Rev. Beth Ann Cook is a pastor in the Indiana Conference of the United Methodist Church. Her open letter was e-mailed out on May 27 via the Indiana Confessing Movement, of which she is the president. Posted here with permission.
Dear UMC Brothers and Sisters,
For almost a week I’ve watched you react on social media to the press release from 80 conservative leaders who are calling for a peaceful division in The United Methodist Church.
I want to affirm your grief. I hear agonizing heartbreak behind your Tweets, Facebook posts and blogs. You love The UMC! I hear you saying that one of the things you most appreciate about our church is that it has been a theological “big tent”. Your grief is real and raw.
I too have been grieving. I’m a little further along in that journey because as a delegate to the Tampa General Conference I saw first-hand bad the situation had become. I was shell shocked on the closing night-as were most participants. We’ve always had disagreements but Tampa was different; the vitriol and dysfunction led to a complete breakdown. I remember sitting with two friends who are on opposite sides of the theological spectrum. One looked at the other and said, “the split will come in 2016.” My heart ached—but I knew it was truth.
As long as we had an agreed upon process for making decisions and were, at least tacitly, living within that process, we could be a “big tent”. That is no longer the case.
Our most progressive brothers and sisters sincerely believe they are called to challenge the status quo by disobeying what they perceive as unjust laws. For them it is a social justice issue. I have deep respect for them for having courage in their convictions and realize that they are sincerely seeking to follow Jesus.
The Council of Bishops has demonstrated that it is unable or unwilling to rein them in. (I honestly think they are as divided as the rest of the church.)
That leaves folks like me in a conundrum. Orthodox evangelicals hold high view of the authority of Scripture; we also believe that it is clear that acting on same sex attraction is sin. The way things stand in the UMC, we find ourselves complicit in what we firmly believe is false teaching. Jesus said it is better to have a millstone placed around your neck and be thrown into the sea! Someday I will have to stand before my Lord and Savior.
So there you have it. Neither side of the theological divide can adopt the “agree to disagree” middle way that some have proposed. The very act of compromise would violate deeply held convictions. Both are at the place Luther found himself when he had to say: “here I stand, I can do no other, God help me, amen.”
One of the most helpful classes I took in seminary was on family counseling. Our professor taught us many useful things including the five stages of grief and how to apply family systems theory in the local parish. I learned that anger is an inherent part of grieving.
Denial is, I recall, also part of the grieving process. Some maintain that only a relatively small percentage of our church holds these two mutually exclusive positions. I actually think that many in our church have strong convictions on this issue. I could be wrong–and only time will tell for certain.
I also learned that when someone names dysfunction in a family system and says that he or she will no longer live with that dysfunction other family members pressure that person to conform to the old patterns of behavior.
It is important for you to know that those who have named the brokenness of The UMC are not going to back down. Neither are the extreme progressives.
This means that, one way or another, The UMC as we knew it is gone. If there is no formal division, there will be a quiet exodus of those who cannot stay.
Let that reality sink in.
I encourage you to grieve well and honestly.
When you’ve had some time to process through this, I encourage you to join me in trying to make the best of the “new normal”.
I think Luke 6:31 is a good place to start. Jesus said, “Do to others as you would like them to do to you.” What does that look like in this situation? I also invite you to join me in prayer: “Lord, help us treat each other like Christians in the midst of this”.
I’m trusting that our God is able to work in, through, and around our brokenness. Perhaps the way we treat each other in the midst of disagreement can be a powerful witness in itself.
Your Sister in Christ,
Beth Ann Cook
Indiana Annual Conference
Comment by David F. Miller on June 4, 2014 at 10:01 am
I too have been dealing with sadness at what is happening in the UMC. I have been a member for nearly 28 years. I am a Sunday School teacher and Certified Lay Servant. The recent actions of liberal Ministers and Bishops have left me wondering if I should leave the UMC. I challenged my new minister to convince me to stay. I am not yet convinced. I do sense that the clergy really do not care if members come or go. I have stayed because of a hope for revival but am more doubtful of that than ever. Pray that the UMC can regain its orthodox roots.
Dave Miller
Comment by CDGingrich on June 7, 2014 at 8:05 am
The bishops and clergy seem to hold their paychecks as top priority. My wife and I left the UMC last year and found a wonderful Wesleyan church.
Comment by Stan on November 5, 2018 at 3:57 pm
that’s a pretty broad and judgmental statement. I left a lucrative position as an engineer 25 years ago at God’s call. In 2008, I lost all the equity in my home – because itinerancy. I can’t speak for any other clergy but your words sting for all those who have made monetary, family and friendship sacrifices to be ordained and follow God’s call.
Comment by Paul Hare on January 6, 2020 at 7:39 pm
Dave,
Don’t give up on the Methodist church.
Though we have many flaws, we are, as John Wesley, striving everyday for perfection – a goal not obtainable but we are ever trying to improve.
The traditionalist are wanting to start a church based on Scriptures and Wesleyan beliefs.
What amazes me is that the traditionalist are painted or labeled as haters or other vile names.
No where does it say in the WCA’s statements or beliefs that people are denied access to worship, baptism, or the Sacraments. All are welcomed.
Bishops and pastors, ordained or licensed, certified lay leaders and speakers are held to the Scriptures and Current Book of Discipline.
Please hold fast to the Methodist Church and pray on how you can help guide the traditional church.
Comment by Pudentiana on June 5, 2014 at 2:02 pm
I have every expectation that the Holy Spirit is digging around those roots and pouring out nutrients, but also pruning, too. Abide and stay in this branch of His Glorious Church. Do not allow the storm to tear you away. Cling to His Promises and Live the Life of the Spirit: Speak the Truth in Love and be gracious as He is gracious. Shun evil, but love the one who is confused. His Kindness brings us to repentance. Repentance, however, is a necessary requirement of Revival.
Comment by CDGingrich on June 7, 2014 at 8:06 am
The UMC is not “The Church”.
Comment by Pudentiana on June 9, 2014 at 11:17 am
But it is part of the Church because it has many Christians who worship and serve there and consider Christ as their Head.
Comment by John S. on June 9, 2014 at 7:09 am
Christians will stay with the Church, the question rather: Is the UMC part of the Church? Other than stinging together a bunch of platitudes that avoid the issue what are you really saying? Answer questions: Who is to be pruned? What evil is to be shunned? Of what are we to repent? This type of insipid moralizing is part of the problem. It would have been easier to say “Can’t we all just get along?”
Comment by Pudentiana on June 9, 2014 at 10:30 am
The pruning should be according to the Discipline. We are to shun the evil which is being promoted by those hostilely promoting same sex acceptance into our order. We are to repent accepting the worldly teaching from Kinsey et al. which was included in our training on relations in earlier decades. We are to promote celibacy in singleness for all members, not just clergy. I don’t accept the “all get along” premise because we don’t, can’t and won’t as long as the primacy of Scripture is denied in our seminaries and a new “gospel” of social justice is being lifted above the Wesleyan call to holiness of heart and mind.
Comment by John S. on June 10, 2014 at 6:47 am
And yet the BOD is now flagrantly violated and ignored at all levels of the UMC,Annual conferences to Bishops to Laity. Is the problem “hostile” promotion or promotion of same sex acceptance? Does celibacy in singleness (which I believe the BOD enjoins on all members not just clergy) allow for homosexuality within the confines of marriage? Does celibacy in singleness allow for “serial monogamy” as people marry, divorce and remarry and repeat? If it doesn’t what should we do? Call out those who are not celibate? Call out those who divorce? And what does call out mean? Public naming and shaming? Denial of the sacraments? No church office or position? The UMC would never contenance refusing their offerings.
The gospel of social justice has been part of the Methodist message and mission since the 19th century. Its primacy is a major part of the splits in the early 20th century which gave us such denominations as the Nazarenes. I would also point out that while the Weslyan Quadrilateral gives lipservice to the primacy of scripture its practice leads to the current status.
Hard questions that require hard answers and harder action. Failure to do that has caused the UMC to drift into its current jam. To quote “1776” the play, “Its a revolution dammit, we’re going to offend somebody!”
Comment by Pudentiana on June 10, 2014 at 3:23 pm
Points well-taken. That is why the UMC must be divided and be not united. It isn’t anyway. Let us endeavor to keep the remnant intact and be gracious in the bond of peace. I mean: not fight. We can with grace discern how to extricate ourselves. There has to be a godly way to do this without being filled with resentment and bitterness.
Comment by Dusty Herring on June 21, 2014 at 9:51 am
OK John, I have no intention of trying to be offensive. You asked honest questions and I’m willing to respond with honest “hard answers”:
“Is the problem “hostile” promotion or promotion of same sex acceptance?”
Both. The progressive/liberals have showed nothing but contempt and hostility for our BOD evidenced also with their continuous disruptions of Holy Conferencing. And, homosexual practice is a chosen sinful behavior that cannot be approved or condoned by the Church.
“Does celibacy in singleness (which I believe the BOD enjoins on all members not just clergy) allow for homosexuality within the confines of marriage?”
No. The BOD is clear in the correct Biblical interpretation that homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching.
“Does celibacy in singleness allow for “serial monogamy” as people marry, divorce and remarry and repeat?”
No. Jesus teaches us in Matthew 19:6 that marriage should be for life.
“If it doesn’t what should we do?”
We need to take marriage more seriously as in “till death do we part”. We need to teach our young people that marriage for most should be a once in a lifetime event. Of course marrying again after the death of a spouse is perfectly acceptable.
“Call out those who are not celibate? Call out those who divorce? And what does call out mean? Public naming and shaming?”
Not to “call out” from the pulpit, but the Pastor should privately approach and advise those members who are not upholding our call to holiness and explain the error of their ways.
“Denial of the sacraments?”
Possibly. There is historic precedence for this with John Wesley and the wider universal Church.
“No church office or position?”
Yes. If someone is wantonly living a life of sinful depravity then they should not be in a leadership or teaching position. This is why the Pastor is always the chair of the nominations committee.
The problem with “the gospel of social justice” is that it has become so warped that it is no longer the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
There is no problem with the Wesleyan Quadrilateral when approached correctly. The progressive/liberals now disregard Scripture entirely as outdated or irrelevant and claim a new enlightenment through reason (questionable psychological studies) and experience (secular pop-culture).
Comment by John S. on June 23, 2014 at 6:58 am
You touched at my point in the questions. The UMC (or most denominations for that matter) has little standing to condem homosexual sin when it stands silent on hetrosexual sin. What is “wantonly living a life of depravity”? Cohabitation? Serial monogamy? Does the pastor stopping by for a private word do anything? When the pastor in VA denied membership to a homosexual a couple years ago he was hailed as a hero. What if he had denied membership to a couple living together or on the 3rd or 4th marriage? When an unmarried couple presents its children for baptism do you ever see a Pastor have any difficulty asking the parents if they renounce sin or accepting their answer? Given the continual preaching on an open table for UMC communion who/how can a decision be made to deny communion?
Comment by Dusty Herring on June 25, 2014 at 9:28 am
Your points are well taken. The push to accept homosexual practice as compatible with Christian teaching is “the straw that broke the camel’s back” for majority of us in the UMC that are traditional/orthodox. We do also need to address the other issues of: abortion, divorce, cohabitation, and serial marriages. Of these, divorce may be the most difficult to deal with, because today the marriage vows are not taken seriously. We have to admit that there are marriages that were never blessed or joined by God; people commonly get married for all the wrong reasons and we also cannot tolerate or condone spousal abuse.
“Wanton sexual depravity?”: Any sexual conduct outside of fidelity in heterosexual marriage and celibacy in singleness. It really is that simple.
Our Pastors are our Pastors seven days a week, not just on Sunday. They are our earthly Shepherds and we should take their advice and guidance seriously at all times. And, we must realize that there are consequences for our action which may lead to removal from our leadership positions, removal from membership, and/or denial of the Sacraments. (BTW, I think marriage and ordination should both be raised to the level of official Sacraments.)
I think the “open table” has been a mistake. Historically, the Church has always required Baptism before allowing the partaking of the Eucharist. This is clear in The Didache which was written in the late first, or early second, century. John Wesley desired that we return to the practice of the early Church. Today, we know a whole lot more about the early Church and we should pursue that goal.
Comment by John S. on June 26, 2014 at 7:34 am
I will refer you to the Reformers on the error of expanding the Scraments.
Marriages that were never blessed or joined by God is a standard by which the RC now grant annullment far more easily. Is not the idea marriage as an institution is created and blessed by God that individuals then take part of when they marry? That even people who marry with the wrong ideas or expectations (ie-everyone) can be blessed within the confines of marriage by the action of God?
The open table is more than baptism before partaking. One reason the UMC likes open tables is it precludes judgement on a person’s actions. Don’t want to offend or scare off a potential member.
Why ” The push to accept homosexual practice as compatible with Christian teaching is “the straw that broke the camel’s back” … when the UMC has been winking at, ignoring or even embracing other sins? Why is homosexual practice so much worse than other practices of sin?
BTW traditional does not equal orthodox and vice versa.The terms are not coequal. One can be traditional and not orthodox. One can be orthodox and not tradtional. One can also be orthodox in belief but not in practice which leads to train wrecks like this.
Comment by Dusty Herring on June 30, 2014 at 9:30 am
It’s because of my study of the theologies of the Great Reformers that I question the wisdom of some of their decisions. As Methodists we are most closely related to The Church of England and The Episcopal Church. Our separation from the CoE was necessitated by the American Revolution, not because of a doctrinal or theological schism. Our founders, John and Charles Wesley, remained Anglican priests for their entire lives and are celebrated with their own CoE feast day on March 3rd. I’ve been hearing a lot of conversation among Clergy and Lay Servants lately, that if the conservative and liberal branches of the UMC formally separate, the conservative branch should doctrinally move closer to our roots. I think the continuing discussions of the “Sacredness” of marriage and ordination will be inevitable even after the split.
As I view the Church of England as our Parent, I view the Roman Catholic Church as our Grandparent. We still have many things in common with the RCC and maybe a Methodist version of annulments may be a good thing. I don’t know exactly how that would work, or that we would ever do that, but it makes for good classroom conversation.
One position that will not change for those of us that are traditional/orthodox, is that a “real” marriage is the blessed joining of one man and one woman. There really is no such thing as a homosexual marriage. Yes, the UMC has been very weak on other sinful practices and we need to fix that. Homosexual practice is clearly condemned by Scripture to anyone who is being intellectually honest. That is why the leaders in the liberal movement are now taking the position that the Scripture says what it says but it’s now irrelevant for the modern age.
Our open table is an example of our failed theological “big tent”. We need to be more concerned about the salvation of souls than the numbers on the membership rolls. Of course membership is important to our institution but we’ve become more like a social club than a Church.
I fully understand the difference in meaning of “traditional” and “orthodox”. The high-church practice of the liberal Episcopal Church is traditional even though they’ve moved away from orthodox Christianity. In the Methodist context, I relate “traditional” to our historic view of marriage, family, and holy living. “Orthodox” is our view of Scripture as authoritative and infallible as our guide to salvation and holy living.
Comment by Pudentiana on June 9, 2014 at 10:31 am
I specifically cited “branch” which I consider the UMC to be at present as long as our Doctrine and Discipline is the based on Scripture; and it still is.
Comment by John S. on June 10, 2014 at 6:34 am
Yes, I know, but branch is a part of the whole unless you are saying the branch needs to be pruned?
Comment by Pam on January 6, 2020 at 5:57 am
I am reminded by the dialogue thread above of the lack of expository preaching behind the pulpit. How can we not expect sin to be more and more prevalent if the gospel has been diluted for years. Most churched people are biblically illiterate because they are encouraged to read books and material by “people” that tell them what to believe instead of reading and studying doctrinal truth that teaches us how to live. God has the answers for us; let’s look to His Word, interpret it correctly, and go from there.
Comment by Actuary Lady on June 7, 2014 at 7:30 am
As a lifelong Methodist whose great-great grandfather was a circuit rider in Illinois, I too am saddened by this rift. Thanks, Rev. Cook, for your caring and thoughtful and realistic comments, yet acknowledgment that we must adhere to the Truth of Scripture on which Christ’s Church and our precious denomination were founded.
Comment by MarcusRegulus on June 7, 2014 at 2:40 pm
I was baptized in a little country church in Southern Illinois back when it was the Methodist Episcopal Church, before the union with the EUB. In that environment, there was very little difference between a General Association of General Baptist church and a Methodist church.
To my sorrow, I saw the UMC begin to deviate more and more from what it had been, to the point where political correctness trumped the older thinking. Perhaps the Union was not such a good idea, or perhaps the change would have happened anyway. Division need not be a Bad Thing, if the parting can be as amicable as the joining.
And, perhaps for those more conservative dissenters, the old name, Methodist Episcopal could be revived?
Comment by Mark Byron on June 8, 2014 at 9:58 am
Given that the Episcopal church is firmly in the liberal camp and conservative Episcopalians are switching to Anglican, Methodist Episcopal would be sending a mixed message to most folks; blacks would be the exception, where AME churches use that construct in their title.
Comment by Dusty Herring on June 21, 2014 at 8:36 am
I’ve been thinking about these things as well. After the inevitable split the name “United Methodist Church” should be retired. We have never been “United”, like Rev Cook just pointed out, we’ve tried to be “a big theological tent” but that has never worked out. I do like the idea of reclaiming the name Methodist Episcopal Church, that was our original founding name given in 1784. Another naming option might be Methodist Orthodox Church. We’ll also need a complete revision of the Book of Discipline to clarify and highlight traditional/orthodox doctrine and clearly define the immediately implemented penalties for defying our Scripture based Church laws.
Comment by Jenna Busick on January 4, 2020 at 11:36 am
Please do not hold that the union with the EUB church was the downfall of the MC. I was baptised into the EUB church 60 years ago (a country church where my grandparents, parents, cousins, and friends gathered each week) and have not through the years enjoyed the union of the two. My little home church had a firm foundation and I believe has weakened with the union.
Comment by bgluck on June 7, 2014 at 4:29 pm
I grew up in a UMC in high school and went to a charismatic church after I graduated. That was where I discovered the Holy Spirit and really dove into the Bible. No one from my youth group (20 or so of us) goes to church now which is a shame and travesty. I blame our church for not teaching the word and guiding the youth into a honest and true relationship with Christ. That being said, the few times I’ve been back have been painful for me. The church feels “dead” and the new pastor preaches on tv shows instead of the Bible. I have no idea how people still attend.
Comment by Tom Finley on June 16, 2014 at 3:11 pm
I so agree. So sad. Bless you for your honesty. The liberals are destroying our church. May God help us…..as we can’t help ourselves, evidently.
Comment by Brandon Collins on April 8, 2019 at 4:23 pm
Where was homosexuality on Jesus’s list of priorities? Do you see homosexuality being discussed (I mean discussed, not just eluded to) in the red print in your bible? Are there any parables about it?
Is homosexuality a sin or not? There is scripture to support it as such, but I think “our most progressive brothers and sisters” (as referred in the above article) have a very valid stance (because I truly believe there stance is rooted in love & grace).
One thing I can tell you for sure. Homosexuals are sinners. As I am a sinner. As you are a sinner. As your pastor is a sinner. As every clergy or lay person on this earth is a sinner.
So, why would we treat them any differently than any other sinner?
So, in this time of uncertainty let us lean to the side of grace and love because that is the stuff I see in the red print.
Comment by Glenda Carlton on January 6, 2020 at 12:07 pm
Please take a breath and say I will just love and let God lead me. Do nothing quickly. I have always been with the United Meth Church and sometimes I agree and sometimes I do not and sometimes I have learned I was wrong and not right. I have been of the United Meth faith for 53 years and probably be the same til I die. I do not have to agree with everything but do have to LOVE.
Comment by Mike S on February 20, 2023 at 10:08 pm
It’s been nine years since this post was written. Beth was quite prescient, as denial is one of the themes we’re hearing from the “Stay UMC” side…”nothing has changed, everything’s fine, the BOD hasn’t changed”.
While that’s true, what they’re not saying is that the doctrinal standards of the UMC are gradually being treated as historical artifacts under the guise of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Granted, this WQ was not named until centuries after Wesley’s passing, but that was part of the legacy John Wesley brought over from the Anglicans. Tradition, experience, and reason were intended as tools to unravel conundrums presented in applying Scripture, but Scripture remained pre-eminent. Nowadays, while the canards that the UMC will “rewrite the Bible” aren’t exactly accurate, they will make use of reason and experience to diminish the force of Scripture and tradition.
But everything’s fine…