One of these things is…not like the other?

To the lay people of the United Methodist Church in South Carolina,

For starters, dear Reader, you may not be any of the above things (a lay person, a Methodist, and/or in South Carolina). By lay people I mean the average church-goer, versus the professional church leaders who are clergy. Whatever the case, I’m glad you’re here, and local lay Methodists are my most intended audience. I want to contribute some clarity in their understanding of the 2019 Annual Conference.

More than half of you just asked, “What’s Annual Conference?” or “Has that happened this year already?” I respect that. If you’re unaware, we United Methodists hold one big statewide gathering each year to tackle larger-level tasks: reports, resolutions, budget approval, fellowship, worship, and more. We call this meeting the Annual Conference. It’s made up of our pastors in South Carolina (some 800+) alongside an equal number of lay delegates from our churches.

This year’s Annual Conference was in Greenville just a few weeks ago, and some of you, even some who were in attendance, wouldn’t think that anything about it needs clarifying. It came. It went. We’re still here, just as always. I understand that, and I rarely care to share about Conference in detail. This year, however, was unique to me. If you take any cues from your pastor, it’d be interesting to know what you heard about what took place. Was he/she jubilant about it? Maybe you heard lofty language that portrayed some kind of second Pentecost, as if the Holy Spirit underwrote the whole thing from top to bottom. Or, maybe your pastor’s experience at Annual Conference was one of frustration and grief at political deal-making to achieve human ends. Then again, maybe he/she had no reaction at all. It might be just as interesting to know what you didn’t hear. I encourage you to consider asking your pastor for concrete specifics if you haven’t already.

In the meantime, I’d like to share my own understanding, whatever it’s worth to you. As a starting point I think we can take inspiration from the first few lines in a summary article from The Greenville News. In the proper light, it actually pretty well captures my sense of the direction, or misdirection, of this year’s Annual Conference. It reads:

The United Methodist clergy members who represent South Carolina in major denomination votes are now younger, more diverse in race and gender, and they’re more supportive of same-sex marriages.

Fifteen of the 16 clergy delegates elected at last week’s state conference in Greenville are part of the UMC Next SC platform which explicitly opposes the denomination’s Traditional Plan.

This opener begs a few questions worth asking. The first is, why are we talking about delegates and major denomination votes? Next year is the 2020 General Conference. Every four years, it’s the global gathering of clergy and lay delegates from each region, and it’s the only body that can change the official teaching of our denomination. Since the 1970s, General Conference is increasingly dominated by disagreement over our current stance on human sexuality (that all people are of sacred worth but same-sex practice is incompatible with Christian teaching). A special General Conference was called in 2019 to try to navigate the division. The outcome was to uphold current teaching, along with some strengthened accountability measures, so 2020 is shaping up to be an even more raucous arena for disagreement. Thus, one of the most significant items at this year’s Annual Conference was that we elected South Carolina’s delegates to next year’s General Conference.

Second, then, why is The Greenville News emphasizing the language of “younger, more diverse” for the clergy delegates who were elected? Well, that’s an entirely more complicated question than the article, or its sources, lead us to believe. In the simplest terms, this opening claim is patently false. How do I know? Because it’s pretty easy to take a look at our last group of clergy delegates from 2016 (and 2019) for some quick comparisons:

FULL race

FULL sex

FULL age

Interpret the numbers as you will, but I see two groups that are incredibly similar. They’re also both incredibly diverse. In fact, in both 2016 and 2020, women and African-Americans enjoy super representation compared to their fraction of the total clergy. At my last check, neither of these groups make up more than 25% of all United Methodist clergy in South Carolina. Based on these numbers, you could even conclude that the 50-50 gender ratio in 2016 is far more representative than what we see in 2020. Either way, it’s true that the South Carolina Conference has a diverse clergy delegation, but it’s no more true than ever. Our diversity is to be celebrated, and I did celebrate it in 2016. I’d be quicker to do so in 2020 if that were the whole, authentic story.

So, getting back to The News, if the 2020 group isn’t much younger or more diverse, then what is the real difference in this group of delegates? What real grounds could there be for the media, and for some pastors, to exult that something allegedly new and beautiful and holy took place in South Carolina this year?

Continue reading the article opener, and we finally discover some accuracy: our 2020 clergy delegates are overwhelmingly more supportive of same-sex marriage and ordination than ever before. In fact, as reported, 15 out of 16 are part of a new effort to redefine United Methodist teaching on human sexuality (known as UMC Next). In other words, if we can just clarify the code-language of “diversity,” then the only proper change in our clergy delegation, from 2016 to today, is a massive shift toward less diversity in terms of a theological understanding of sexuality and marriage:

full sexuality

If that’s so, then what does it mean? Tough question. Even though 15 of the delegates are united behind reversing church teaching on sexuality, each of them has their own unique theological convictions. I’m sure in the coming months they’ll try to articulate to us all just how nuanced their views are. But there can be no doubt that these 15 delegates arrived at Annual Conference as part of the “UMC Next” platform which began taking shape months in advance. By May of this year, their organization was solidified during a nationwide gathering of progressive leaders hand-picked and hosted by Rev. Adam Hamilton at Church of the Resurrection in Kansas. This conference featured serious (and costly) political coaching, and its fruit is evident in elections all over the United States, just as in South Carolina. Every single one of these 15 delegates came directly from a pre-determined list of 20 clergy produced by UMC Next – each of them was vetted through personal contact in advance – and then they were elected by a block of coordinating caucus groups. How coordinated was it? During the voting, a progressive friend of mine texted me to say that, after the first eight delegates were elected to General Conference, their group was going to “throw traditionalists a bone” by electing a moderate/traditional candidate in the ninth slot. About thirty seconds later that’s exactly what transpired.

To be fair, I most certainly don’t fault a group of clergy for having their own theological convictions. My closest friends/peers and I differ in small and in large ways all the time. It’s mostly a great thing. We have different focuses in ministry, different strengths and weaknesses, and it mostly benefits the Church. Most of us still understand each other and love each other. I’m pretty close to plenty of our elected delegates; I love them and pray for them this very moment.

I’ve also been a part of coordinated groups of clergy, in 2016 and this year, working toward what we believe is God’s holy desire for God’s people. We appreciate our current teaching on sexuality. We think it reflects a truly honest reading of Scripture, faithfulness to our excellent Wesleyan/Christian tradition, sound reasoning and personal experience. Many of us actually see the current UMC stance as properly moderate. It leaves no room for actual hatred or bigotry for LGBTQ-identified persons; it supports civil equality; it recognizes that every person is offered the full embrace of the grace of God; it invites anyone to join and serve in the life of the church. It just stops short in one way: we cannot find a way to conclude that God authored or embraces same-sex practice. As I’ve told progressive friends, I’d love to find a way to reach that conclusion with them. If someone can show me a way, if the Lord Almighty can, I welcome that day. But having done as exhaustive a search as I know how, I still don’t know how to get there. And, honestly, I’m increasingly unsure how my peers have arrived there so definitively.

That being so, I hope that General Conference doesn’t overturn our current stance on human sexuality. If South Carolina could elect 16 clergy delegates who would vote from a traditional perspective, I’d be as delighted in it as my fellow clergy are about this progressive group heading into 2020. I understand how they feel, and why.

I just think we can all do better at not conflating broad strokes or murky language about diversity with what is a straightforward theological difference. There are equally well-thought and well-intentioned folks – of all races, ages, and genders – on all sides.

I also want you, the lay people, to realize that for clergy like me who can’t find a way to affirm anything but our current teaching on same-sex practice, Annual Conference was a significant event. It reinforced something we’ve had faint hints of for quite some time: although I estimate that a great majority of our lay people in South Carolina prefer current church teaching on human sexuality, it seems that a fair majority of our clergy prefer the opposite. After all, our best efforts at electing moderate/traditional clergy in 2016 didn’t even achieve 50-50 representation among the delegates. And, in 2020, that representation was totally obliterated.

In some cases, granted, the differences between being “progressive” and “traditional”, or “liberal” and “orthodox”, are minuscule. It’s why I rather hate those labels. But in other cases the disagreement among many of your pastors, the theological distance between us, is wide enough that it’s like we’re already two separate churches. I know that’s not the case among you, the lay people. In my experience, you all at the local level know best how to love each other and remain the church together. I don’t wish for you to feel the partisanship of General, Jurisdictional, and Annual Conference spilling over into your midst.

At the same time, you have to know what is taking place, right now, in the wider Methodist world and in South Carolina. You have to hear some different angles on it and start perking up your ears. If you haven’t thought about any of this before, it’s time to start thinking and praying about it all. Because, I promise, the time is coming and is now upon us when our denomination is not going to continue in its present form. There are too many folks who are too firmly dedicated, understandably, to either maintaining current teaching or reversing course. There are too many folks who cannot in good conscience abide by one direction, or the other.

I hope this whole process doesn’t harm the life of the local church. But if you weren’t aware that there’s a struggle going on for the future of the UMC — or if you think it will never affect you personally, or your congregation — then know that it is already drastically affecting plenty of people in South Carolina, especially your pastors.

I encourage you, if you haven’t done so already, to step away from the side-lines and become as actively involved as you can. And God our Father, Lord Jesus, Holy Spirit, please lead us in your Way.

21 thoughts on “One of these things is…not like the other?

  1. Thank you Josh for standing by what you believe and what we are told is right or wrong. I stand with you and I do believe that if this “fixed” way of getting it done is accomplished the Methodist Church is going to have the biggest drop in membership than it has ever had before. You cannot and should not change God’s word

  2. Josh, thank you for speaking truth into what happened at this year’s annual conference. I fear our beloved “United” Methodist Church is gone forever! Those who want to change Disciplinary language may “win,” but what will they be left with? Empty churches with no way to support them!! God, have mercy!!

  3. It’s time for the UMC to split. Perhaps it will come back together in 10-20 years; perhaps it will create two stronger denominations. What is clear at this point is that both sides are not interesting in remaining in a denomination that they believe is misinterpreting scripture to the detriment of the Church and people. So, I would encourage both sides to find a way to dissolve the UMC in a non-threatening, non-punitive way.

  4. Thank you so…. much for your comments! This issue worries me and I agree that we are soon approaching a day when our Church may see a huge split! In the meantime, many Methodist may be lost to other Denominations or may cease going to Church at all because of this issue. The desires of the UMC Next Movement seem to be shoved in our face everyday without ceasing and quite frankly it becomes tiring!

  5. I had the pleasure of going to the Conference last year. I saw enough, then. I was told about everything you are saying. I am not shocked but sick to my stormach when I think of the future of my Church. There is a movement, not Bible based, that is trying to destroy us as we sit idly by.

  6. Well said, Josh, and thank you for taking the time to do this piece. It is a shame to allow these political dominate our church while so many things in discipleship need our full attention!

  7. “As I’ve told progressive friends, I’d love to find a way to reach that conclusion with them.” Where have I heard this before? From a pastor in a different denomination that continues to stand against ordination of women, claiming Biblical authority.

    1. I get it, Paul. I firmly believe that those other traditions are mistaken on women’s ordination. Actually seems pretty cut and dry. Just can’t say the same for same-sex practice.

      1. Cut and dry to you, not to them. That’s the rub. Back in 1844 slavery was cut and dry to some, not to others, thus the MEC and MECS. It took our forefathers until 1939 to settle that one. Are we looking at a similar schism?

      2. All I’m saying is someone who takes a traditional stance on human sexuality today doesn’t necessarily correlate in any way with folk who once opposed women’s ordination, or who supported slavery. Yes, I’d wager that the UMC will soon reorganize; I think it might be the only option. But I don’t think it will practically go anything like the North/South schism. Seems like uniquely different circumstances.

      3. Yet scripture was used to justify those positions. You’re right, it won’t be a North/South split. Interestingly enough, there were a number of MEC churches in MECS areas. My deceased dad’s first appointment straight out of Garrett in 1936 was to an MEC church in Florida.

      4. Of course, Paul. Scripture gets used (and abused) on every side of everything. That’s something for a future blog post for sure.

    2. I was struck by the fact that one of the most quoted passages from the Traditionalists at GC19 was Jesus denouncing divorce, not homosexuality. Paul specifically spoke on women in church. Interestingly, my UMC church has a female, divorced pastor starting this month (whom I completely support).
      I doubt those of our past who opposed ordination of women saw a correlation between them and those of their past who supported slavery. I’m sure they thought that the supporters of slavery were completely wrong.

      1. Well, I do think that particular Gospel passage is definitely one of many that’s applicable to any theology of sexuality/divorce/marriage. I don’t understand what connection you’re trying to make re: your incoming pastor.

        And, regardless of what they thought of themselves, I’m not sure that opponents of women’s ordination and proponents of slavery necessarily had that much in common. It’s awfully presumptive to lump them together wholesale. In each case, there were very different core questions at stake, external influences, cultural contexts, etc.

        Yes, some members of both groups butchered the Bible for their aims, and both groups seemed blinded by cultural myopia. I guess you’re insinuating that traditionalists have fallen into the same trap re: human sexuality, and I guess it’s possible that it turns out to be so. But it’s just as possible that progressives are the ones in that boat, and I think that’s far more likely the case.

        Definitely gotta post something at length on that one.

  8. Let me see if I understand what you are saying: the church’s door is open to all and the table is for all because it is God’s table but gays are not seen as equal or as welcomed?

    1. The church doors, the Lord’s table, the waters of baptism are all equally available to all. Our current teaching makes clear that LGBTQ-identified folk are indeed welcome and equal. But that teaching does make a distinction between people and practice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.