up on even trying to “win” on other specific pet causes of theirs, such as allowing church blessings of same-sex unions and permitting our clergy to be sexually active outside of marriage.

The great shift away from the failed experiment of oldline Protestant liberalism was also seen on other issues. In several instances, lefty political pronouncements received remarkably less support than they would have at previous General Conferences. We enacted a new super-majority rule that sets the bar higher for future General Conferences adopting far-left political resolutions. We made great progress on other issues in committee.

Now more and more United Methodists on all sides are acknowledging that our denomination’s formal adherence to biblical sexual morality – which not even Adam Hamilton could liberalize – is unlikely to change for the foreseeable future, particularly as our membership explodes in Africa while collapsing in our most theologically radical regions. The votes just aren’t there.

Shortly after what was dubbed “the most conservative General Conference in history,” the heads of the two main liberal caucuses resigned somewhat abruptly, with one of them leaving the apparently lost cause of the UMC for a small, largely gay denomination. Over the past year, there has been a mushrooming of talk of those who refuse to submit to Scriptural teaching leaving the United Methodist Church. As we speak, two of the most radicalized annual conferences are studying structural alternatives for liberal United Methodists. A tone of desperation was indicated by one liberal caucus figure’s rather unrealistic suggestion that instead of leaving the UMC, United Methodist liberals should stay and shift the balance of power by working to merge our denomination back into the Episcopal Church! Just last week, I saw that the Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN), the main caucus pushing sexual liberalism, completed a massive survey which found, among other things, that half of its own constituency was “done waiting 4 more years” and want RMN to redirect its energies towards the formation of a new, liberal split-off denomination.

There are many other encouraging signs for the future of the United Methodist Church. Asbury Seminary continues to educate more new United Methodist clergy than any other school. For the first time in recent memory, the University Senate recently added a non-UMC seminary to its approved list: evangelical Seattle Pacific Seminary in the heart of the Western Jurisdiction. Among official UMC seminaries, United is undergoing a remarkable revolution towards orthodoxy while its enrollment skyrockets. As United Methodism continues to grow in Africa, faithful Africans are finally finding more positions in denominational leadership. There is widespread acceptance of the fact that we simply can no longer afford the huge size of our bloated, top-heavy denominational hierarchy. Meanwhile, UMAction, thanks to the financial, prayer, and volunteer support of the brothers and sisters in this room and our friends across the country, continues keeping up the pressure for reform, shining the holy light of accountability and building strategic partnerships for continuing the UMC’s positive trajectory, doing important work no one else is doing.

But now is the not the time for orthodox believers in the United Methodist Church to sit back, relax, and break out the sparkling apple cider. Our corner-turning still needs to be secured against some major challenges.

Externally, the sexual revolution continues its rapid, destructive progress in American culture while our churches are vulnerable to these ever-shifting sands right outside their doors. And we are already seeing the beginnings of the coercive arm of government being used to pressure Christian ministries into abandoning Scriptural teaching.

Internally, there remains a very vocal, well-funded minority who feel committed to staying and fighting bitterly within a denomination whose tradition they reject and whose core doctrine they despise. Heterodox caucuses are already organizing for the 2016 General Conference.

For a sober look at what we are up against, I urge you to read my four-part exposé, “Why Was the 2012 General Conference So Unproductive and Dysfunctional?” which appeared on our website late last year. It uncovers the true story of the Machiavellian ways in which the liberal caucuses, with help from our bishops, hijacked the 2012 General Conference. In practical terms, this means that we won historic committee endorsements of petitions to establish greater accountability for general agencies, end our denomination’s scandalous affiliation with the extremist Religions Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), inject some much-needed balance to official UMC statements on the Arab-Israeli conflict, open the doors for congregational women’s ministries not affiliated with United Methodist Women, rewrite the Discipline’s statement on the Outlerian quadrilateral to make clear that Scripture is our primary source and criterion for doctrine, and defending pastoral discretion in church membership. Liberals saw that they probably did not have the votes to stop such petitions in the full General Conference and so cynically killed these reforms by preventing them from ever coming to a plenary vote.

For now, entrenched, corrupt leaders remain in their places of denominational power, and seem hell-bent on continuing their business as usual of abusing the name and resources of our denomination to promote partisan, secular, leftist political agendas while opposing the very United Methodist values they are paid to promote. We still see a revolving-door staff and leadership relationship between our apportionment-funded denominational agencies and destructive liberal caucus. The General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) continues to violate the Discipline with impunity. The upper echelons of denominational leadership continue to dramatically over-represent the tiny, radicalized Western Jurisdiction while dramatically under-representing Africans and U.S. evangelicals. Our bishops, for the most part, continue to shrink back from providing the courageous, principled Christian leadership our denomination so desperately needs. And our apportionment-funded seminaries continue to be spared effective accountability, so that we have such embarrassments as Claremont School of Theology talking about removing the cross from its chapel for fear of offending participants in the Buddhist, Jain, and Islamic religious services being held there.

I am often asked why all these issues with general conferences, agencies, bishops, seminaries, etc. matter. Why can’t we just focus on preaching the Gospel in our local churches and not worry about denominational corruption and reform? Why is the reform work of UMAction worth anyone’s prayers, worth self-sacrificial financial support to make possible, worth taking the time to stay informed, and worth expending volunteer energy?

I would never denigrate the importance of local Gospel preaching.

But the struggle for denominational reform matters, because, quite simply, the God Whose ambassadors we are called to be matters.

Here is a quote from sociologist Peter Berger:

“The public face of the churches does matter because the Christian church, by its very mission, must be a public institution. Christianity, as we frequently hear, is not just a personal, private affair. It constitutes a community, which has a historical and a social location. National headquarters matter, and they must be taken seriously – perhaps more seriously than they take themselves, for it is the face of Christ that is being publicly distorted.”

Frankly, we would not be very good ambassadors of Christ if we were not committed to seeing that the truth about Him and His teachings is supported by our denomination’s agencies, taught in its seminaries, and proclaimed in its pulpits.

Secondly, UMAction’s work of denominational reform matters because people matter. At last year’s General Conference, our liberal caucus friends rather dramatically displayed the harsh, self-righteous, bullying, and thoroughly unloving treatment of other people that inevitably springs from their secularized gospel of self-affirmation. If we care about people, we must care about their being mistreated by corrupt liberal United Methodist leaders. If we care about people, we must care about honoring our bonds of Christian fellowship even across the boundary of death with those past generations who have bequeathed great resources in the trust that they would be perpetually devoted to promoting Methodist Christianity, rather than false gospels that are Unitarian Universalism in all but name. And as evangelical, Wesleyan Arminians, we should be especially concerned that when an unsaved spiritual seeker wanders into any one of the thousands of United Methodist congregations across the country or throughout the world, that what she hears and experiences there will actually help draw her towards the light of salvation rather than perversely encourage spiritual corruption.

Thirdly, the work of denominational reform is not separable from the ministry in our local churches. I love that the United Methodist Church is a connectional church, in which we have no right to say that the problems in other UMC churches are not our problems. And sooner or later, the great denominational struggles in which UMAction is a key player will touch even the most isolated, conservative United Methodist congregation, as a new pastor is appointed who is a typical graduate of the United Methodist seminary he attended, as young members go off to college and United Methodist campus ministries, as denominationally issued curricula, resolutions, and Social Principles are looked to for guidance, and as members and people in the local mission field base their opinions of what United Methodism is all about on the latest media-reported scandal from our bishops or general agencies.

But I dream of a different day for United Methodism. Just imagine if anytime we saw the cross-and-flame logo on any of the tens of thousands of United Methodist congregations, we could trust that the clergy and other leaders there were committed and submitted to the lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of Scripture in all areas of life. Just imagine if we could actually trust that the apportionments from our church offering plates would be used for Christian ministry and never be funneled into far-left secular political groups. Just imagine if one day all of our remaining general agencies and seminaries were thoroughly devoted to consistently acting with integrity, supportively equipping congregations for ministry, and promoting orthodox United Methodist doctrine and values. Just imagine if God once again so richly blessed us in harvesting new souls into His Kingdom that other evangelical denominations eagerly looked to the United Methodist Church for guidance in effective evangelistic ministry.

We are obviously not yet at that day. But two days after Easter seems like an especially appropriate time to remember that we serve a great triune God through whom all things are possible! We certainly have our work cut out for us. But the God Who entrusted us with profound theological truths our world needs to hear, Who has been behind numerous church renewal movements throughout church history, and Who is the God of atoning self-sacrifice and bodily resurrection is with us and will be with us in the many difficult challenges and exciting corner-turnings ahead of us!

  1. Comment by Christian Salafia on April 2, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    But..but…but I though politicizing worship was a bad thing? Guess the digs at “lefty political pronouncements” must be a mistake, right?

  2. Comment by skotiad on April 3, 2013 at 8:25 pm

    What on earth are you talking about? The article doesn’t even mention worship.
    You seem to be of the opinion that when liberals attempt to dominate a denomination, the rest of us should just shut up and let it happen. Well, too bad. And, FYI, conservatives didn’t politicize the church, the liberals did – we’ve been making a valiant effort to DE-politicize the church and free it up to do what God intended, preach the gospel.

  3. Comment by creedpogue on April 2, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    I was pleasantly surprised to realize that my petition to require a 60% vote to pass a new resolution for the Book of Resolutions was adopted.

    A statistic that shows the dysfunctionality of General Conference is the number of petitions that would have changed the Discipline and passed their legislative committee but weren’t given an up or down vote at plenary. I think it was over 30.

  4. Comment by John Robert Elford on April 2, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    This is unbelievable. To trash your “liberal” brothers and sisters in the name of some kind of orthodoxy that is in your imagination strikes me as so childish and so contrary to historic Methodist notions of holy conferencing. i understand that you disagree with progressive Christian understandings of the faith, but surely you and UMAction can find a better way to engage these ideas than simply calling us names.

    Calling us out for our bad behavior at the last General Conference, with absolutely no evidence to back it up? “Harsh, self-righteous, bullying”? Really? I believe that was the way gay and lesbian United Methodists were treated by your group at GC.

    To claim that there is some kind of “biblical sexual morality” shows a cavalier disregard for scripture–there isn’t one form of sexual morality in scripture and you know it. So who is not taking scripture seriously in this debate?

    To suggest that progressive United Methodists are not “under the Lordship of Christ” when we are absolutely clear in all of our pronouncements that this is precisely what we feel called to do, to practice an all inclusive love as practiced by Jesus, is simply a bald-faced lie. I could go on but I’ll leave it there.

  5. Comment by apcroft33 on April 2, 2013 at 8:10 pm

    You should familiarize yourself with a gentleman named John Wesley, who actually labeled himself a “Bible bigot,” as he “followed it in all things” in his goal of “proclaiming scriptural holiness throughout the land.” He did not seem to share your view that there is no such thing as “biblical sexual morality.” Wesley could out-Puritan any Puritan.

    I am one of several thousand (or perhaps million) ex-UMs in America, and our number is increasing as we find church homes where “scriptural holiness” is not mocked as it is in the UM seminaries and general boards. If you wish to distance yourself from the opinions of Wesley, certainly that is your right, just as I have the right to say that the liberal movements in the UM church are causing Wesley to spin in his grave. He would be horrified at this policitized club that jumps on the bandwagon of whatever loud and obnoxious pressure group can cause the biggest ruckus, and such activity is most decidedly NOT under the lordship of Christ, since he was known to say “My kingdom is not of this world,” while the so-called progressive “Christians” seem to think this is the only world that matters. Wesley could be extremely warmhearted and charming, but if you’d bother to familiarize yourself with his story (obviously not a high priority for UMs these days), you would know he could be extremely harsh toward lapses in church discipline and had no tolerance for false teachings. The UM church websites that advertise “We aren’t big on dogma” certainly don’t follow in Wesley’s footsteps, although I’ve noticed that the liberals have their own dogmas that are not to be questioned, such as the dogma that two men or two women can “marry.” If you want to promote such causes, go right ahead, but at least be honest enough to drop this balderdash about “that what Christ would want.” No one who studied the New Testament could possible believe something that absurd.

    And, just a reminder: your “inclusive” church is shrinking. Have you figured out why? Your liberal agendas drive the best people away. I wouldn’t be too proud of that if I were you.

  6. Comment by sandytnaylor on April 2, 2013 at 8:42 pm

    Sadly, churches adjacent to a large university are always ultra-ultra-trendy and ultra-leftwing, with the clergy shamelessly pandering to whatever the Trend of the Month is. This is very sad, as college kids certainly need models of mature faith, adults who can teach them to take the long (as in eternal) view of things, but the clergy in college churches prefer to let the kids do the leading, glad to assure them that whatever they are “passionate” about is exactly what God approves of. The activists among faculty and students understand how easy it is to manipulate such clergy and enlist them in the latest cause, maybe because it makes the clergy feel they aren’t aging as long as they behave like 20-year-olds. The clergy don’t seem to know, or care, that these activist types have no concern with doing the will of God, they just know that if they apply enough pressure, liberal clergy will always give them the support. I feel very deeply for any pastor who thinks the Christian gospel can be compressed into something as banal as an equal sign. Somehow I see the truth of Christianity as something that doesn’t fit onto a square bumpersticker.

    Thanks much, IRD, for keeping us posted on these church bureaucrats’ shenannigans. I pass such info along to friends and family members who still attend liberal churches, plant a seed, hope that in time they will make the break from this secularized denomination.

  7. Comment by creedpogue on April 3, 2013 at 11:01 am

    “absolutely no evidence to back it up”

    Are you really disputing that activists shut down a democratically elected peaceable assembly of church leaders because they didn’t like the results and demanded that the agenda be changed to their liking before they would allow the assembly to continue?

    What is that other than “harsh,” “self-righteous” and “bullying?” You would be apoplectic if the situation was reversed.

    It should be remembered that the “holy conferencing” that was such a disaster was put in to pave the way for change. It certainly wasn’t at the request of the “traditionalists.”

  8. Comment by gregpaley on April 3, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    Mr. Ellford, your church’s mission statement contains the item “Increase level of composting/recycling” among your members. I don’t oppose either practice, nor do I seem them in conflict with Christianity. However, I do seem them as a symptom of liberalism’s chronic problem: strange priorities. At the Last Judgment, I don’t expect my composting or recycling to be made an issue, at least not based on anything I’ve ever read in the Bible. Call me old-fashioned (I won’t mind), but Christianity is supposed to be a way of getting rid of our sins, reconciling with God, growing in grace. Composting? I don’t think so. And “marriage equality”? Definitely not, unless you’re willing to entirely scrap the Bible.

    Maybe the liberal side needs some lessons in listening to God. I can’t imagine Him making a big issue of composting.

  9. Comment by Marty Parker on April 2, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    Mr. Lomperis’ comments bear no resemblance to the Methodist church(es) I have been part of for most of my 61 years. His transparent glee at insulting all things and all people “liberal” makes me wonder exactly what Jesus he learned about and what personal demons he (Lomperis) is fighting. These remarks are shameful. Oh, and, by the way, I support the RCRC and their dastardly efforts to make reproductive health care safe and available for all. Is it any wonder that, given people like Mr. Lomperis, some people are “‘done waiting 4 more years’ and want RMN to redirect its energies towards the formation of a new, liberal split-off denomination.”

  10. Comment by raybnnstr on April 3, 2013 at 7:10 am

    “Reproductive health care” in practice means “killing unborn children” doesn’t it? That really wouldn’t qualify as “health care” for the child, would it? Why don’t you people be honest and stop using euphemisms? I guess “health care” is easier to sell than “killing the children they conceive.” Killing is killing, no way to hide the nasty reality of it. You’re the same people who pat yourselves on the back for being “compassionate” and caring for the “marginalized.” I cannot imagine sitting in a pew on Sunday with someone who thinks God approves of such practices.

  11. Comment by Nora Mullarkey Miller on April 2, 2013 at 8:53 pm

    As a new United Methodist, I am totally offended with your use of “liberal” and “leftest” in your discussions. Whether it be for gay marriage, social justice, environmental activism, or other issues close to my heart as a liberal, I believe your language totally alienates an entire segment of Methodists. It sounds as though you are a conservative Republican, and hiding that with your words. Whatever, if it means that the United Methodist Church no longer welcomes liberals, then let me be the first to leave and sign up for that new “liberal” United Methodist Church”. Certainly sounds more like the teachings of Jesus than what you are promoting.

  12. Comment by raybnnstr on April 3, 2013 at 7:04 am

    If you want to talk about something that “alienates an entire segment of Methodists,” let’s talk about the liberals who control the seminaries and the national boards. They have done their best to alienate people who believe in the gospel, which is why so many have left. What do you have to complain about anyway? Your side holds most of the power in the denomination, so you should be able to handle a little criticism. If it vexes you that a few UMs are not liberals, by all means go hobnob with the UCC, they have NO conservatives any more, drove them all out years ago. No point in you having to stay in a denomination where there might actually be some (yuck!) people who don’t share your vision of the church as a political tool.

    I don’t find anything in your political religion that “sounds more like the teachings of Jesus,” since Jesus (I’m basing this on the Bible, you understand) never promoted same-sex “marriage” or big government or open borders or any of your favorite causes that you substitute for religion. Maybe you think environmental activism is some mandate from the Bible, but it isn’t.

    I gather from some of these comments that the UM theo-liberals got the word out that someone was daring to criticize them. they constantly bash conservatives, dish it out but sure can’t take it. I trust comments like theirs make the ex-UMs glad they made the switch. Their “tolerance” is just a mask, they aren’t “inclusive” in any way.

  13. Comment by Donnie on April 3, 2013 at 7:01 am

    Excellent article, Mr. Lomperis. You know you’re doing something right when your article brings out all the trolls.

  14. Comment by John Robert Elford on April 3, 2013 at 11:04 pm

    Where to begin?

    1. The IRD website talks about the level of conversation and yet you allow a post to call those of us who disagree “trolls”? Something is just not quite right about that.

    2. I believe the singing at GC that ended one of the sessions could be interpreted in different ways and I recall that it was in response to the lack of any serious attempt at holy conferencing. However, since you mentioned that and not the author, I actually have no idea what the author was referring to.

    3. Be careful what you say about progressive churches. Remember that it’s always best to speak from actual facts rather than making them up. (You are entitled to your own interpretation of them, just not to your own facts.) They are not all dying. And many churches that hold to what the authors might call orthodoxy are dying on the vine. There are many more factors in the life and death of a church than orthodox theology. Our church happens to be growing, as is Trinity UMC, another very progressive church in Austin.

    4. The mission statement comment is typical of the author’s article. A statement is wrenched out of context and then used to make a point about how bad we are in more progressive churches. The bit about composting is in our GREEN MISSION STATEMENT. That’s not our church mission statement. Wouldn’t you expect there to be something about composting or recycling in a mission statement from your church’s green team?

    5. This whole exchange raises two opposing thoughts in my mind. The first is that those on the right really have absolutely no idea what’s going on with their brothers and sisters in more progressive churches. And even when presented with websites and information, they continue to parrot myths (“ultra-trendy University churches”–our church is about as traditional as you can get by the way–choir, organ, church seasons, liturgy, no screens, which of course raises the question that is assumed rather than proved, what is a trendy church?) that I assume they learned from either their pastors or the IRD. So perhaps there is a great need for holy conferencing between the two sides, and not just at GC, but starting now, led by our bishops and in every conference in the UMC. The other thought, in complete opposition to this one, is that Marcus Borg is right. There are two very different Christianities in the USA and in the UMC. One, that I would call either fundamentalism light or Constantinian Christianity, represented by the author, has such a different view of God and of biblical authority, as to make conversation and dialogue and conferencing with more progressive Christians difficult if not impossible.

    6. But I’m not ready to throw in the towel yet or to leave. I will pray for better days ahead for our church and for the differences between us.

  15. Comment by gregpaley on April 4, 2013 at 9:52 am

    I did not see any Green Mission Statement on the website. I’m looking at a page that says Our 2013 Goals, and under “Goal 2: To witness to God’s Love through acts of charity and social justice” is the item “Increase the level of composting/recycling at UUMC.” It’s tempting to ask what composting has to do with God’s love, charity, or social justice, but I won’t ask, because the answer is “Nothing.” As I said in my earlier comments, I have no objections to the practice, but it hardly qualifies as a “ministry” and thus has no place on any church’s agenda, ditto for any “Green Mission Statement.” Christians worship the Creator, not the creation. We’re supposed to follow Christ in saving human beings, not sorting our garbage into separate piles.

    You make the rather audacious statement that we on the right have no idea what is going on in “progressive” churches. Obviously is you read the articles and comments on this site, you would see that we are quite aware, and I believe that is what vexes you. Probably no one in your congregation would dream of asking a simple question like “What does composting have to do with the Christian life?” In scanning your 2013 Goals I laughed out loud numerous times, wondering if the whole thing was a jest. “Offer booties and hats” is a ministry? “Flower Ministry”? “Shower of stoles”? Also, your definition of “Social Justice” seems to be “make gays and lesbians feel good about themselves.” You are correct about a communication problem: Christians are NOT called to be patsies for sexual minorities trying to transform society to suit themselves. I don’t object to be used as a tool by God, but darned if I’d ever allow myself to be a stooge for a very pushy and shrill political pressure group. (This site does a superb job of keeping us apprised of just how shrill and pushy they are.)

    Btw, you claimed that your church has “traditional” services, but your 2013 Goals lists one goal as “Incorporate at least 12 worship services during the year that deviate to a significant extent from the traditional service.” So, are you “traditional” or not? Frankly I couldn’t care less how any church worships. The tradition of moral standards, however, deserves to be taken seriously, and clearly your church bases its ethics not on the Bible or Christian tradition, but on whatever the New York Times editorial page is endorsing at the time.

    I’m glad I read your church’s list of goals, it makes me feel good about breaking away from the mainlines. Politicized churches are an abomination to God, but, thankfully, most of them are dying on the vine.

    Have a lovely day. 🙂

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

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.