Baltimore-Washington WCA Misrepresentation

 The Baltimore-Washington chapter of the WCA has published eight statements that they believe are important to remember. Facts need to be checked. As always, please read the original and let me know if you see an error in my response. I've responded to items 1-4 even though I'm not sure any of the inaccuracies there are relevant, so if you want to skip to what is most important begin with the second half of point 5.

 1. GC2016 narrowly and controversially approved the Commission on the Way Forward. This is true.

2. Immediately following, the Western Jurisdiction elected Karen Oliveto to be a bishop and, "She is still illegally a bishop." The timeline is basically correct (it was in July so one could argue the word "immediately" as a technicality. It is not entirely accurate that she was elected and still serves "illegally." What constitutes (using our current, hopelessly outdated language in the Book of Discipline) a "self-avowed, practicing homosexual" has always been a source of contention. Bishop Oliveto did not clearly meet the standard until a Judicial Council ruling in April, 2017. Their decision goes on to read, "Self-avowal does not nullify the consecration and cause removal from episcopal office but is a sufficient declaration to subject the bishop’s ministerial office to review." In other words, Bishop Oliveto could be charged and stand trial, but it is not "illegal" for her to remain a bishop in the meantime. Having said all that, I understand why the WCA would see Bishop Oliveto's election as ecclesial disobedience.

3. The Commission on the Way Forward (CWF) developed three plans but the bishops rejected the Traditional Plan and an ad hoc group had to finish developing it. The CWF did not develop the Traditional Plan at all and had no obligation to do so. The WCA says the Traditional Plan was "restored" only with "much difficulty" by an ad-hoc group. That could be true. We don't know. Because what is definitely true is that the Traditional Plan is the only legislation to find its way to General Conference with completely unknown authors (unofficially we know which bishops were involved in the writing, but none of them have had the courage to come forward).

4. "Convinced that the One Church Plan was a slam dunk to pass, the Council of Bishops threw all their effort, time and energy into selling it..." The second half of this sentence is partially true. Not all bishops supported the One Church Plan, but the majority did and some spent time on it. Those of us leading the charge on the ground were disappointed that there wasn't greater, public support by the bishops. The first half of the sentence is not true. Those of us leading the charge, and I think the bishops as well, believed we had enough votes, but just barely, and there were nervous conversations all the way up to the start of General Conference. The amount of support for the Traditional Plan was a surprise. Evidence that the first half of the sentence is wrong comes from the existence of the second half - leaders don't waste any of their political capital on something that is a slam dunk.

5. "After an extremely ugly debate that awakened the One Church Plan supporters that their plan had no possible way of passing, the Traditional Plan passed. Those who couldn't live with it had the ability to exit via ¶2553, after that narrowly passed.  ¶2553 was not the desired outcome of the Traditional Plan supporters..." The writing was on the wall after the first vote at GC19 before almost any debate had taken place. Regarding 2553, my single most emotional response on the floor of any General Conference came after I spoke in favor of it when a traditionalist told me they were passing it for people like me. Here's the thing - don't give someone a gift they didn't ask for. The idea is that 2553 was passed for progressives when progressives were the ones who were not supportive of it. I truly did support it, and still do, for those churches who feel they can't stay in the denomination. I was in the minority of progressives/centrists at GC19 on that vote. Finally, as I've shared before, 2553 was brought to the floor as a minority report (think substitute motion) by traditionalists. In our rules, a minority report can be vastly different from the resolution it is replacing. It is true that the original resolution was not written by a traditionalist. It is also true that traditionalists could have made the final resolution nearly identical to whatever they would have preferred. 

6. "Instead of abiding by the will of the General Conference, progressive United Methodists (including Bishops) began a massive campaign of disobedience and purposeful spurning of the Discipline." This is blatantly false. It is true that there was a grassroots uprising against what was perceived as a mean-spirited plan passed by General Conference. Lay members of churches who had never been active beyond the local church reached out about how they could help right the wrongs. I remember receiving a text message from a friend while I was on vacation - "XX Conference just elected a full slate of progressive/centrist lay delegates." I literally replied, "You must have misheard. That wouldn't happen." Organizing happened among the moderate middle that had never happened before - and the WCA and friends didn't like it. In no way was there a massive campaign of disobedience.

7. "Traditionalists decided that it was no longer worth fighting the battle to reform the UMC, and accepted the idea that they could leave. In good faith, they negotiated the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace..." I will assume that traditionalists negotiated the Protocol in good faith. Note that traditionalist leaders like Rob Renfroe* have since said that progressives and centrists did not negotiate in good faith. From multiple conversations with nearly all the progressive/centrist signers, I can promise you he is wrong. *I am not able to find a quote from Renfroe specifically saying this. He has implied it in videos like this. 

8. "When it was obvious that the new denomination, the Global Methodist Church, would take a large portion of churches from the UMC (if they were allowed to go freely), progressives and institutionalists who negotiated the Protocol had buyers’ remorse and did everything in their power to either sink the Protocol or postpone General Conference..." There is not even a shred of truth here. First, note that traditionalists who are leaving the denomination gloat when they find a conference with even 15-20% of churches leaving. The vast majority of United Methodist Churches will still be United Methodist Churches in 2024. Second, many, possibly even a majority, of churches that leave are choosing to be independent rather than part of the GMC. We can't say for sure because the GMC has not released any information about churches or pastors who have joined. Third, I was in conversation with the progressive and centrist signers before they pulled their support. What they said in public is exactly what they said in private. The Protocol was no longer a viable path forward. What they did not say (but I wish they had) is that traditionalist leadership had already rejected the Protocol, just not by name.

GMC Misrepresentations Continue to Grow

The truth will set you free. 

I believe in the authority of Scripture, so I believe these words from Jesus are true. I do not wish ill on those who leave the UMC. I do believe it is important for them to be truthful. And I continue to be amazed at the ways some national and global traditionalist leadership twist the truth about the UMC. The latest is this article by John Lomperis. There's so much here that I'm just going to number them as I work through the article. As always, I encourage you to read the article so you know the context and feel free to let me know if I make any factual mistakes.

First, a couple of clear opinion pieces that I need to share. The title - Lawsuit Time: Florida UMC Fight Goes to Court! strikes me as a feeling of excitement, not sorrow. I think we should all be in sackcloth right now. Second, Lomperis' readers need to always be aware of how he demonizes those he disagrees with. For example, Bishop Carter is "aggressively liberal" - whatever that means - and later is simply "Mr. Carter." His protagonists, meanwhile, are the "underdogs" even though traditionalists at the General Conference level have gloated for years about winning every vote, etc. 

Now the factual misrepresentations. Get a snack. This will take a while.

1. "The Protocol preamble makes clear that the [UMC] will liberalize." The preamble does imagine a church (which I hope comes to pass) where discriminatory language against LGBT+ people is removed. In that limited way Lomperis is correct. That is NOT a doctrinal change, despite Lomperis citing his own argument to the contrary. Importantly, the Protocol's preamble also says, "We envision the Post-Separation United Methodist Church will strive to be a place where traditional United Methodists can continue to serve." If one wants to pretend that the progressive-traditionalist theological spectrum is entirely based on approval-disapproval of LGBT+ people then Lomperis may be right. That is not world we actually live in, as I can personally attest to with both my own theology and many laypeople that I have served over 20+ years as a pastor.

2. "For United Methodists who do not want their denomination to keep bishops who openly deny the UMC’s own core doctrine about Jesus Christ, and who want a clear majority of their denomination’s American constituency to not believe that “Jesus committed sins like other people...” I assume this is referring to Bishop Sprague, and Bishop Oliveto. The quote refers to a sermon by Oliveto that is taken out of context and the reference to Sprague is, as best as I can determine, the only instance in the history of our denomination of a bishop denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Taken very literally, Lomperis is correct. It is a clear misrepresentation of what 99% of UM bishops have taught. 

3. "The Florida UMC congregations in this lawsuit...are seeking to simply continue serving God and their community..." No, literally nothing is preventing them from doing that. They are seeking to take millions of dollars of property and avoid payments that they, through their General Conference delegates, agreed to.

4. "Now Carter and his appointees have done so much to “cause pain” that over 100 Florida congregations in this lawsuit have found it necessary to separate from the UMC, so that they can remain faithful to the historic doctrinal and moral standards..." First, no bishop can make a church leave. They are making that choice - as they have the right to do. Second, despite so much misinformation, there is absolutely nothing in proposed changes to the Book of Discipline that would prevent a traditional church or pastor from being both traditional and United Methodist. Nobody will force a pastor to perform a same-sex marriage; nobody will force the people in the pews from recognizing a same-sex marriage. 

5. "[Those who leave] should be people like Carter who do not believe in the UMC’s historic, official historic standards." This is another common misrepresentation that I'll be posting on soon. Lomperis, and the GMC generally, is cherry-picking "historic standards" I have repeatedly offered to share blatant evidence of traditionalist churches who openly violate our doctrinal standards on baptism. Nobody, including Lomperis, has taken me up on it. Note that our statements on baptism actually are doctrinal. 

6. Using "Paragraph 2553 is not nearly as “fair” or “gracious” as Carter suggests." As you have likely heard me say before, paragraph 2553 was brought to the floor of General Conference by a traditionalist leader who literally said, "This is the way I would want to be treated if I were the one leaving." Lomperis then identifies two ways in which 2553 are unfair.

7. "A traditionalist congregation can become permanently taken over for liberalism, and blocked from remaining connected with more orthodox Methodists, by a mere 34-percent minority." It's fair to argue about the best threshold needed for a church to leave. But Lomperis is still objectively wrong. Hypothetically, if a congregation voted to leave with only a 65% majority and thus failed to get to the required 2/3 under paragraph 2553 in no way would that be a "permanent" decision. If that were the case, he should also be outraged that under his preferred 50%+1 rules, a 49% liberal minority could be "permanently" blocked from being United Methodist. These are important decisions, but they aren't permanent decisions. 

8. "Secondly, ¶2553, in the name of supposedly covering unfunded pension liabilities for retired clergy and their spouses, requires massive, immediate exit fees." First, note again Lomperis' extreme bias. I know of nobody who doubts there is indeed an unfunded pension liability. It is not "supposed," it is real. But Lomperis is factually incorrect in two regards here. First, as of 2019, there is no process in the Book of Discipline for a church to leave without paying for their portion of the unfunded liability. A separate petition from Wespath applies regardless of the method of disaffiliation. Second, Lomperis again cites his own work to demonstrate the excessive cost. In this case it's a 2020 article. In 2020 he may have had a point, but every conference treasurer I know has told me the costs have gone down considerably due to general economic conditions. I checked with our conference treasurer on the cost for the church I serve. According to his numbers, our cost would be less than 1/4 of the cost in 2020. It would be less than 5% of the commitments we received for a capital campaign we conducted during the pandemic. 

9. "This Florida UMC lawsuit only comes after several years of his boxing traditionalists into a corner." Lomperis gives several reasons for this, dating back to March 2019. First, he cites the case of Rev. Andy Oliver. A complaint was filed against Oliver in 2019, before the abeyance language in the Protocol had come about, and says nothing was done. Lomperis has been personally involved in complaints, as have I, and I'm sure he knows that even fast-tracked complaints can take months if the accused uses all the tools available to them. The case I was involved with was under a very traditionalist bishop and it still took over a year before the accused agreed to a "just resolution." Because the abeyance is against charges that have already been brought, it would have applied to Oliver's case well before there had been resolution. Lomperis talks extensively about Rev. Jay Therrell's treatment in Florida, which I'm not informed enough to speak to, and then moves to the debacle of the Florida Annual Conference's decision to not ordain their full slate of candidates. First, note that approval of ordination requires a 75% vote. Rephrasing Lomperis' earlier point on churches separating from the denomination, does it seem right that a group of only; 26% could prevent someone from being ordained? Second, the abeyance should have applied in this case. Instead, a group of clergy, most of whom plan on leaving the denomination, chose to cause pain.

10. " the Florida UMC congregations in this lawsuit “tried to settle this matter with the Florida Annual Conference..." This statement comes from an article in the Lehigh Acres Gazette that makes no attempt to share the Conference's point of view and reads like an editorial. I can't say whether this is a factual error; I can say that the Florida Annual Conference tells a very different story.

11. The Florida Conference is demanding, "...an arbitrary, onerous, and often prohibitive sum of money determined in the sole discretion” of annual conference officials." It is not arbitrary - it is based on the decision of GC2019 and the unfunded liability portion is uniformly applied across literally every church in the denomination that chooses to leave for any reason. It is not onerous or prohibitive - the pension amount is 1/4 of what it was two years ago. And it was not made at the "sole discretion" of the conference. Florida is among the large majority of conferences that are requiring the absolute minimum requirements found in paragraph 2553. 

Who Inherits the Methodist Movement?

 One of the primary goals of my blogs over the last several months has been to debunk false claims from Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) and Global Methodist Church (GMC) leadership. There are clear reasons why a person may choose to leave the United Methodist Church for the GMC. If a person or church makes that choice based on a prayerful, thoughtful, informed decision, so be it. But those people and churches do need to have correct information.

One of the false claims you may have seen is that the GMC are the rightful inheritors of the Methodist Movement. You'll see this in questions like, "Why are we the ones leaving the denomination when we have been faithful to the Book of Discipline?" I'll have a direct response soon to the question of faithfulness to the Book of Discipline. Today I want to address only the underlying issue - which group is the "rightful" inheritors of Methodism?

It's a trick question. While those of us who are progressive on LGBT+ inclusion have repeatedly been called "false teachers," you won't hear us pushing that rhetoric on traditionalists. The GMC will be one of many Methodist denominations in the greater Methodist tradition that encompasses dozens of denominations across the world.

I contend that those remaining in the UMC are at least equal inheritors of our tradition. 

First, note that the continuing United Methodist Church is not changing any of our doctrine. Is it true that some United Methodists don't follow that doctrine? Yes. You'll see that in comments like this one that remind us of the prominent case of Bishop Sprague (note that if you have to go back 20 years for your best example of a problem it may not actually be that big of a problem). It is also true that there are churches who refuse women as pastors, pastors that rebaptize and/or do not baptize infants, and churches that teach a strict seven-day creation. Being selective in following our doctrine is not a problem for only one side of our divide. 

The GMC is being formed at least in part so that they can attain doctrinal purity. That is a task that is bound to fail. They will be forced, just as the UMC is, with making decisions about whether to take action based on the inevitable deviation from their stated doctrine. 

Second, while the UMC is not changing our doctrine, the GMC actually is. The official doctrine of the UMC is contained in the Articles of Religion, the Confession of Faith, the Standard Sermons of Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament (written by Wesley), and the General Rules of the Methodist Church. The GMC adds the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon. Theologically, I have no issue with any of these. It's important to note that, while reason is not clear, Wesley explicitly chose not to include the first two in our doctrine - our Articles of Religion come from the Church of England and Wesley chose not to include Article VIII on the creeds. 

What is of ultimate importance here is not the content of the change, but the precedent the GMC is setting. While those of us remaining in the UMC are allegedly changing our official doctrine (which has never been changed), the GMC actually is changing our doctrine at the outset. 

Again, I'm not suggesting that the GMC should not be considered part of the Methodist family. I simply reject the contention that we in the continuing UMC are somehow rejecting our own tradition.