Your United Methodism FAQ HQ!
I’ve been told recently that there are many questions swirling around in the heads of many of our members and friends at Heritage United Methodist about the future of the United Methodist Church (UMC) regarding the degree to which LGBTQ persons will be included in the life of the church, and that there is a pervasive desire among those in our congregation at Heritage to hear more about it.
I’ve made it no secret that I’m a staunch advocate for us avoiding the whole thing like the plague in order to just focus our time and energy on making disciples and transforming the world. Having had no one ask me about it in months, I’d allowed myself to hope that we’d been successful in just not worrying about it. However, upon hearing news of a larger wave of concern, I’m taking their word for it, and am glad to help how I can to put people at ease.
I’ve scoured sources from all around to compile the admittedly massive amount of information that follows. I hope that, for anyone with a question about the future of the United Methodist church regarding the degree to which LGBTQ persons will be included in the life of the church, you might find an answer below.
There is a ton of content here. Do not feel like anyone has to read all of this! You don’t. It’s like the dictionary—read the parts you need, and skip the parts you don’t. If this isn’t a concern for you, skip it altogether!
Please remember that I’m glad to chat about this with you in person or on the phone or by video chat anytime! Please contact Pastoral Office Manager Pat Bluhm and she’ll set up a time for us to meet!
A Very Brief History of the Whole Thing
The issues of performing and/or hosting same-sex weddings, and the ordination of LGBTQ persons, have been topics for debate in the UMC for 40 years, but in recent years the debates have intensified.
Though the United Methodist Book of Discipline states that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching,” some United Methodists have seen this as a carryover of a requirement from another place in time, like others that we’ve discerned were contextual, specifically for their time period, but not applicable forever. Therefore, citing Scripture’s calls for justice and challenged by the sacrifices others have made throughout history on behalf of the marginalized, some pastors and bishops have followed their conscience instead of the Discipline, and officiated at same-sex weddings. The most prominent early case was that of Rev. Frank Schaefer, who officiated at his son’s wedding.
Those opposed to performing and/or hosting same-sex weddings and the ordination of LGBTQ persons expected that violators of the Book of Discipline would be punished accordingly. Found guilty and defrocked in a clergy trial, Schaefer’s punishment was later lessened by the United Methodist Judicial Council, and he was restored to pastoral ministry. Other pastors and bishops followed suit, with varying degrees of discipline for the violation of church law being applied. In the absence of uniform punishments being handed down, frustration grew among those opposed to performing and/or hosting same-sex weddings, and the ordination of LGBTQ persons. They saw it as an issue of obedience and church governance, while offenders saw the rule as unjust, and therefore felt called to action in the way Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. described in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
“You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break law. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask, “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. ”
People with varying points of view on the subject have disagreed on whether the application of Dr. King’s letter is pertinent to the issue of full LGBTQ inclusion.
In light of an increasingly hardened impasse, planning had been underway on how best for churches unhappy with the application of church law on this issue to leave the United Methodist Church for other denominations that do not permit same-sex weddings or the ordination of LGBTQ persons. The result was the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation. Rev. Alex Shanks came to visit Heritage a little over a year ago, and shared what was in the protocol, and how it’s implementation might unfold should it pass a vote at the next General Conference, tentatively planned for 2022. You can watch the video of his presentation here:
Since Alex’ Visit
When the time came to make the decision on whether to go ahead with General Conference in 2022, the Committee on General Conference voted to postpone until 2024. Their stated reasoning was that waiting would allow them to ensure coronavirus vaccination for attenders who would be coming from all over the world. The vote was apparently split along ideological lines, with those eager to pass the protocol and leave the United Methodist Church (UMC) preferring to press ahead with the 2022 date. There were accusations that the pandemic was used by those wanting to avoid a church split to impede the departure of churches opposed to performing and/or hosting same-sex weddings and the ordination of LGBTQ persons.
The Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA), an organization formed in 2015 made up of clergy and laity who are opposed to performing and/or hosting same-sex weddings and the ordination of LGBTQ persons, pressed ahead with plans to organize a new denomination this past May rather than waiting for General Conference in 2024. It is called the Global Methodist Church (GMC).
Ahead of the May launch, WCA leaders scheduled a series of events at Florida United Methodist Churches open only to people interested in leaving the UMC. People debated the appropriateness of this on social media after the district superintendent of the Northwest District arrived to attend the meeting in his district and was refused entry. District superintendents across the Florida Conference then set up open meetings at which the future of the UMC could be discussed. When the May launch date arrived, communication from the WCA/GMC announced that over 100 Florida Conference churches would be joining and leaving the UMC. Eventually 14 churches applied for disaffiliation from the UMC at Annual Conference according to a provision added to the Book of Discipline in 2019, ¶ 2553, and it was granted.
The Clergy Session at Florida Annual Conference 2022
The Florida Annual Conference met June 9-11, 2022, at Florida Southern College, a United Methodist university in Lakeland, Florida. Each year the conference opens with the convening of simultaneous clergy and laity sessions, at which they conduct business unique to them. Part of the clergy session is to vote on the licensing, commissioning, and ordination of candidates approved by the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry. Heritage’s Betsy Hughes was approved by the Board as a licensed local pastor (not appointed, still in seminary), and Heritage’s Carey Stevens was approved for commissioning as a provisional deacon (appointed at Skycrest UMC in Clearwater).
It was good to see everyone, as we hadn’t had an in-person annual conference since 2019. However, so much had happened—many churches and pastors and laypeople had declared their desire to leave the denomination. Many of them are people I’d gone to seminary with, people with whom I had fond memories, people who’d been in the crucible with me as we were shaped into pastoral people by our professors and books and papers and studies. We’d learned together—our souls out on the table to be examined and poked and adjusted. We had very few secrets from one another.
Now, however, there was something different. There was a part of our souls that needed to be left in our back pockets if we were to remain cordial. The elephant in the conference was enormous, but once the clergy session got underway, I discovered that I’d underestimated the size of the elephant, and it would leave no room for anything else.
This year (and last year, and next year…) I serve as chairperson of the Committee on Resolutions. As resolutions chair, I'd spent all of my prep time for annual conference reviewing the standing rules, the Book of Discipline, Roberts Rules of Order, and the rules of grammar; and had been emailing, calling, and texting resolution submitters about process, procedure, the order they'd be addressed, and giving advice on crafting speeches for their resolutions. I’d had time for little else.
Before we began voting on the candidates, there was a motion to vote on all of the classes together. I thought that was odd, considering that’s what we always do. The first speaker against the motion dramatically accused the submitter of conspiring to forward an agenda, and accused the Bishop of involvement by calling on him first. He proposed an ammendment to the motion to vote on them individually. There were speeches against it, with accusations going back and forth that this was an effort to push an agenda. Then, in a speech against the motion, a pastor got up and said, “There are two self-avowed, practicing homosexuals being brought up for commissioning.”
So that was why they wanted to vote for them individually—so that they could have each candidate step forward one at a time, and the ones who are gay could be pointed out before they were voted on. That vote on whether to consider them individually or separately has been the subject of lots of analysis and opinion, and so I hope you’ll permit me to share my experience of it as a person who was present.
My Experience of it as a Person who was Present
Maybe others in the room—who didn’t have their nose stuck in the resolutions process since the end of January—were more prepared than I. I’m not on the Board of Ordained Ministry. I didn’t know that there were two LGBTQ persons among the candidates for commissioning, so I had only a few minutes to process what was happening.
Truth be told, I thought it was just for show. I have been attending annual conference since 2007, and these votes have always been a formality—an opportunity for the clergy to stand and cheer for a group of people who had walked the same long journey of preparation we all had, and welcome them to the small community of people called to stand in one of the loneliest places on earth every Sunday with nothing but the Word of God and reliance on the Holy Spirit to carry us. Every one of these votes I’ve seen has been unanimous.
I figured the show would be that this time it would not be unanimous. Either these two people would be singled out and not receive a unanimous vote if considered separately, or the whole class would not be unanimous if voted on together. I thought maybe someone might motion for a roll call vote to put all of us on record in the published minutes of the annual conference so all could see where everyone stood.
Maybe it was appropriate that it shouldn’t be unanimous. Very little is ever unanimous anymore anyway! The vote was taken, and the amendment asking for individual consideration of each candidate did not pass. After another vote, the motion to vote on them together passed.
A roll-call vote was not requested, but the Bishop then said he was aware of the desire to have the vote conducted by secret ballot, and so he proceeded to do so without any motions being made. I assume that he’d been contacted by those opposed to including the LGBTQ persons being commissioned so that it could be in the official record that the vote this year had not been unanimous.
What I couldn’t imagine in a zillion years was that the class—all 16 of them—was in jeopardy of not passing the vote whether we did it individually or not. Everybody knows that the UMC is eventually going to be the one that will allow LGBTQ clergy and weddings at churches that want to have them, and the WCA/GMC won’t. Frankly, WCA affiliated clergy and laity actually walked out of the 2019 annual conference in protest—I wasn’t even sure how many, if any, of them would even care that we were having annual conference let alone actually be there. The GMC had already been in existence for a month by that point, actively working on putting as much distance between themselves and the UMC as they could as quickly as they could.
Beyond that, I knew so many of the the WCA folks in the room—maybe they’d make the show of it in protest, or walk out during the vote, or have a mass abstention or something. However, they’d all been through the same long, difficult process of training, examination, and sacrifice; and weren’t going to do something to put a candidate’s whole career on hold for a year or more. I thought that vote was the end of it, and we were going to go on with the rest of our business, but as you may have heard by now, I was wrong.
The class of candidates for Licensing, including Betsy Hughes, passed easily. As you know by now, the class of candidates for commissioning as provisional elders and deacons, including Carey Stevens, did not.
The Bishop leaned in to the microphone, his voice grave. “Clergy elections require a 3/4 vote. It is the highest voting standard we require for any of the business of the annual conference, which is a testament to how important it is to get this work right. The required vote to elect the class for commissioning as provisional elders and deacons is 75%, and they have received 70%.”
Gasps, groans, and other noises of anger, shock, and frustration immediately filled the room.
The Bishop continued, “Just to clarify, this is historic. There will be no candidates commissioned as provisional deacons or elders, which has never happened before.”
There were motions to revote and other Robert’s Rules process questions tossed out as ways to give the class another chance, but that would require a person who wanted to change their vote or who had abstained from voting to make the motion, and no one did. The ordination class was then voted on, and they passed.
More process questions and motions were floated, with none being in order. But then, one person, a pastor that had actually been a predecessor of mine at my previous appointment at Seminole Heights, motioned to revote. He had abstained the first time. Another person who had abstained seconded the motion. The motion to revote only needed a simple majority, which it got. I thought about Carey Stevens and the others in her class—thankfully she would get another chance. I was sure the people who abstained would vote for the class now that they knew how close it was.
Then a hand went up in the section where the licensing, commissioning, and ordination candidates were sitting. It was someone from the ordination class who had just been approved.
“Does this mean we can vote now?” The Bishop turned to confirm with the Conference Secretary, and then told them they could. A nervous cheer went up at the thought that perhaps this group who had been provisional members just ten minutes prior would help push them over the 75% finish line. Ballots were handed out, votes were cast, and the counting began.
A couple minutes later, the bishop leaned into the microphone again. “For the result of the revote on the candidates for commissioning as provisional deacons and provisional elders, percentage needed is 75%, and they received 72%. There will be no candidates commissioned this year.”
Full Transparency: My Emotional Response to the Votes
Their call had been confirmed by their pastor, by their staff-parish relations committee, by their charge conference, by their District Committee on Ordained Ministry, and finally by the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry. Along the way they had graduated from seminary, written at least a hundred pages of answers to theological, personal growth, and leadership questions, been through background checks, credit checks, mental health evaluations, internships, and interviews; and each step further confirmed what they’d heard God say to them years before: You are called to a set apart ministry of shepherding My people.
We could have joined in, been a part of the parade route cheering them on to spread the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ. I am ashamed of what we did instead.
I found Carey among the crying, rejected candidates for ministry, and gave her a hug. All I could manage to say to her was, “I am so embarrassed, and I am so sorry.” With a line forming to come over and console her, I let her go, and said, “I’m gonna see what I can do.” For all I knew the resolution process might be the only thing that could salvage the next year of their careers, and this year the one responsible for that process was me.
Full disclosure: I think they should have passed, and I’m still aggravated that they didn’t, but now, back to the dispassionate narrative. Thank you for gracefully hearing my experience of it.
Explanations and Justifications
I had some pastors who voted against the class seek me out to talk about what happened. From those interactions and others, there are a few explanations I’ve heard people give.
They voted their conscience (or abstained from voting) because they believe the Bible’s teaching against homosexuality should still stand today as it did when it was written.
They voted their conscience (or abstained from voting) because while they don’t believe the Bible’s teaching against homosexuality should still stand today as it did when it was written, we should follow the rules and wait until the Book of Discipline is changed before approving LGBTQ persons as candidates for commissioning as provisional elders or deacons.
What emerged from WCA leaders, however, is a more concerted effort aimed at combating a hidden agenda of those on the Board of Ordained Ministry who are staying in the UMC. Blog articles abound in which the Board is accused of using the class as “mules,” a reference to cross-border drug smuggling practices, to shield the LGBTQ candidates from scrutiny and advance an agenda that would allow “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” to serve as clergy without waiting for General Conference to change the Book of Discipline. Therefore, those voting against the class were the ones upholding it.
So Whose Fault Was It?
There’s plenty of fault to go around. The motion made to vote for the classes together was an odd start to the session since that’s what we always do. The vote-for-them-one-at-a-time spokesperson called this out as an attempt to head off a motion he planned on making to vote for them separately. The person who made the motion in the first place is one of the best people I know, but in hindsight it’s probably true.
For me, I guess the accusation by WCA/GMC leaders aimed at “UMC-stayers” that they used the class to “sneak” two gay people in as commissioned elders or deacons comes down to how close they thought this vote would be.
As I admitted already, I didn’t think there was the slightest chance of them not passing. If the makers of the motion to vote for the classes together felt as I confident as I did, then this was just a case of trying to spare these candidates unnecessary embarrassment since they were going to pass anyway.
On the other hand, if they had information that it was going to be close, and that voting together increased the odds that they’d all pass, the class probably should have been consulted and given the chance to decide whether they wanted to be a part of that plan.
According to those I’ve asked about this, including members of the class, there was an effort among class members to make a statement about being voted on as one, but it never came together. (Having been through the Board of Ordained Ministry process, I can see how there might not be much oxygen left for anything extra like that.) However, even if that’s what the class would have wanted, they probably should have been consulted on it—especially if those making the motion knew that it would be so close, but I guess hindsight is always 20-20.
Was there an attempt made to have dialogue about this? Did anyone who is staying as a part of the UMC approach anyone from the WCA and ask if there’s a way they could allow these LGBTQ candidates to be commissioned now, so that in two years, when most or all of them aren’t a part of the UMC anymore and the Discipline is likely changed, the candidates will have been allowed to do the work they’ll need to do to be eligible for ordination in 2024 or beyond? I don’t know, but I also don’t know if it would have made much of a difference. It might have been a hopeful sign, however, that we still believe reasonable people can find ways to work together when the moment calls for it.
Anything Else on this from Annual Conference?
Following the clergy session, clergy and laity met together in the plenary sessions to conduct the business of the conference. You can find a general summary of the work here. Regarding issues of same-sex weddings and ordination of LGBTQ persons, there were two other items of note.
14 churches negotiated agreements with the Florida Conference Board of Trustees and were approved for disaffiliation by vote of the Annual Conference: First UMC, Vero Beach; St. Paul’s/Highland Avenue Fellowship UMC, Melbourne; Lake Helen UMC, Lake Helen; First UMC, Dunnellon; First UMC, Williston; Solomon Chapel UMC, Orange Lake; Wesley Chapel - Cotton Plant UMC, Ocala; Fort Caroline UMC, Jacksonville; Greenville UMC, Greenville; Hanson-Madison UMC, Pinetta; Cherry Lake UMC, Madison; Rocky Springs UMC, Madison; Davie UMC, Davie; First UMC, Punta Gorda. I understand that this agreement included paying the rest of this year’s apportionments**, plus an additional 3X the church’s apportionment amount, and any unfunded pension liabilities they still owed toward the retirement of clergy that had served there.
**Apportionments are each local church’s share of the important, disciple-making, world-transforming ministries we all combine to take responsibility for across the Florida annual conference, with the amount based on the size of each church’s budget. It’s roughly close to a “tithe” of the church’s budget toward our shared ministries. For context, Heritage’s apportionment amount in 2022 is $112,463. There’s more about this below under the “Let Us Go!” heading.
In my capacity as chairperson of the Conference Committee on Resolutions I worked with concerned conference clergy and lay delegates, as well as my committee, on the crafting and presentation of a resolution that might mitigate some of the effects on the careers of the candidates of the commissioning vote. (In short, any conference delegate or church administrative council can submit a resolution to the Conference Committee on Resolutions. It is the committee’s job to make sure that it is properly before the Annual Conference according to our standing rules, to help submitters prepare to speak on behalf of their resolution, to bring resolutions to the floor during the Annual Conference event for voting, and to advise the Bishop on resolution process items that might arise as he presides.) The resolution provided for the commissioning class approved by the Board of Ordained Ministry to (a) begin the Residency in Ministry program they would have started had they been approved, and (b) have the coming year of ministry count as one of the required years they must spend in pastoral ministry before being allowed to apply for ordination as elders or deacons in full connection. The full text of this and all of the resolutions brought before the annual conference can be found here. It required a simple majority vote, and passed by a fairly wide margin.
Resolutions and statements from annual conferences and various groups and individuals came in from across the country in support and solidarity with the commissioning class caught in the middle of the conflict.
What’s Happened Since?
As far as I understand, most of the candidates for commissioning were given clergy statuses that can be conferred at the district level, normally used for volunteer or student pastors who are in seminary yet help out at a small church who can’t afford a full-time pastor. The bishop and district superintendents did all they could to affirm their call and help them begin the ministries to which they were appointed. Many groups and individuals stepped forward to help mitigate any financial impact on the candidates as well. Despite the outcome of the vote, neither side disputed the excellence with which the candidates presented themselves and their call to ministry, so I’m hopeful that they’ll receive support from people across the spectrum of viewpoints.
The most recent development is a class-action lawsuit filed in Bradford County on behalf of just over 100 churches, which asks the court to force the Florida Conference to release them from the denomination with all of the assets they hold in trust for the denomination. You can read more about the lawsuit here, and can read Bishop Carter’s statement in response to it here.
“Let Us Go!”
If there’s a social media refrain from pastors and church members opposed to full LGBTQ inclusion, “Let Us Go” might be it. It might seem simple enough. If a church wants to leave, why not let them leave? In short, the Florida Conference, as an entity in existence since the 1870’s, has made commitments that are not, nor should they be, easily broken. We were given land in Leesburg with the expectation that it would be maintained as a place of retreat for Methodists of all ages. We’ve agreed to be a home for children without families through the United Methodist Children’s Home. We’ve agreed to help shoulder the burden of disaster relief. We’ve agreed to offer a home away from home through the Wesley Foundations on college campuses across the state of Florida. We’ve agreed to partner with the churches of Cuba and Angola to pray for and support them. We’ve agreed to help end the existence of malaria on the continent of Africa. We’ve committed to care for the faithful clergy and their spouses who gave their lives to the service of Christ’s church during their retirement years as well.
Before churches are allowed to abandon these commitments we made together, thoughtful planning will be required on how we will meet them, or how we will transition to reduce what is expected of us regarding support for college students, families at camp, victims of disasters, orphans, retired clergy, the people of Cuba and Africa, and anyone else who counts on our support. Departing churches may want to leave tomorrow and be freed from the apportionments they pay in order to share these responsibilities so they can spend the money on something else, but it would be irresponsible for our bishops, superintendents, and lay leaders to simply pull the rug out from under these ministries. What some call “foot dragging” or “being held hostage” is simply people trying to find a faithful way to answer the call God has placed upon the United Methodist Church. It’s not as simple as it’s made out to be in the oversimplified soundbites on Facebook written to make everybody as angry as possible. There are real lives being affected.
Full disclosure… the week that I spoke at Warren Willis there were several kids from the United Methodist Children’s Home in attendance. The United Methodist Church has been a refuge for kids coming out of painful places for a long time, and I got to hear about it straight from the mouths of kids who have never had the ground feel stable under their feet, and are still not sure they can trust the stability they feel now. It was a privilege to meet them, and I count it a privilege to be a part of a denomination that would tell the bickering grownups to hold on a minute until we can figure out how to continue to be that refuge for a long time to come.
So the holding pattern continues. Both sides continue to sin in their anger. It won’t go on forever, but the end is still a ways on up ahead.
What Difference Does All This Make at Heritage United Methodist?
On many occasions I have said that I don’t think any good will come from us engaging in debate, discussion, or dialogue about this at Heritage at all.
No one is asking us to host or officiate a same-sex wedding. I’ve never done one, nor would I unless the Administrative Council at Heritage changed our policy on it. In truth, I love doing weddings, but churches are rarely the setting of weddings anymore anyway.
Secondly, I’m straight, and I’ve been reappointed at Heritage once again, so there’s no possibility for an LGBTQ person to be appointed as the pastor at Heritage. Further, it would be insanity for the Bishop to appoint an LGBTQ person as the pastor of a church unless the church expressed at least an openness, and at best an eagerness, for it. If the church was not open to it it would kill the church and perhaps the pastor as well. It’s a real lose-lose proposition that isn’t good for anybody. If the Bishop were to consider appointing an LGBTQ person as the pastor at Heritage, it would be because our Ad. Council went out of their way to ask for it, not because the Bishop is secretly in the market for places to put LGBTQ pastors that will hate and hurt them.
So in my opinion, getting into this would be searching for a solution without a problem.
There are a host of other reasons of the WCA and GMC have given recently for joining other than issues related to LGBTQ inclusion. There are differences in leadership structure and other elements of governance. Here’s a brief list:
“Apportionments Will Be Lower” GMC recruiting presentations often share that apportionments to be paid by churches to the new denomination will be less by a half or even two-thirds in comparison with what they currently pay as a part of the UMC. This is because they will no longer be responsible for the cost and upkeep of Warren Willis Camp; the Florida Conference Center; Wesley Foundation college ministry facilities; UMC colleges like Bethune Cookman or Florida Southern; and other properties that will be left behind with the UMC. Further, they plan to have fewer centralized denominational agencies and leaders.
“Churches Will Have More Freedom” GMC recruiting presentations point out that churches will have more freedom to go to the conferences they want to attend or support mission agencies they prefer rather than supporting the ones owned or endorsed by the UMC. We've all had the option to do that already anyway, but it’s a frequent selling point.
“There Will Be Fewer Bishops, and They Will Have Less Authority” GMC recruiting presentations frequently cite the size of the college of bishops as unnecessarily cumbersome and self-serving. Therefore, in his new denomination, they will reduce the authority they wield, and give them term limits.
“There Will be Swift and More Thorough Discipline for Disobedient Clergy” One of the greatest frustrations that traditionalists have in the United Methodist Church is the reluctance by district and conference leaders who do not bring clergy who do same-sex weddings up on charges to face discipline, including the potential removal of their ordination. This is always mentioned in GMC recruiting presentations.
“Licensed Local Pastors will be Treated Better” During GMC recruiting presentations it’s often said that the UMC treats licensed local pastors as "second class citizens." Very briefly, a licensed local pastor is someone who has been through a thorough training program in pastoral ministry and is serving as a pastor in a local church, but doesn't necessarily have a master of divinity degree, and has not yet completed the examination process for commissioning as a provisional elder by the Board of Ordained Ministry. It appears that licensed local pastors will be made the equivalent, or at least much more similar to, full elders in the new denomination.
Beyond these, the issue that WCA/GMC leaders and members would probably say underlies all of their critiques of those staying in the UMC the issue of Biblical authority. In short, they claim that those headed for the GMC consider the Bible authoritative, and those staying behind do not.
Here is a sample of the Biblical authority argument straight from one of the leaders of the WCA/GMC themselves. This message (click here to view) is by Rev. Rob Renfroe, editor of the Good News magazine and a pastor in Texas, and he’s speaking about the work of the “Way Forward” commission, made up of UM leaders from around the world and from both points of view on human sexuality, which was tasked with researching and preparing church structure options from which delegates to the 2019 General Conference could choose that would allow the UMC to accomplish its mission despite our disagreements. It was recorded with a live audience instructed ahead of time to cheer loudly throughout, so it feels kind of campaign-rally style at times, but it’s a good example of the kind of arguments made claiming that those staying in the UMC don’t believe what the Bible says.
As you can imagine, I wholeheartedly, passionately reject any claim that I do not love and revere the Scriptures, those who wrote them, and those who sacrificed their safety to preserve them. I wholeheartedly, passionately reject any claim that I do not hold the Bible in the highest regard as anything other than authoritative, propelled by the Holy Spirit into the ears and hearts and minds and souls of people whose lives it has changed, including my own. It takes intentional restraint at times to give a reasoned response when I am accused otherwise.
I have written a separate article, also on the Heritage blog, that discusses the differences between the approach of the WCA/GMC and the approach of the ongoing UMC without pointing out one or the other as the villain. Click here to read it. You’ll be able to tell the one to which I subscribe, but I have tried to be fair to both approaches. Both have produced the fruit of the Holy Spirit and have their place.
How can Heritage Go About Leaving the United Methodist Church?
In 2019 a special meeting of the General Conference approved a temporary addendum to the United Methodist Book of Discipline that gave guidance for annual conferences to allow churches to be disaffililated from the United Methodist Church. You can read the addendum here.
There are resources from the Florida Conference that might be helpful as well. You can find them here.
You can find resources from the Global Methodist Church by clicking here.
All annual conferences across the United Methodist Church are doing their best to help churches navigate the way ahead until the next General Conference in 2024. Executive Director Janean Briseno’s long time mentor is a District Superintendent in the North Texas Annual Conference, and shared their resources as well. You can find them here.
Shepherding
The United Methodist Church offers a critically important, yet unique, contribution to the global conversation about who Jesus Christ was and the difference He can still make today. I will be remaining in the United Methodist Church, and hope to remain a Heritage United Methodist for many years to come! Regardless, the next General Conference at which decisions can be made about the UMC’s future will happen in 2024. Until then, we will make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, and continue to work to accomplish the mission God has given us in Clearwater and around the world.
For as long as I’m allowed I will do the best shepherding I can—because that’s what pastors do—to be the very best United Methodist church we can be, and I will do so without any ill feeling toward those who have already chosen, or who will choose, a different kind of shepherd and a different kind of church. Everyone to wants to be, regardless of your view on this issue, will always be a welcome and valued part of Christ’s church at Heritage.
The world needs a church that’s good in the grey. It needs churches that are good in the black and white too, but there are many churches covering that already. I like the grey and feel called to it—I like to look around and see where the Holy Spirit is moving—out in front, helping us navigate waters we’ve never navigated before. It’s not often easy, and not often safe, but it’s always good to go where the Holy Spirit is, humbled by the unknowns, yet emboldened to face them by the presence of the God who is with us. As followers of God with us, may we always be a church who is willing to prioritize being with, not afraid of the unknown—perhaps eager for it, because of our faith in the One who can do far more than we could ever ask or imagine.
United Methodists have and hone the skills needed by those who are blazing the trails, plotting the course, and finding the ways through, and making paths for others to follow. What an adventure we’ve been on, and what an adventure yet awaits! It is a privilege to be a part of the adventure with you!
