A Reminder for Rob Renfroe

Rob Renfroe's latest editorial is a mess. I don't have any other word for it. His overall point is made clear and well in his very last words. "We have traveled the same path for many years, really decades. It has led to acrimony, disobedience, dysfunction, and decline. It's time to choose a path that will make all the difference." True enough. The problem is the editorial is more than those final three sentences. So here's a reminder of some truths that matter.

The editorial is titled, "Who Will Prevail in Minneapolis?" Then the entire editorial pretends that traditionalist leadership has always wanted a peaceful, respectful solution where everyone wins. As the title itself suggests, that simply is not fair or true. Here's why:

1. The entire editorial puts the word "centrist" in quotes. You know that putting something in quotes is a literary way to discount it. It means; "They call themselves centrists but we know they really aren't." Let me make this personal. In one of my last two appointments, the knock on me before I arrived was that I was too conservative. In another appointment the knock was that I was too liberal. I think that qualifies as centrist. Rev. Renfroe has boiled all theology down to one question. Do you approve of same-sex marriage and ordination? My answer is yes. And I also can say the creeds of the church without crossing my fingers behind my back. And I know many pastors and laity who can say that exact same thing. Renfroe must make this about progressives and traditionalists. In the real world there are many variations in-between.

2. Renfroe claims he and other traditionalist leaders want "a solution that has no winners or losers." I don't believe him. In fact, as I and others have previously shared, in 2004 Good News published a document that explicitly says a disadvantage to traditionalists leaving the denomination intact is that " It also leaves the United Methodist denomination somewhat intact". I want to state that again.

Good News, which Renfroe claims wants no losers, published a strategy document that explicitly says progressives must lose. And, in fact, when you listen to traditionalist rhetoric it is easy to understand why. If those who favor full inclusion (progressives and many, many centrists) are truly distorting God's word and will then one can understand why they would want us to lose. We have previously been called false teachers by traditionalist leaders. Forgive me for finding it difficult to trust an organization that has called me and those who I agree with false teachers and our continuing existence as a denomination a disadvantage.

3. Renfroe asserts that centrists and progressives want "an abrasive and harmful fight they believe they can win." I can assure you that this is not the case. Most of us believed there were already appropriate ways for churches to withdraw from the denomination. Now it is clear that there must be a way for larger blocks of churches to form something new. No serious observer of our denomination will argue that there is a way forward where the entire denomination stays intact. It is not possible. The issue that remains is how we can best facilitate separation of those who must separate. The reason centrists and progressives believe that traditionalists are the ones who should separate is that they are the only group that has said they are willing to leave. This is why the centrist and progressive group UMC Next has a proposal that "provides a method for groups of churches to form new expression of Methodism." The door is open. We are willing to open it wider. And we will not call you false teacher or put your descriptors in quotes on the way out.

The Bottom Line

At the end of General Conference 2020 we will set the terms for the divorce. The traditionalist caucuses have consistently vilified centrists and progressives. We have consistently said that we really truly want to work together. They have refused. Because traditionalists have refused, the divorce must happen. A marriage cannot last if one party wants out. The remaining questions are 1) How many churches will choose to be United Methodist and how many will choose otherwise and 2) How will we divide the assets. UMC Next, the Indianapolis Plan, and other proposals all have different models to answer these questions. Don't let Renfroe or anyone else distract you from the reality.

Indianapolis in Africa

The WCA recently endorsed the Indianapolis Plan, alongside most other traditionalist groups in the United States. I will have more to say about the Indy Plan later, but first I want to focus on Africa. Some of my friends who live in and/or are from Africa have asked for this. The short answer: It's not good.

1. The Indy Plan continues the United Methodist Church in the "centrist" grouping and automatically puts all United Methodists outside of the U.S. in the "traditionalist" grouping. 2556.2 reads "The United Methodist Church shall continue as a convention or association of churches, as a successor, for the constituent units that realign by choice or default with the Centrist UMC." The traditionalist group may use United Methodist in its name but is not required to. My understanding is that the UM name is important for Africa. It could well be lost in this plan.

2. More significantly, all of the General Boards and Agencies will stay in the centrist group. That means all of Africa will immediately be separated from the boards and agencies that have been so helpful to them. The WCA has promised support for United Methodists outside of the U.S. with a "Central Conference Ministry Fund," but they have only reported once on the amount raised? Why? Because it was an embarrassingly small number.

3. One reason the number was so small is that traditionalists in the U.S. continue to leave the denomination and/or not pay their apportionments. For example, The Woodlands UMC, the flagship church of Good News, paid no apportionments to the General Church in 2018, including to Africa University. They give zero support to the denomination's ministries that directly benefit Africa.

4. The asset allocation plan proposed by U.S. traditionalists will make it even worse. Walter Fenton, associated with both Good News and the WCA, said in 2017, "For many U.S. conservatives, general church matters are not a high priority. They see little benefit in supporting several of the denomination's general boards and agencies..." Tom Lambrecht said the same thing earlier this year. "Many traditionalists believe the current structure of the UM Church, with its many boards and agencies, has become more of a liability than an asset to the ministry of the local church."  Perhaps this is why the asset allocation plan would largely de-fund the agencies. Agencies would keep their buildings and one year budget of cash. All other funds would be divided between the new denominations. Since some of the funds are reserved for specific purposes, it is possible that a general agency would have virtually no money to use for their mission beyond the week to week giving they receive. It is true that no matter the path forward we will need to make some hard decisions with the organization and funding of the general boards and agencies. It is also no secret that traditionalists in the U.S. have wanted to radically downsize or eliminate them for many years.

5. The new Book of Doctrines and Disciplines shows how a WCA denomination will be governed and has some worrying provisions. Perhaps the most worrying is the way clergy are deployed. The WCA envisions a denomination where every local church picks its own pastor. Technically they are appointed but the process is very clearly weighted for the local church to decide. There is a rule that churches must interview at least one woman and at least one person who is not of the predominant ethnicity. There is no rule that those people must receive an appointment. I don't know what this will mean in Africa. In the United States, I am especially concerned about what this will mean for Africans who have come here. Racism is still real. I want to be clear - I do not believe that the authors of this plan are racist or are trying to keep ethnic minorities or women out of ministry. I do believe that the result of the plan will be fewer opportunities for ministry.

6.  There is also another danger. I am speculating but I think it still should be named. The Indy Plan has a provision for another denomination to form with 50 or more churches. That means any group could choose to simply leave the denomination. I think some churches would do that. Just leave and don't pay any apportionments. I don't know why traditionalists would want to include this option unless some want to leave the rest of us, including Africa, entirely.

Alternatives

I encourage all of us to consider some alternatives to the current Indianapolis Plan.

1. Modify the plan so that every church including international churches are in the centrist UMC by default and can vote to be in a different group if they choose to. A church or conference should be allowed to leave but if the centrist group is officially the United Methodist Church then that is where every church and conference should be unless they vote otherwise.

2. Eliminate the option for 50 churches to leave.

3. Support regional self governance. Bishops from the Philippines have called for this already. It is the only practical step forward.

Standing on the Shoulders

I am not the first (or in the first million) to use the phrase. We are like people standing on the shoulders of giants, seeing further only because of those who have preceded us.

Last Sunday as we celebrated All Saints Day at Old Mission, our opening prayer included the phrase - "Be present with us...as we celebrate those whose shoulders we stand on..." We do see further, know more, and can improve our lives and the lives of others because of so many great people who have come before us. Science, theology, and the humanities all build upon their work. I will continue to use this phrase with this meaning.

At the same time, on Sunday morning I heard this phrase in a different way. There are others who we also stand on.

I think of some current and retired colleagues in ministry who are LGBT+. I am a better pastor because of them and stand on their shoulders. And I also risk just standing on top of them, preventing their voices from being heard because of the weight of mine.

Some of those colleagues are women and ethnic minorities. I stand on their shoulders, informed and being formed by their wisdom and grace. And I acknowledge that historically women and (at least in my denomination) ethnic minorities in ministry have been crushed. We have stood on them, I have stood on them, instead of lifting one another up to greater heights.

It is exaggeration, I think, to say that everything in our country that is good has come about because of slavery. It is not exaggeration to say that we in the dominant culture have, well, dominated. We crushed those in slavery and then stood on top of the descendants of slaves making their journey to prosperity more difficult. It's hard to stand up when somebody is on top of you.

The intent, I think, of the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants" is to remind us that we should be grateful for those who came before us and to accept humility lest we think we have accomplished what we have done on our own. I still believe both of those ideas. I would simply add one more. We must be aware not only of those who have lifted us up, we must also be aware of those who we have simply stood on and (often unintentionally) pushed down in the process.