2020 began with widespread agreement among all major factions of the United Methodist Church that the time has come for a denominational split. By the end of the year, some made waves by announcing their alleged formation of the Liberation Methodist Connexion (for which they use the acronym LMX) as an ultra-liberal alternative to the orthodox Global Methodist Church and the liberal post-separation UMC (psUMC). The LMX website has predictably touted its commitment to the “full inclusion” of people (implicitly in church leadership) regardless of their “races and ethnicities” or “gender expressions and sexual identity”—but also extended its “full inclusion” to less common things, like “use of drugs” and “monogamous and non-monogamous” lifestyles. Its Facebook posts promote such far-left causes as demonizing Christian missionaries and raising money to help facilitate elective abortions.
But a new public announcement indicates that the LMX effort appears to be failing.
This leaves United Methodists who desire to remain connected with a critical mass of other current United Methodists after the split with only two live options rather than three. Despite its small size, understanding what happened with the LMX has important implications for the rest of us.
The Liberation Methodist Connexion had seemed to me to be almost a myth, with little concrete evidence of any actual denomination being formed. As far as I could observe, the attention given to the LMX primarily served as a rhetorical foil to help institutionalist liberals advance their agenda. Institutionalist liberals could complain about how the widely supported “Protocol” peace treaty to divide our denomination allocated less money of currently shared denominational assets (to which LMX supporters have contributed relatively little) for the LMX than for the GMC. This served to conveniently distract from the objective facts of the Protocol’s financial settlement. That settlement actually amounts to letting United Methodists who support our denomination’s official, historic doctrinal and moral standards keep less than 10 percent of our assets to which we have contributed greatly, while letting institutionalist liberals permanently take over almost all the rest.
More importantly, talk about the supposed formation of the LMX could help institutionalist liberals disingenuously deny that the psUMC will be a liberal denomination, by saying such things as, “No, the Liberation Methodist Connexion will be the liberal denomination, but the psUMC is going to be CENTRIST!”
I have been skeptical of the Liberation Methodist Connexion ever amounting to a remotely sizable group. Last year, Dan Moran reported about how many of the LMX founders’ theologically like-minded former partners have effectively committed to staying with and shaping the psUMC, while even the LMX itself awkwardly talked about how its people would not have to choose one denomination over another.
So I have chosen to frame the coming split as a primarily two-way divide, in deliberate contrast to how others have talked about a three-way split. Yes, the UMC has more than just two factions. But the GMC and psUMC remain the only two denominations-to-be with major, large-scale administrative efforts appropriate for as massive a task as organizing a denomination on the other side of the UMC split.
My choice seems vindicated by the recent announcement on the Liberation Methodist Connexion website indicating that the LMX has made no major progress on administratively organizing a new denomination since its official launch last year, and admitting they have actually faced major setbacks since then.
The announcement mentions how the LMX organizers have collectively faced “internal distrust,” working-group members not attending meetings, failure to reach consensus on key questions, and no new collaborators. It should be no huge surprise that people who have often chosen to be insufferably obnoxious in refusing to play nicely with conservative United Methodists have also struggled to get along with themselves.
The Liberation Methodist Connexion not only failed to draw new people, but has also (already!) suffered massive defections. The website originally listed more than 40 “LMX Collaborators” but now lists less than 20 remaining in the “LMX Collaborate.” Early collaborators who apparently defected from the LMX included several with relative prominence, who potentially could have drawn more people into the LMX if they had stuck with it:
- Rev. Alka Lyall, the current chair of the Northern Illinois delegation, who is known to have ambitions to become bishop;
- Professor Darryl Stephens, Director of United Methodist Studies at Lancaster Theological Seminary and chair of order of deacons in the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference;
- Drew Theological School professor Althea Spencer-Miller;
- Non-binary deacon activist and former Reconciling Ministries Network staffer M Barclay; and
- Former General Board of Church and Society staffer Bill Mefford
One defector deserves special mention. Rev. Alex da Silva Souto appeared to be the primary LMX organizer. He was quoted in a Religion News Service report on the LMX launch, was an organizer of a March 2020 gathering planning for the LMX. The LMX’s listed mailing address has been in the same small Connecticut town as the United Methodist congregation da Silva Souto pastored until recently. His Twitter profile still identifies him with the websites of both the LMX and the (“now inactive”) UM-Forward caucus. Earlier, da Silva Souto was one of two co-convenors of the UMC’s unofficial Queer Clergy Caucus.
But now he has apparently left the UMC, moving to California last summer to become a Unitarian Universalist (UU) pastor. In a guest column for a local newspaper, he described his denominational transition by recalling having spent “nine years trying to change the discriminatory, and segregationist rules and practices of the religious organization that ordained me, but I realized that the organization was more interested in the preservation of their institution than prioritizing the practice of justice, peace, and love for all sentient beings,” after which, “in the nick of time, I was embraced by the Unitarian Universalists.”
I was unable to completely verify where exactly da Silva Souto is in the process of transfering into the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). Multiple attempts to contact him directly were unsuccessful. His UU congregation’s announcement of its new minister shared that he has a background of years of involvement in the famously radical, post-Christian Glide Memorial United Methodist Church, and now has “initiated the credentialing process to become a UU minister.” He reports on his own public LinkedIn profile that he was a minister in the UMC’s New York Annual Conference until December 2020.
The UU congregation reported, “While Rev. Alex’s ministry has been rooted in Christianity, Alex is also a student of Buddhism, Sufism, and the inter-religious views of Hafiz.” The bearded father also somewhat recently started identifying “as a non-binary person” and using the pronouns “they/them/theirs” rather than he/him/his. (When I describe transgendered people with pronouns corresponding to their God-given biological sex, I am not trying to be insulting, but rather accurately report reality, without encouraging harmful self-misperceptions.)
Time has made more obvious the weaknesses, both practical and principled, that always were baked into the Liberation Methodist Connexion.
The internal divisions now admitted by the remaining LMX organizers as well as the difficult personalities I have observed may alone prove fatal to the project. Perhaps the most well-known of the remaining LMX collaborators is Amy DeLong. But as we have noted, she quit United Methodist ministry earlier this year, after apparently not being able to convince her own “Reconciling” congregation to leave the UMC, and now reportedly “said she doubts she’ll ever be part of an organized, institutional church again.” That hardly sounds like the profile of someone who successfully attracts and organizes people into a new denomination.
The new LMX announcement (worth reading in full) recounts how they offered two public panel discussions—on anti-racism and “queering Easter”—as well as a New Year’s Eve party and “several poetry readings.” Such is hardly the administrative machinery of which denominations are constructed. More substantially, “some working group meetings struggled with attendance as common ground in conversations on foundational documents was not reached.” In the apparent absence of major progress in organizing a denomination, the Liberation Methodist Connexion’s Facebook posts have been largely limited to touting various lefty causes.
And yet there is no clear, public evidence that this supposed “denomination” ever had a single congregation, minister, or member. Even after a year since the Liberation Methodist Connexion began saying that it already IS “a grassroots denomination of former, current, and non-Methodist faith leaders” that launched in November 2020.
With few exceptions, theologically liberal church folk, particularly the most radical, are generally not good at entrepreneurially building their own institutions from scratch, and instead tend to leech off of what others have built.
As the LMX announcement puts it, “Common ground was easier to find when we were focused on critiquing old institutions,” but they had a harder time agreeing on what they wanted to build.
Some of this project’s inherent weaknesses are more a matter of principle. When activists promoting the LMX have spent years recklessly attacking the foundations of the UMC’s system for clergy guidance and accountability, it is hard to take seriously their now saying, “Structures of affirmation and accountability were essential to the original Wesleyan movement, and we believe they still have a role to play in this new connexion.” The LMX website’s new mission statement’s vows to “consciously avoid theological litmus tests and external creeds” reek of disingenuousness, unless their leadership selection will really never have any de facto litmus tests against those who dissent from doctrinaire commitments to LGBTQ+ liberation, left-wing politics, or rejection of traditional evangelical theology.
Then this is an odd moment in history for the formation of the LMX. For decades, liberal activists have made their top priority repealing the UMC’s bans on same-sex weddings and “self-avowed practicing homosexual” clergy. When the “Protocol” is adopted, the psUMC will quickly do just that. Institutionalist liberals appear to have entirely abandoned any push to add to their Discipline even modest, incomplete conscience protections for any traditionalists who stick with the psUMC. So radical activists would be dramatically empowered to continue pushing their denomination in an increasingly liberal direction, thus seeming to remove any need for any third denomination. The split of the predecessor UM-Forward caucus into the LMX and the Liberation Project, and the former’s failure to gain traction, indicates that a great many “liberationist progressives” agree with this basic assessment.
It is not even clear how much the Liberation Methodist Connexion cares to be meaningfully Methodist, or even Christian of any sort. The recent announcement admits that among several major points of internal disagreement has been “whether the LMX should be a traditional Christian denomination or other.” The social-justice-focused LMX website’s new 11-sentence mission statement has no particularly Christian content, but oddly mentions “holding identity and religious multiplicity gently.” Its new “Statement of Values and Vision” mentions Jesus, “a brown man of undetermined sexual orientation who arose from a people bowed down under Empire,” as an inspiration for “overturn[ing] tables of systemic oppression,” but says nothing about the cross, evangelism, or repentance of personal sin.
What constituency or felt needs could an established Liberation Methodist Connexion serve beyond the capabilities of the LGBTQ-focused Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC), the ultra-progressive but still-at-least-nominally-Christian United Church of Christ (UCC), or the post-Christian UUA? Is another such denomination really needed?
With refreshing honesty, the LMX’s latest announcement admits, “Many [liberal] churches and clergy have already decided to go their own way, they didn’t need us to claim their liberation.”
It would be premature to write a final obituary. This recent announcement does not talk of giving up yet. In the next year or two, the LMX getting half as organized as the Global Methodist Church has already gotten is a theoretical possibility.
But so is an extra-terrestrial Klingon invasion of Earth. At this point, neither such theoretical possibility is anything to expect or count on.
At this point, as United Methodism prepares to divide, there are only two emerging denominations, the psUMC and the GMC, for which advance organizational preparations are in place or are likely to be in place by the time General Conference meets. It is misleading to pretend otherwise, unless and until we see similar levels of administrative preparations from any third group.
Those who initially supported the LMX but have since pulled back in favor of the psUMC likely still support the LMX’s ideological radicalism, including the support it has always declared for “full inclusion” of drug-using and “non-monogamous” church leaders. So those considering the psUMC should understand that, after the split, this denomination will include much of this vocal radical element. They will continue pushing such values, without being held in check any longer by traditionalists who go with the GMC.
It is worth recalling the pattern of how self-described “centrist” liberal caucuses and leaders have been repeatedly unwilling to join evangelical renewal leaders in publicly, forcefully, and directly challenging the excesses of the most radical liberal United Methodist leaders. In campaigns for electing denominational leaders and much else, such supposedly more moderate, institutionalist liberal leaders have demonstrated a consistent “no enemies to the left” ethos.
It is also important to understand that there is a much wider constituency of frustrated liberal United Methodists than those who were ever connected to such groups as UM-Forward or the LMX. They do not all fit neatly into the intersectional-liberationist-progressive box. They just know that they strongly dislike the UMC’s official values and restrictions related to marriage, and perhaps other issues, and they are not willing to remain indefinitely in such a denomination.
Many such persons may resonate with da Silva Souto’s words in a video released last summer for his new congregation (beginning around the 1:25 mark) in which he recalls how “the denominational politics really took a toll on me and my colleagues as well” and declares, “I’m liberating myself from United Methodism.” Later in that same video (at 23:05), he perhaps voices the frustrations and hopes of a great many liberal United Methodists in recalling how after much fighting to change the UMC, it “got to a point where it was causing me way more hurts and more pain that I could sustain,” while there was another faith community that was metaphorically “offering fresh, accessible, perfectly good water and I wouldn’t have to be fighting for other people to access it,” and he could invite whoever he wanted into this other faith community with confidence that “they won’t be harmed” by the denominational culture or policies down the road.
The longer the split is delayed, the more frustrated liberals the UMC can expect to continue to lose through slow, painful attrition, with or without the LMX or any other liberal exodus organizers.
(January 4, 2022 UPDATE: This article originally reported that Alex da Silva Souto “is no longer listed in the New York Annual Conference’s clergy directory.” Today, I learned from a reader that this is mostly, but technically not entirely true. His name does not appear when you search for it using the search feature for this UMC annual conference’s online clergy directory. And in scrolling through this United Methodist clergy directory’s list of names, da Silva Souto’s name is not found in any of the places—here, here, or here—where it would naturally fit if he was still part of the list. Furthermore, in my direct, back-and-forth communication with New York Annual Conference staff (seeking to confirm da Silva Souto’s status), I mentioned that “I see that Alex is no longer listed in the New York Annual Conference’s online directory of its clergy,” and was not corrected. However, there is still an outdated page within the NYAC website, classified as part of its “clergy locator” section, that still lists him as the pastor of a Connecticut congregation in that annual conference—even though this congregation has a new pastor, while da Silva Souto has moved out to California.)
Comment by Reynolds on December 30, 2021 at 3:59 pm
There will be no vote next year. It is going to be a long drawn out battle for who gets the UMC. I think you need to talk to SBC and how they took control back in the 80s. You need to ready to fight and win. Once you win, then you can shut down all the useless parts of UMC. This will be like a divorce who ever gives up first loses.
Comment by Mark on December 30, 2021 at 4:38 pm
I assume the left-wing lobby, otherwise known as the General Board of Church and Society, will continue to be on board with pretty much any “progressive” group willing to give them support, especially if that support includes money.
Comment by Anthony on December 30, 2021 at 7:01 pm
What happened.? This was supposed to be overrun with thousands people and mega-money by now, be in a multimillion dollar headquarters with hundreds of paid staff, and plans drawn up to plant thousands of new churches world wide. What happened? What happened is what has happened to the UMC as liberalism swept in. Secular liberalism and Christianity cannot coexist. The ONLY agenda liberals have had from the get go in the UMC is to challenge and change Christianity to conform to their agendas. But, as this article makes abundantly clear, they can never reach a consensus on what agenda should replace the Christian agenda. And that’s their undoing since there is no agenda to replace the Christian agenda — so they flip, flop, and flounder. That will be the psUMC. They will continue in perpetual conflict as a liberal denomination because secular liberalism and Christianity are incompatible. And calling themselves a centrist denomination will only increase the conflict as they will have to ramp up the pretentiousness to try and cover the lie.
Comment by Steve on December 31, 2021 at 7:20 am
Reynolds, I agree. The pandemic is not getting better to have a vote next year. 2019 proved the traditionalists have the votes now to take back the UMC. That is what we need to do. The WCA and GMC leadership are too quick to give up – after they won the vote in 2019. Granted, they don’t get their $25 million if they stay and fight for our denomination.
Comment by Reynolds on December 31, 2021 at 4:20 pm
Steve,
I don’t get why they won’t fight and stay. It looks like some liberals are breaking now. Again once we win then you can close some of the dead weight that is not part of the Great Commission. Also, you can defund the seminaries that teach all the liberation theocracy. It would be a ten year battle but it is easier to win the war the start a new denomination
Comment by Anthony on December 31, 2021 at 4:45 pm
Steve & Reynolds,
If it was that easy, the 2019 Special General Conference would have solved this conflict once and for all, of which it was called to do. But immediately after that conference and the Traditional Plan, the left launched their resistance movement and there is NOTHING in UMC polity to stop them. We do not have an excommunication process, and that’s the only way to get rid of these people — excommunicate them and stop their pay, pension, benefits, and likely have to forcefully remove them from the church property.
The Global Methodist Church is the only realistic answer. Fighting this thing and these unreasonable and unstable people ten more years would only accelerate the demise of the entire UMC. Let the liberals have this bloated, expensive institution, continue fighting among themselves, and PAY FOR IT ALL. Let the traditionalists go and be FREE of this madness. It must be noted that the good people forming the GMC are of one accord, united because they’re Bible believers and followers, opposite their liberal brethren who can’t seem to agree on the time of day.
Comment by Steve on December 31, 2021 at 6:29 pm
Anthony,
I agree that the liberals are plotting. They will in the GMC too. Most UMC Elders are graduates from UMC endorsed seminaries that are teaching them liberal/liberation theology. Believe me, if they want to eat pastors will go with their traditional churches to the GMC and bring their liberalism with them. I know many who are – unfortunately. And the GMC has done nothing to keep graduates from those liberal UMC seminaries out of the GMC.
My point is that since the traditional plan passed (which included many changes that the GMC’s transitional BOD includes), then why can’t traditionalists pass the other changes included in the transitional BOD? Traditionalists have the votes. That has been proven. Forming the GMC is not the only answer. And the GMC’s leadership’s money grab is a clear yellow flag.
Comment by Star Tripper on December 31, 2021 at 7:21 pm
The LMX and their ilk are failing because they go against Christ and His teachings. We should learn that lesson above all others.
Comment by Michael on December 31, 2021 at 9:27 pm
I can’t see how the LMX is Christian. How can they support the things they support, and still be Biblical?
And let’s be clear: if you aren’t following the Bible, then you aren’t a Christian. Period. Christianity is not a social construct; it’s a relationship with the living God of the Bible. I can understand having a more liberal or a more conservative interpretation of the Bible, but the LMX seems to ignore the Bible entirely. Do they have a separate scripture? If so, what are its origins?
What a mess.
Comment by Reynolds on December 31, 2021 at 9:30 pm
Anthony,
The liberals won’t allow a vote in the hopes they can extract money form individual churches from leaving. You can get rid of the bloated bureaucracy by defunding them. I never said it would be easy. The AC I in south GA is allowing liberals to go quickly. Again this is a game of waiting the other side out. Just keep passing resolutions that make liberals mad and they will go. They don’t have the stomach to fight and neither does the WCA. We need to get tougher and just change the game on them
Comment by Donald on January 1, 2022 at 6:02 am
No surprise that liberals-to-progressives have “given very little money” to their causes. These thugs only excel at spending other peoples’ money on their causes. In their own hearts, they are stingy. The same financial pattern is still visible in the now-reduced PCUSA.
Comment by BG on January 1, 2022 at 9:15 am
Initially I also believed Traditional Methodists should fight to keep the United Methodist Church and that the Progressives should leave. We succeeded in pushing back at the world conference and blocked same sex marriage and ordination. But not by much and it took the African and Asian Conferences to help block them.
Unfortunately, the US Church is dominated by liberal clergy leadership, especially Bishops. They will continue to willfully ignore the Book of Discipline, indoctrinate children, and appoint liberal pastors. There actions drive traditional Methodists out of the church and to traditional Christian churches. This will likely continue with or without LMX and the craziest far left.
So let’s get the sure thing by establishing a Traditional Methodist church and help get those churches out of indoctrination camp so they can worship God as was intended. If we stay and fight, we may lose it all.
I do expect that with the split and the Progressive UMC, they will continue to push the boundaries with the LGBTQ crowd. But everyone has a line that they will not cross (homosexuality, abortion, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality). For the centrists, let’s have a traditional Methodist church that all can go to. But that church should have strong, binding rules against these practices so they can never be changed.
Comment by Walt Pryor on January 1, 2022 at 12:40 pm
I am surprised the traditional conservative Methodist still speaks with the Liberals as if they are credible and rational.
These people are deceitful liars. The same description Jesus used to describe the Pharisees and Sadducees. The liberals are working under the authority and control of Satan. Why do you pretend they are not? You must deal with them the same as Jesus dealt with the Sadducees, or is the leadership of Jesus not enough for you?
Comment by John Smith on January 1, 2022 at 1:39 pm
Anthony,
So you are saying that the GMC has a process to kick out Bishops and Elders that does not rely on self policing by the Bishops and Elders? While the traditionalist/orthodox had the votes to prevail at the GC if the vote had been confined to Bishops and Elders they would have lost. What exactly will change with the GMC?
Comment by Anthony on January 1, 2022 at 7:22 pm
This accusation that the GMC organizers are out for a $25 million money grab is an outrageous and shameful accusation. They should be getting at least 50% of the UMC assets in that traditionalists have likely funded this denomination to the tune of at least 75%+ over the decades. As for accountability — that’s yet to be decided. But, it cannot be imagined that the first General Conference of the GMC would not enact strong, meaningful, and ENFORCEABLE measures for its bishops and ministers. Otherwise, why would this new denomination be formed in the first place after contending with non-accountability these past 50+ years in the UMC? That’s the main reason traditionalists are leaving — no present accountability and real means of enforcement of the present BOD.
Comment by Steve on January 1, 2022 at 8:49 pm
Traditionalists should be getting 100% of UMC assets by staying in the UMC and passing strong and enforceable measures to remove Bishops and Elders who violate the BOD. Like the Traditional Plan included. Stronger measures could be passed at future GCs.
The GMC has published a transitional BOD. They did not include strong, meaningful, and enforceable measures for its Bishops and Elders in it. Could they during their first GC? Yes, but so could traditionalists at the UMC GC. And that process has already started with the Traditional Plan.
I do like that we are on the same side when it comes to protecting our faith and can have an open discussion.
Comment by John Smith on January 2, 2022 at 9:28 am
Anthony,
It can easily be imagined that there will be no real enforcement on Bishops and Elders. I expect there will be strict theological standards adopted by the GMC, that all will be required to affirm and adhere to, and an enforcement mechanism captive to the Bishops and Elders, you know, the UMC reborn. The UMC has strong theological statements that all are called to affirm and adhere to and enforcement mechanisms but they do not work in the face of opposition by Bishops and Elders.
Because no one but a Bishop or Elder is qualified to judge another, among other items. And who will judge the seminaries, theologians and on what basis? We must avoid rule by the mob, right? Would anyone take on the thankless, under-compensated, burdensome duties of Bishop and Elder when they must tiptoe around the whims of the unknowledgeable? The arguments write themselves.
The GMC will start strong and stern but within a generation it will resemble its parent.
Comment by Michael on January 2, 2022 at 10:02 am
From the initial proposals of Hamilton and Carter of three branches, that was never a realistic possibility. Why would ultra-progressives scoot given their major influence over the progressives and their success in engineering the split? At the same time, why should “traditionalists” grieve the loss of our institutions, most of which are dominated, and always will be, by progressives? The psUMC will shrink rapidly, given its progressive clergy control, and will become as irrelevant and fading as the UCC, Lutheran and Episcopal churches, who, in 15 -20 years, will combine with the psUMC out of necessity. The milk was spilt the day the General Conference ceded to Hamilton/Carter.
Comment by Anthony on January 2, 2022 at 10:53 am
I concede, a fair question — will the GMC be able to fairly and effectively adjudicate cases and administer PENALTIES most of all for bishops, something the current UMC is absolutely UNABLE or UNWILLING to do?
From the GMC website:
3. Penalties – If the Trial Results in Conviction – Further testimony may be heard and arguments by counsel presented regarding what the penalty should be. The trial court shall determine the penalty, which shall require a vote of at least seven members. (If the number of the trial court falls below thirteen, a majority vote shall be required.) The trial court shall have the power to remove the respondent from professing membership, terminate the conference membership, and revoke the credentials of conference membership, ordination, or consecration of the respondent, suspend the respondent from the exercise of the functions of office (with or without pay, if applicable) for a defined period of time, or fix a lesser penalty. The trial court shall determine whether a bishop or clergy person suspended from office as a penalty for a defined period of time shall have any continuation of housing, salary, and benefits during such suspension. The penalty fixed by the trial court shall take effect immediately unless otherwise indicated by the trial court. Should any penalty fixed by a trial court be altered or reduced as a result of the appellate process, the respondent shall be restored and/or compensated as appropriate by the general church if a bishop and by the annual conference if clergy, provided that in no instance and under no circumstances shall the respondent be entitled to receive an award of compensation for or reimbursement of any expenses or fees associated with the respondent’s use of an attorney.
Comment by John Smith on January 3, 2022 at 8:00 am
Anthony,
1) What is the composition of the court?
2) Who selects members of the court?
3) Who decides what cases make it to the court?
4) Who enforces the court’s decisions?
Then we notice that there is an appellate process; is it another court? an appeal to the AC, GC, Council of Bishops? Who has the final say?
That the court has access to more penalties is nice but if the control of the court is still in the hands of Bishops and Elders it just gives more power to them.
Doesn’t the UMC have have a court? How did that work out?
Comment by Anthony on January 3, 2022 at 2:56 pm
Of course the UMC has a rather involved adjudication procedure for addressing complaints. Not a lawyer here — but that system has essentially collapsed when it comes to LGBT+ related human sexuality offenses and complaints because the liberals in charge refuse to abide by it, and there’s no recourse to compel them to do so.
You keep asking how the GMC will be any different. Of course nobody can answer that until it’s tested. Those looking to affiliate with the GMC will expect full compliance by the clergy, most of all bishops and district superintendents, with church law OR swipe dismissal from the denomination by the trial courts, which means defrocking and loss of salary and all other benefits.
Please read the below and comment:
https://globalmethodist.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Judicial-Practice-and-Procedure-Rules-English.pdf
Comment by Shakes Head in Despair on January 3, 2022 at 3:28 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I read this thread and it makes me want to resign and find another line of work. I am a graduate of a liberal UM Seminary, but I am an extremely conservative pastor. I had some very good experiences in seminary, and I also regret the day I decided to go to one. Without revealing what annual conference I belong to, I’ve had to sit in annual conference sessions for decades grinding my teeth at what I had to put up with. It hasn’t been easy being in the UMC, but I thought that there were people that I could serve in it.
Now some of you think that all of us who graduated from a leftist seminary and decide to go into the GMC are going to ruin it? Are you truly serious? Are you wearing tin foil hats too? Please think before you write, even on a site like this.
Comment by Donald Link on January 3, 2022 at 4:36 pm
As a Roman Catholic it is not my place to advise other denominations on their internal affairs. I would like to note that my late maiden aunt, who lived in a small Midwest town, would have been quite upset at some of the changes in the Church she had been a member of for over 70 years. Being a second generation immigrant she appreciated clarity, tradition and stability. While we never had any substantive conversations on theology, she spoke several times of the Methodist groups and associations she belong to and regarded them as many would regard family. I have read a few articles and columns over the years and can not help but wonder how she would have reacted to some of the changes taking place in her Church.
Comment by Anthony on January 3, 2022 at 6:44 pm
The presenting symptoms of the UMC schism are addressed by being interwoven into sections of the GMC Transitional Book of Doctrines & Discipline specifically: (1) marriage, (2) the sins of sexual immorality, and (3) ordination standards, WITHOUT (this is significant) specifically singling out homosexuality and other LGBT+ issues.
Copying selected portions regarding these issues and pasting them below — (1) the definition of Christian marriage is clearly stated, (2) the sins of sexual immorality are clearly discerned, and (3) the sexual behaviors of those seeking ordination are clearly spelled out —- therefore it will be a straight forward process to try and convict those, adjudicated as presented in the GMC Judicial Practice & Procedure Rules, who conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies, those who engage in sexual relations outside that of a man and a woman in marriage, and reject those candidates for ordination who are found to be engaged in sexual behaviors outside those of a woman and man in marriage.
GLOBAL METHODIST CHURCH:
We believe that human sexuality is a gift of God that is to be affirmed as it is exercised within the legal and spiritual covenant of a loving and monogamous marriage between one man and one woman (Exodus 20:14, Matthew 19:3-9, Ephesians 5:22-33).
While affirming a scriptural view of sexuality and gender, we welcome all to experience the redemptive grace of Jesus and are committed to being a safe place of refuge, hospitality, and healing for any who may have experienced brokenness in their sexual lives (Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:24, 1 Corinthians 6:9-20).
Those to be ordained must meet the following qualifications:
fidelity in a Christian marriage between one man and one woman, chastity in singleness.
Accept the authority of Scripture.
Individuals accused of violating the canons of this covenant shall thus be subject to a review aimed at a just resolution of such complaints.
Chargeable Offenses – A bishop or clergy member of an annual conference may be tried when charged with one or more of the following offenses:
*Promoting or engaging in doctrines or practices, or conducting ceremonies or services, that are not in accord with those established by the Global Methodist Church;
*Disobedience to the order and discipline of the Global Methodist Church;
*Engaging in sexual activities outside the bonds of a loving and monogamous marriage between one man and one woman, including but not limited to sexual abuse or misconduct, the use or possession of pornography, or infidelity.
Comment by John Smith on January 4, 2022 at 12:09 pm
Anthony,
I read it, its about what I thought, the bishop, the elder, decides, dismisses, etc. The investigating committee is nine persons 5 of whom must be elders all (9 + 9 alternatives) selected by bishops. It might be slightly less convoluted than the UMC (it’s younger, give it time) but can in no wise be seen as independent.
Comment by John Smith on January 4, 2022 at 12:19 pm
Shakes Head …
No one is saying all those who transition over will undermine the GMC. No one is saying all the Elders in the UMC are unorthodox. The UMC and the rest of the 7 Sisters have conclusively shown how easily a denomination can be taken over and redirected. Should the GMC gain assets, resources and influence and especially if the psUMC implodes/collapses we can expect to see a wave of the same old same old washing into the GMC. In my opinion this is greatly aided by an unaccountable leadership and nothing the GMC has proposed seems to change the fundamentals. The main thrust seems to be: “We weren’t clear on the standards” and “We would never put comity, holy conferencing and other considerations over those standards”. “We are completely different from those people in the UMC.”
Comment by Still Shakes Head on January 4, 2022 at 1:53 pm
John,
Thank you for your reply. ‘No one is saying all the Elders in the UMC are unorthodox’ you say, but reread what at least one person wrote about UMC clergy that graduated from liberal UM Seminaries, and others agreed with him.
There is nothing but negativity here in this thread about the UMC and GMC. Some here think a proto-denomination based on a certain broad acceptance of orthodox beliefs that may start this year in some form is already corrupt, or will quickly become corrupt shortly after it is organized.
It seems like the folks above see their local pastor about the same as their local US House member, and just as untrustworthy.
The reality of the situation is that you have to trust somebody sometime, but nobody here wants to take the risk. But unless you want to go to a congregationalist model of church, where each church has so much autonomy they are in essence independent,
you have to form a structure, nurture it, protect it, and use it for God’s honor and glory.
The GMC had to listen to the Spirit and pick the right leaders, and the leaders have to lead and protect their people from the evil of the day. From reading the replies to this good article few of the comment writers trust anyone to be a leader.
Comment by Anthony on January 4, 2022 at 4:12 pm
ACCOUNTABILITY has collapsed in the UMC over (1) marriage, (2) sexual immorality practices among LGBT+ identified people, and (3) sexual behavior standards among LGBT+ candidates for ordination — although the denomination has rather strict rules on these matters, reinforced at the Special 2019 General Conference, and confirmed by the Judicial Council. Unless one is an an alien that just arrived — liberal bishops have been ignoring, mocking, and undermining these rules, openly defying them as in Iowa, the Western Jurisdiction for many years, the North Georgia Conference, etc., etc. etc., and essentially telling General Conference what it can do with the rules with which they disagree. Yet, these same bishops cherry pick rules passed by this same General Conference and act as the mighty enforcers, defenders of the church, as if these hand picked rules are to be enforced strictly and totally as the uncompromising laws of the church — that is, ONLY when they can be employed to further their own personal progressive agendas. This system is so corrupt that it makes secular government in Washington look like a role model.
ACTUAL REAL, FAIR, AND EQUITABLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULES will be the great challenge of the Global Methodist Church. And, it must do so out of the starting gate in order to recapture the credibility and trust on which the Methodist Church was founded — the church John Wesley envisioned.
Comment by Steve on January 4, 2022 at 7:22 pm
The Traditional Plan is not being enforced by agreement between the “progressive” side and WCA/GMC leadership when they came up with the Protocol. The state of the UMC today is not what we voted for in 2019. Why not give victory a chance? The establishment of the GMC seems premature at best and corrupt at worst. Those that agreed to the Protocol have already sold out traditionalists. I do not put my trust in them to right the wrongs of the UMC.
Comment by Anthony on January 5, 2022 at 11:28 am
Steve,
Harsh words indeed. In order to enforce the Traditional Plan, the upcoming General Conference would have to enact an Excommunication Plan to get rid of the resisters and saboteurs of the Traditional Plan in order to forcefully remove them from the UMC. No matter what deal they’re offered, they will NEVER cooperate and abide by church law with which they disagree UNLESS there’s an awakening across the progressive parts of the denomination with REPENTANCE resulting. . Of course, anything is possible with God.
However, in the absence of an awakening/revival, how would you propose to enact and carry out an Excommunication Plan?