In the February General Conference in St. Louis, will the LGBTQ Agenda usurp the will of the majority of 12.3 million United Methodists worldwide?

February 12, 2016

If UMAction Acted Like Liberal UMC Caucuses

UMAction and our friends in other evangelical renewal caucuses in our denomination obviously differ greatly in our core goals and values from those of the theologically liberal United Methodist caucus groups.

But we also differ markedly in our tactics.

What do I mean by that?

Well, imagine in our attempts to influence our church we used the same tactics and methods of the liberal caucus groups.  Here is what it would look like (please read until the end):

At the next board of directors meeting of the very controversially, aggressively liberal United Methodist General Board of Church and Society (GBCS), there would be no more of me sitting quietly in the corner taking notes as I have done for years.

At various times throughout the meeting, I would suddenly interrupt to blurt out talking points or loaded questions to advance my agenda, even when it was not terribly relevant to the topic being discussed. I would do this so often that I crowded out the available time for duly selected board members to speak. I would bring a group of activists, from within and beyond our denomination, to help me with this. We would repeatedly demand that this church agency halt its scheduled business to spend unlimited time pandering to us. Sometimes we would do this by marching around the room singing or chanting loudly about our pet causes.

During break periods, we would combatively hold large signs denouncing the church leaders present as having “NO MORAL AUTHORITY, NO INTEGRITY, NO CREDIBILIY” and stooping to name-calling. We would verbally confront church agency staffers who hurried by without paying us sufficient homage.

Even during worship times, we would loudly interrupt, interjecting our voices, signs, symbols, and slogans to prevent it from being much of a worshipful experience for people.

We would also hand out fliers proudly vowing to forcibly shut down GBCS board meetings to prevent directors and staff from voting on (and thus adopting) any statement or petition with which we disagreed, and boasting recruiting people to stop attending, giving money to, or even praying for any part of the UMC that will not support our agenda.

And if the GBCS board majority voted to say or do anything we disliked, we would greet them at the start of their next session by lying on the ground to obstruct the entrance to the meeting room. Then we would physically force our way into the center of the meeting space to take it over for a look-at-me performance of holding a “communion service” that really used the forms of the sacrament as a tool to denounce and exclude any United Methodist outside of our narrow faction.

And how would the leadership of our denomination react?  Well, here’s how they would if they were consistent with their treatment of liberal caucuses:

They would not even think of calling the police on us or otherwise seeking to cut our disruption any shorter than however long we wanted to have it.

Whichever Western Jurisdiction bishop was president of the GBCS board at the time would go out of his or her way to submissively thank us for our disruptions, would work with the GBCS leadership to shelve much of the church agency’s planned business to make room for hours and hours of sessions to dialogue about our concerns with the explicit goal of advancing our perspective. The majority of GBCS directors would then decide to devote the majority of their General Conference efforts to pandering to us, rudely trampling over directors with a different perspective.

The GBCS would simply remove from its business certain proposals we disliked, according to our unilateral dictates. Its leadership would meekly agree to open a future meeting with a prayer according to our detailed prescriptions, including being very clear in treating our faction as the only one in the church whose pain mattered. They would allow a normally unauthorized speaker, who met our detailed and provocative criteria, to come and address the gathering.

While there would be plenty of private grumbling, not one bishop would have the courage to declare publicly that such tactics were unacceptable and should no longer be tolerated or rewarded. Meanwhile, prominent denominational officials would warn that the strongest critics of such tactics were uniquely sinister monsters trying “to destroy our church.” But these same officials would apparently have no problem with the fliers calling for a withdrawal of presence, support, and prayers from United Methodist churches.

Our behavior would not seem to alienate anyone in the UMC hierarchy, but would even seem to be positively rewarded as various denominational leadership bodies invited us to speak at various dialogue events while they excluded other groups of United Methodists who had a different perspective, who had been very non-disruptive and play-by-the-rules in their tactics, and who had been hurt by our actions.

In turn, we would brag about putting the bishops “on notice,” not showing any respect for the office of the very church leaders who had just bent over backwards to enable, encourage, and do anything but say “no” to us. We would further interrupt the official meetings to protest how we were somehow “excluded” amidst all the pandering, and decry how “violence was done to us” if they let a single person express even the most mild and indirect disagreement with us. Then we would subsequently brag of our victories, declaring to our supporters that our tactics could not possibly be immoral since they achieved results we wanted. We would, like the founder of the MFSA movement’s “Dream UMC” social-media project, declare: “Hey! Protest making legislative change! Awesome.” (UPDATE: Since this article went live, a leader of “Dream UMC” has bizarrely protested my alleging ties between the MFSA movement and “Dream UMC,” the latter of which was founded by an MFSA member, is prominently co-led by the social-media coordinator for MFSA and its allies at the 2012 General Conference, and has been promoted by MFSA.)

Now there are a few things that should be made very clear.

First of all, anyone remotely familiar with UMAction or other renewal groups understands that we would not engage in such tactics, and the very thought is quite laughable. Even if folks like the Connectional Table leadership and others choose to operate with an ethos of “nice guys finish last,” effectively punishing good behavior and rewarding bad behavior, our theological values leave no room for thinking that even the noblest ends can justify any means.

But secondly, every detail in the above scenario reflects actual actions by liberal caucus groups and actual responses by denominational officials. I have written more about such tactics being employed at meetings of the General Conference, Connectional Table, and Council of Bishops. You can read more reports from the United Methodist News Service or in the disruptive liberal caucus activists’ own words.

Thirdly, honesty demands that we abandon wishful thinking about older liberal caucuses like the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA) and the Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN) are somehow distant or more moderate than Amy DeLong’s stridently militant “Love Prevails” protest group. All three work hand-in-glove in their activism, with the two more established liberal caucuses welcoming DeLong’s group into their “Love Your Neighbor” coalition. Top staff of both MFSA as well as RMN have very strongly and broadly expressed support for the work and tactics of Love Prevails.

Fourthly, it is not intellectually honest to treat the competing visions and causes of the evangelical renewal caucuses like UMAction and of the theologically liberal caucuses with moral equivalency. Aside from questions of tactics, the agenda of the renewal caucuses is fundamentally about our ministers having the integrity to be faithful to the orthodox, biblical doctrinal and moral standards they vowed to uphold when they chose to be ordained in our denomination, while the liberal caucuses openly promote disobedience and betrayal of these same standards. The liberal agendas we object to at such church meetings range from blatantly contradicting our church’s own doctrinal standards to supporting lethal harm against unborn children vulnerable to abortion violence to radical, harmful social agendas (like legalizing prostitution or whitewashing North Korean human rights abuses) to actions that, at best, amount to a certain liberal U.S. faction seeking to divert the resources of the church into supporting a hyper-partisan political agenda to suit their own preferences.

It is also worth noting that while LGBTQ protesters disrupting church meetings explicitly describe their motivation as defending themselves, those of us who more quietly object to church officials making absolutist defenses of all abortions are defending others, a class of people who cannot speak for themselves and from whom we could never gain any conceivable political advantage from any sort of “I’ll support your cause if you support mine” coalition-building. And it is worth noting that our objection to GBCS and General Conference resolutions defending the destruction of unborn children and human embryos are in an entirely different category, as this is the only class of human beings whose worthiness of protection from killing and dismemberment is ever questioned within UMC agencies and conferences.

Finally, if UMAction or another renewal caucus ever did a fraction of the above actions, liberal United Methodists would feel very upset, express outrage, and demand that we not be allowed to keep treating people like this.

So then, when they call themselves the “Love Your Neighbor” coalition, where is the commitment of liberal United Methodists to treating those of us outside of their faction as they would want to be treated, and to stopping tactics from their own allies that fall short of that Golden Rule?

27 Responses to If UMAction Acted Like Liberal UMC Caucuses

  1. Isaac says:

    I’ve got to stop reading your site. Things are so bad in the UMC on a general level that I want to hide under a rock.

  2. John D Copenhaver Jr says:

    You wrote: “At the next board of directors meeting of the very controversially, aggressively liberal United Methodist General Board of Church and Society (GBCS), there would be no more of me sitting quietly in the corner taking notes as I have done for years.” So, I’m wondering as you champion the Golden Rule, does the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD) allow its detractors to attend the Board meetings and quietly take notes?

    • gui1hermegano says:

      You’re one of the JoeMyGod devotees, always spewing their hate on Christian blogs. No Christian would lurk around that hate blog. Very telling that “gay Christians” are very much into being gay, but “Christian” in name only. You’ve helped drain the mainline churches of millions of members – you proud of forcing the Christians out? Empty pews are nothing to be proud of.

      • John D Copenhaver Jr says:

        I don’t know anything about a JoeMyGod blog. I don’t hate anyone–“Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.” Romans 13.8 (ESV) The Christians I know who are gay or lesbian are often among the most dedicated disciples of Christ.

        • John D Copenhaver Jr says:

          Yes, and this piece I published for An Altar for All addresses it.

          About twenty years ago, after a long study of scripture and theology[1], I came to the conclusion that homosexuality was not a sin but a sexual orientation. Although the causes of human sexual orientation have not been fully explained by science, it is clear that sexual orientation forms at a very early age and that it is seldom a matter of choice. As the Biblical authors wrote long before a scientific understanding of sexuality, it is apparent that they believed God created all people as heterosexuals and only those who perverted their God-given heterosexuality turned to homosexuality. Further, the Biblical authors associated homosexuality with temple prostitution and idolatry—it is hardly surprising that they condemned it. Even as we affirm their rejection of temple prostitution and idolatry, we can no longer accept their mistaken assumption of a universal heterosexuality.

          Today our church recognizes sexual orientation but calls on homosexuals to practice celibacy. For the apostle Paul, celibacy was a gift, a charism, for those who could live happily without sexual intimacy. Why should we assume that all homosexuals have this gift when so few heterosexuals embrace it? When heterosexuals marry we expect them to live in committed, loving relationships—when homosexuals embrace these same ethical obligations we should be able to offer them our unqualified affirmation. As I recently wrote in a letter to our local newspaper:

          Today there are many Christians and Christian denominations that support same sex marriage. We don’t do this because of relativism or because of accommodation to “liberal” values. We believe God blesses committed, loving relationships regardless of sexual orientation. We believe that denying homosexual couples the right to marry is a justice issue and violation of their civil rights [2].

          As the leaders of the early church had to overcome their prejudice toward Samaritans (Acts 8) and gentiles (Acts 10), the contemporary United Methodist Church must overcome our prejudice toward people of differing sexual orientations. In the 19th and 20th centuries, after painful division and much conflict, Methodists finally overcome ugly racial oppression and exclusion. In the 20th century, the United Methodist Church grew to appreciate the gifts and graces of women in church leadership. It is past time to recognize and embrace the gifts that our LGBT brothers and sisters bring to our church. We only impoverish ourselves by excluding them from church leadership and from marriage.

          • Skipper says:

            Sexual perversion has no place in God’s morality. You see God is holy. Making up your own morality is very dangerous. One day you may wish you had thought better of God’s Way and sought His protection.

            “For this is God’s will, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality … Therefore, the person who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who also gives you His Holy Spirit.” 1 Thessalonians 4:3.

          • John D Copenhaver Jr says:

            Well, I don’t think I fit you definition of a “pervert.” I’m a monogamous, heterosexual person. I’ve been faithful in my 37 year marriage to my wife. But, that doesn’t mean that I think a committed, loving same-sex marriage is any less pleasing to God.

          • Skipper says:

            I was talking about what you were recommending. Romans 1 is so clear on this. We need to be careful what we recommend for others. Jesus said it will be terrible for people who cause even one of His little followers to sin in Matt 18:6 and Luke 17:2. Jesus really cares about His people. He is not kidding about the repercussions of harming them found in these passages (better to be thrown in the sea with a millstone around your neck). When one’s own sense of morality differs from God’s, you know it’s always best to stick with God’s. He knows what’s best and His rules are there to help us and protect us. Still, we often find ourselves rebelling and having to turn back to God.

          • John D Copenhaver Jr says:

            Paul is even more clear about the role of women in the church, but most of us ignore those texts today. I’m sorry but when you talk about harming “one of these little ones” I hope you remember the harm LGBTQ people feel when they are told their sexual orientation is deviant and that they are sinners to act on their desires while heterosexuals desires are normal and healthy. Many have gotten the message and it has resulted in suicides, depression and alienation from the Christian community. Have you seen the film “For the Bible Tells Me So.” It tells story after story of the harm felt and of parents who condemned their gay son or lesbian daughter for their orientation who later committed suicide.

          • Skipper says:

            You are changing the subject, but men and women do have different roles. All the priests in the Old Testament were required to be men and all Jesus’ disciples were men, for example. Although I don’t know why, it is not happenstance. Back to the subject:
            Sexually confused people are in a difficult situation and need extra care. But that does not change God’s rules on morality. They can control their desires like we are all supposed to do. It is immoral for them to act on their desires, just like those with normal sexual response (unless spouse of course). No one is excused. While we should feel sorry for anyone with problems, all people need to repent and turn back to God. We need to bring them back to God and excusing bad behavior leaves them where they don’t need to be – in the dark. Truly helping them is not quick, it’s not easy, but is part of our job.

          • John D Copenhaver Jr says:

            Many of my LGBTQ friends are among the most committed Christians I know. They don’t need to be “brought back to God.” They never left God. Of course, their orientation is not the “norm.” Only 3-7% of people have a gay of lesbian orientation. The Biblical authors knew nothing of sexual orientation. They assumed all people were born heterosexual and that a homosexual attraction represented a turning from “natural” desires. It was also associated with idolatry and temple prostitution. No wonder Paul condemned. I can understand his condemnation of temple prostitution and idolatry–I condemn them too. But today science informs us that sexual orientation is biologically rooted. It is natural and homosexuals who try to become heterosexuals do violence to themselves. We Wesleyan have the Wesleyan Quadrilateral–we use reason (including science), tradition and experience in interpreting scripture. Let’s use the brains and tools God gives us to understand scripture. God gives more light to the Church. This is our task today–to remove the barriers to full inclusion of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

          • Skipper says:

            No, we can’t call evil good. It is not right. By the way, it is a choice, for God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this very evil. If God had made them that way, He could not have destroyed them for being evil.

          • John D Copenhaver Jr says:

            Please read this–it is the shortest treatment of the “clobber texts” about homosexuality. Walter Wink was a distinguished Biblical scholar at Auburn Theological Seminary. I’m familiar with the arguments for the traditional interpretation of those texts. When you have read this I think we can have a better dialogue.

          • Skipper says:

            You seem content with the False Gospel of the Progressives and who they ultimately serve. I am happy accepting God’s morality and serving Him. You can fool yourself if you wish. I can’t stop you. If you we a child, you would need a spanking. But you are an adult and responsible for your actions. Good luck my friend.

          • Nutstuyu says:

            Blah blah blah the poor widdle LGBTQRSXYZ had their feelings hurt. These folks are actually the most highly educated, wealthiest and media- and corporate-powerful “oppressed minority” there ever was. How do you think the pedosexual feels when you impose your artificial age barriers on them? How do you think the pansexual and polysexual feel when you suddenly hold “couple” as sacrosanct?

          • Nutstuyu says:

            Why not a loving committed three- or four-person marriage? Do we not hold up Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David as fathers of our faith? Or do you just follow what’s popular in society?

          • DanH says:

            You concluded that because you enjoy it, it’s not a sin.

            Wow, the ultimate self-serving theology.

  3. Skipper says:

    This is terrific! Every delegate needs a copy as soon as possible!

  4. Dan says:

    I think the phrase “defining deviance down” covers their liberal, heterodox agenda and tactics quite nicely. I find it more than disconcerting that the majority of the UMC clergy who associate with these activist groups aren’t even Christians; i.e., according to a Barna survey 51% of UMC clergy do not believe in the resurrection of Christ – the core belief of Christianity. If they had any personal integrity they would leave and find a suitable non-Christian denomination.

  5. Daniel R. Gangler says:

    I wish you had other things to do in life than bash the General Board of Church and Society. Why not try a service project, mission trip or help defend the civil rights of all Americans. I joined The United Methodist Church in 1968 because the church supported the civil rights movement when conservative Christians thought segregation was okay. The IRD is anti-mainline United Methodist. I’m a progressive United Methodist and have no plans to leave my church. Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour of my life. God’s Spirit is life and light. I don’t live in the darkness of hatred. God is our strength and salvation.

    • 0pus35 says:

      You’re lucky being progressive, it’s easy to find a parking spot at church.

      • Daniel R. Gangler says:

        The parking lot at the church I worship at is full on Sunday morning. Our church has both conservatives and progressives worshipping together.

    • Kangaroo52 says:

      If Jesus is your Lord and Savior, do you think he approves of you confusing disapproval with hatred? That’s what leftists do, constantly – disapproval of homosexuality = hatred for gays. Nope! Sorry! Not true! You’re old enough to understand “Hate the sin but love the sinner,” so stop accusing millions of good Christian people of being “haters.” I know that you feel good using phrases like “I don’t live in the darkness of hatred,” you’re lying when you say that evangelicals are haters.

      • Daniel R. Gangler says:

        In our state’s struggle to approve of civil rights for LGBT people, I have been told to my face hat if I didn’t change my mind in support of gay and lesbian Christians, I would spend eternity in hell. If that isn’t hatred, what is? I compliment you for your attitude, but I assure you that other Christians aren’t so kind.

        • Nutstuyu says:

          Why do you only support “gays” and “lesbians”? Why not bisexuals and polysexuals too? After all, nearly every significant figure or patriarch in the Bible had multiple wives. Your “progressive” agencies should be pushing to allow those actually-Biblical marriages.

      • John D Copenhaver Jr says:

        If hating the sin/loving the sinner entails excluding someone from leadership in the church, and refusing to respect or honor his or her marriage, that would feel a lot like hatred.

    • Namyriah says:

      I worked for the Board of Discipleship for 4 yrs, there was plenty to bash then, even more now, ditto for the other national boards. The BCS was about as Christian as a coven. Working for the UM, seeing them substitute secular leftism for Christianity, I fled that sinking ship long ago – oh, me and a few million other people.

      Keep on with the progressive religion, you drive more and more people into the Christian churches every day – your loss is our gain.

      “The IRD is anti-mainline United Methodist.”
      Well, DUH.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *