Methodists look to change church's LGBT policies

[GKMotley]

Logically, it would seem so.

But that would obviate taking over.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

And another question:

Does the typical Methodist believer consider that the Holy Spirit is guiding the decision of the UMC? I mean in a way that suggests whatever the decision is, it is important to adhere to it?

I’m just having trouble understanding the point of this democratic process if, whatever the result, your conscience is free to decide against the decision and join another Methodist or Protestant community.

 

[commenter]

As I read it, liberal UMC congregations are allowed to exit, with the real estate.
Who ordinarily owns the real estate?
The TEC has been mostly successful on holding on to their own, I think due to a special provision.

Is this UMC provision time limited? Could a conservative congregation, angry at the promised efforts by the Left including much of the U S leadership, to work against the same sex policy, take their real estate with them?

 

[GKMotley]

The judicial system has often accepted the idea that TEC is a totally hierarchical system. And ignored the general legal position that a trust can only legally be established directly by the entity that can legally dispose of the commodity.

 

[Thorolfr]

As I read it, liberal UMC congregations are allowed to exit, with the real estate.
Who ordinarily owns the real estate?
The TEC has been mostly successful on holding on to their own, I think due to a special provision.

Is this UMC provision time limited? Could a conservative congregation, angry at the promised efforts by the Left including much of the U S leadership, to work against the same sex policy, take their real estate with them?

According to one article I was reading in the Washington Post:

the delegates voted in a plan to allow churches to leave the denomination more smoothly over the question of sexuality, opening a window for local churches to leave by the end of 2023 and to retain their property, including church buildings. The question of building ownership when a church leaves has led to lawsuits and bitter infighting in other denominations, a prospect Methodists wanted to avoid.

I think that a number of churches might leave. According to the article:

Methodist leaders who fought for unity a day ago were mulling some sort of division after the meeting ended. The Rev. James Howell, an author who leads a 5,300-member church in Charlotte with a diversity of political views in its pews, was one of the leaders pushing the one-church plan that failed. “Periodically, people would say, ‘Let’s talk about a new denomination. Let’s talk about where to go.’ We the leaders really pushed back. Our goal is unity,” he said. On Wednesday, he was reconsidering. “At this point, there’s a lot of feeling from centrists and from moderates, much less progressives, that the kind of far-right conservatives, the Russians, the Africans — they don’t want to be with us. They want to be rid of us. That grieves me, but I think it’s just a reality.”…

Adam Hamilton, who leads the nation’s largest United Methodist church, in Kansas, was one of the most high-profile proponents of the failed one-church plan. Some members of his congregation have said they plan to leave, but most churchgoers care about their individual pastor and community, not the denomination, he said.

“I don’t want to leave,” he said. “But I don’t want to stay long-term if we are going to continue to treat gays and lesbians as second-class in our churches.” He plans to gather Methodist leaders from across the country at his church to discuss options in May.

 

[ltwin]

A vote Wednesday by the United Methodist Church worldwide conference banned gay and lesbian clerics and the officiating of same-sex marriag

The article is slightly misleading. Ordination of “self-avowed and practicing” homosexual clergy and same sex marriages were already banned. The liberals in the church were just ignoring the ban, so this new decision just seeks to create accountability for those who break church rules.

 

[ltwin]

¶ 2501. Requirement of the Trust Clause for All Property -1. All properties of United Methodist local churches and other United Methodist agencies and institutions are held, in trust , for the benefit of the entire denomination, and ownership and usage of church property is subject to the Discipline .
[cut]
2. The trust is and always has been irrevocable, except as provided in the Discipline . Property can be released from the trust, transferred free of trust or subordinated to the interests of creditors and other third parties only to the extent authority is given by the Discipline .

I believe that normally if a local church tried to leave the UMC, they would need the permission of their annual conference to leave with their property. I have heard of large churches leaving and working out a deal with the denomination, like giving a sum of money to compensate the conference for the loss of the local church.

This provision would just make this easier, but is limited to congregations who disagree with the sexuality issue.

 

[GKMotley]

Which would suggest that a new church would establish that trust, via a conventional policy: those who acquired/owned the property would do it, as a disciplinary requirement of the denomination.

Or, the denomination might acquire all such property, ab initio.

 

[ltwin]

Though who knows, the liberals might just decide to stick around and fight it out. However, they have to be aware of the fact that the American church’s influence is shrinking as the overseas conferences continue to grow. The next General Conference is supposed to have even more delegates from Africa, etc. which are expected to be more conservative. So, the UMC might actually see the liberals leave and the conservatives keep the denomination.

This would be similar to the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1980s, but much different from the way these things normally play out with the liberals keeping control.

 

[commenter]

At the end of the day, I predict more conservative congregations will leave than liberal ones. Powerful people in the UMC have already said they will keep fighting, and perhaps circumventing, the current policy.

Conservatives don’t like having to keep fighting battles, even if they win (which is not guaranteed next time). For liberals, I won’t go so far as to say they enjoy battles, but they accept this, don’t mind this, as part of the praxis for what they consider justice.

The UMC has an enormous presence in communities across the US, with established stakes in education, health care, and financial impact on missions. I don’t see the liberals walking away from a voting position at this table. I see liberal congregations joining together in caucuses, but staying in.

 

[ATraveller]

Does the typical Methodist believer consider that the Holy Spirit is guiding the decision of the UMC? I mean in a way that suggests whatever the decision is, it is important to adhere to it?

I’m just having trouble understanding the point of this democratic process if, whatever the result, your conscience is free to decide against the decision and join another Methodist or Protestant community.

Meetings similar to these have happened throughout Christianity’s history.

Guidance from the Holy Spirit would still have to be in line with Scripture. If not, then it’s not from the Holy Spirit.

Generally, Protestants hold to Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone, which is the Word of God. Councils err because humans err. Traditions are valid so long as they are backed by Scripture. The Word of God is infallible. If an institution errs, then individuals can leave if they choose to. There’s really nothing that holds them back (unless the civil government does it but that’s not possible in the Western world). We could probably go further on this by examining the invisible church vs. visible church concept in more depth.

 

[jschwartz]

I do believe that when 2 or 3 are gathered in His Name, He is with them. Jesus promises us that. That being said, I’m not sure where United Methodists will go from here. I don’t think they will end up in the ELCA or TEC, as others theorized, as Methodism is a vastly unique tradition. Perhaps progressives can petition to be under the governance of progressive bishops, sort of a Methodist DEPO? (Similar to how conservatives in TEC have petitioned to be under alternative episcopal oversight).

 

[ltwin]

Perhaps progressives can petition to be under the governance of progressive bishops, sort of a Methodist DEPO? (Similar to how conservatives in TEC have petitioned to be under alternative episcopal oversight).

The Liberals had that option. It was one of the alternatives to the Traditional Plan and the One Church Plan. They rejected that. It was proposed to create liberal and conservative structures that would remain under the UMC umbrella organization.

 

[jschwartz]

So where do they go now? Will they just continue the status quo? Will UMC authorities turn a blind eye to these issues? Or do the liberals form their own denomination?

 

[GKMotley]

Didn’t work well in CoE. It was a slower walk to a progressive takeover.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Guidance from the Holy Spirit would still have to be in line with Scripture. If not, then it’s not from the Holy Spirit.

Righttt but that’s the point. When you have two sides, both sides are going to remain in disagreement over what is “in line with Scripture” — whatever the meeting happens to decide.

The difference is this: Has the Church itself been given authority to definitively decide things in council? I’d say yes: You see this in Acts 15. The Canon of Scripture itself presupposes an authoritative Church that can determine once-and-for all what is canonical. So goes for what is “canonical” teaching as well.

 

[Thorolfr]

So when the southern Baptists split from the northern Baptists over the issue of slavery, who “kept the denomination”? The Northern Baptist Convention (now the American Baptists) are still around as are the Southern Baptists and they’re both still Baptists. If a large number of more liberal Methodists split off from the UMC, they can form a new Methodist denomination.

 

[Thorolfr]

One of the sad parts about this whole issue is that while the two sides are arguing over the issue of same-sex marriage and whether non-celibate gay men and lesbians can be ordained, the vast majority of LGBT people have been so wounded in the churches they grew up in when they were younger that most of them are unwilling to attend any church at all, even more liberal, welcoming ones. Most of them lost their faith a long time ago.

 

[ltwin]

So when the southern Baptists split from the northern Baptists over the issue of slavery, who “kept the denomination”?

The Northern Baptists “kept” what was known as the Triennial Convention (but officially was known as the “General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination”) which was later renamed the Northern Baptist Convention and is now the American Baptist Churches.

But that wasn’t what I was talking about.

Before the 1970s, the Southern Baptist Convention was controlled by a moderate/liberal elite. Throughout the 1970s and '80s, conservative Southern Baptists launched a campaign to assert control over the Convention, which they did successfully. The moderate/liberal Southern Baptist churches left to form new bodies, such as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Alliance of Baptists.

In the case of the SBC, the conservatives won and kept the denomination. That is important because they get all the prestige and influence that comes from being “Southern Baptist”. The new liberal Baptist denominations are no where near as influential. In addition to keeping the denominational identity, they also kept control of all the associated agencies and educational institutions. The liberals had to start from scratch.

 

[Thorolfr]

In the case of the SBC, the conservatives won and kept the denomination. That is important because they get all the prestige and influence that comes from being “Southern Baptist”. The new liberal Baptist denominations are no where near as influential. In addition to keeping the denominational identity, they also kept control of all the associated agencies and educational institutions. The liberals had to start from scratch.

There probably weren’t nearly as many of these other “liberal” Baptists as there were of the more conservative ones who stayed. But if there was a major split in the UMC in the US and a lot of churches left, that would do a lot more damage to what remained. The article I quoted from above says, for example, that the nations largest UM church (which is in Kansas) is thinking of leaving and another church with 5,300 members is thinking of leaving. If a lot of churches like that leave, I’m sure that it would have a significant financial impact, not only here in the US, but also abroad since churches in places like Africa probably rely on financial help from money that comes from more wealthy congregations in the US.