Pastor Tom’s General Conference Blog, #1: Pre-Ambling

February 5, 2019

I

              Soon, I will be traveling to St. Louis to observe the proceedings of the 2019 General Conference of the United Methodist Church. You can link to the UMC’s official portal for all things related to this special, called General Conference here: http://www.umc.org/topics/general-conference-2019-special-session.

              I am not a delegate, just a workaday preacher there to see what unfolds. I intend to send-back blogs, notes and observations of what I am seeing and hearing. I want you to be as informed as you can be about what is happening and how it might affect us down the road (note well: whatever is decided in St. Louis will only begin a process of church-wide ratification).

This first blog will, I hope, give you some helpful background, and ready us for what will come to light in just a few weeks.

First, that bit of necessary history.

II

              From the very beginnings of what we now know as Methodism, our founder, John Wesley (1703-1791), and his brother Charles (1707-1788), believed in what they called “holy conferencing.”

At Oxford, during their student days, they convened a “holy club” that met for prayer, bible study and what we would call “accountability.” Later, as that small group grew into a far-flung movement of spiritual renewal throughout the Church of England, the Wesley’s invited clergy and others to help chart the future course of what would eventually become the Methodist denomination.

The first such Conference was held in London in 1744. There were all of ten in attendance!

John and Charles, four other clergy, and four “lay brothers” agreed, first, to “submit to the unanimous judgment of the rest in every practical point.” Then they set about to discuss and decide this basic question: “What shall we preach and how shall we preach it?”

In many ways Methodists still hold to that model, in hopes of answering that same question.  

Over the years many different kinds of “conferences” were established—at different times, for different contexts and purposes. One particular gathering, however, was vested with primary administrative authority for all United Methodists everywhere: The General Conference.

III

Those who have long been a part of the United Methodist Church have at least heard the term, General Conference, even if they are not always sure what, exactly, it signifies or does.

For those who are new to the denomination, here’s the skinny:

Every four years, roughly one thousand delegates from around the world (half clergy and half laity) are elected to represent the various geographical, regional and national constituencies of our global denomination. They convene for two weeks to consider, revise and even rewrite The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church.

The Book of Discipline is the “operations manual” of the UMC at every level—from our Constitution to our congregations and their committees; from General Boards and Agencies to their make-up and mandates; from pastors and their duties to church officers and their responsibilities; from the care of church property to the disposition of church and Church assets.

Also included are our theological emphases, our requirements and processes for ordination, and our social principles (the way UM’s are encouraged to think ethically and socially about the world in which we live).

United Methodists consider Scripture, preeminently, along with Tradition, Reason and Experience, as the “sources” for our theology and our church’s work. We believe and affirm that the reading and application of the Bible are and should be rightly influenced by our various histories, ways of thinking and life experiences.

Unsurprisingly, our uniform allegiance to scripture does not and should not produce unanimous agreement on specific biblical interpretations. When our understandings diverge, we hope that spiritual humility will enable us to learn, gratefully, from each other.

Likewise, the Book of Discipline—while it is “our” one book, we have recognized (and affirmed) that there always will be and everywhere should be some variation and flexibility as to the ways some parts of the Discipline are understood, adapted and applied. Still, we maintain our “connection” through our commitment to Scripture, the traditions of Mr. Wesley’s church, open-minded learning (we hope), and personal holiness/missional service (we pray).

IV

For fifty years now—since the General Conference of 1968—United Methodists have been discussing, arguing, dealing with and trying to reach some sort of consensus (or compromise) on the “administrative” issues related to human sexuality. Specifically, will UM pastors (and local churches) endorse, perform, bless and sanctify same-sex marriages? Will gay persons who are “self-avowed (and) practicing” be ordained and given the authorities and responsibilities of clergy?

Some would say that these two “administrative issues” are unrelated to the worth of gay persons. Even those who oppose both “gay marriage” and “ordination of gays” affirm the sacred worth of all God’s children; just that in these two instances, certain bible verses and some church traditions preclude such marriages and ordinations.

Others argue that the issues of worth cannot be separated from marriage and ordination: that whom we love and would marry, and an individual’s sense of holy calling must be affirmed by the church through ritual blessing and endorsement… else the language of “sacred worth” means little.

Sincere people, people of good faith, long-time friends and colleagues stand on either side of the divide. I do believe everyone is trying to do what is right to be faithful and loving and hopeful.

We just cannot seem to agree on what that is.

Over the last half-century, divisions over these matters have only deepened and walls have only hardened. Advocacy groups, on either side, have formed and still work to shape opinion. Rhetoric has grown more vitriolic and administrative threats have grown more intense.

At least as early as the General Conference of 2004 there was a petition “for amicable division” circulated among the delegates. The anonymous initiative was soundly defeated, but ever since there has been an increasing sense that schism over this “issue” or set of issues may be inevitable.  

(Another historical note: Methodism split once before, three ways, over the cluster of issues related to slavery. Though the three “pieces” of that split reunited in 1939, that failure of Methodist moral nerve has haunted us ever since.)

V

At the 2016 General Conference, a study group was formed: “The Commission On A Way Forward.” It was charged with making recommendation to our Council of Bishops prior to and in view of a special General Conference, called and convened to discuss this one issue alone.

This is the General Conference I will attend later this month in St. Louis.

Not one but three basic recommendations grew out of the committee’s work—and a fourth has been submitted independently. While the commission itself wrote only the first two below, the other two (written by ad hoc groups) are also before the delegates. (You may read the entire 231 page report here: http://s3.amazonaws.com/Website_Properties/council-of-bishops/news_and_statements/documents/Way_Forward_Report_-_Final_-_ENGLISH.pdf.

 

The One Church Plan was endorsed, though not unanimously, by our Council of Bishops. It calls (basically) for geographic, regional, national areas, and ultimately even local churches and their clergy, to make determinations about gay marriage and the ordination of gay persons within their own discreet contexts. The decision of North Carolina United Methodists regarding these specific matters, for example, may differ from the decision of, say, the UMC in Nigeria. This plan notes that many of our ministries, as well as the interpretation and application of the Discipline, are already “contextual” (adapted to local situations and need). The OCP has as its main aim the unity of the global United Methodist church by means of a host of other issues related to our historic missions and ministries. You may read more about this (and the other plans) here: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/plans-prayerfully-pondered-by-united-methodists.

 

The Modified Traditional Plan calls for the retaining of controversial language that has been part of the Book of Discipline since 1968 (though, significantly, only in our social principles and not in our official theological platforms): that the UM church, while affirming the sacred worth of every person, considers the “practice of homosexuality to be incompatible with Christian teaching” and that pastors are barred from performing gay marriages, and that “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” are not to be ordained (notice: nothing is said about orientation, just about practice). In the MTP, the language would be not only retained but even strengthened, with swift investigation of and harsh punitive consequences for dissenting clergy, bishops, or geographical constituencies where marriages/ordinations are conducted. This plan is modified, because some of the original language and instrumentation of an earlier Traditional Plan was ruled unconstitutional by our church’s Judicial Council. You may read more about this plan here: http://tomlambrecht.goodnewsmag.org/what-is-the-modified-traditional-plan.

 

The Connectional Conference Plan is based on the “Worldwide Anglican Communion” model, and calls, basically, for a loosely configured “Worldwide Methodist Church” made-up of separate, self-governing bodies. Apart from certain historic, theological and missional connections, these separate, self-governing bodies would be discreet denominations with their own administrative rules and practices. Though some UM scholars actually consider the CCP to be our best alternative, it has little chance to succeed on account of the numerous constitutional changes and amendments it would require. (The Judicial Council has ruled the OCP largely constitutional; the MTP would require a few amendments or changes). You may read more about the CCP here: https://um-insight.net/in-the-church/a-way-forward/the-connectional-conference-plan-and-the-scope-of-the-commis.

 

A fourth plan, put forward by The UM Queer Clergy Caucus (following a plan first-offered by The Reconciling Ministries Network plan submitted to GC 2016), is called The Simple Plan. The plan calls, simply, for the removal of all the controversial Disciplinary language and its attending collaterals. You may read about this plan here: https://www.umqcc.org/a-simple-plan; or here: https://um-insight.net/resurrecting-the-umc-the-simple-plan.

 

IV

These plans are before the delegates; intense lobbying has been going on since the report was made available last July.

As those first London delegates did so long ago, all the St. Louis delegates and all the churches may agree to submit to the “judgment of the rest in every practical point,” but right now it is hard to imagine the possibility of a “unanimous judgment” about the issues at hand.  

Whatever is passed—or perhaps none of the plans will have enough support to become “our” United Methodist position—another, regular General Conference will be held in 2020. The church will go on in one form or another. God willing and my health agreeing, I will remain the pastor at HLUMC, and Pastor Carrie will continue serving with me.

We will continue our work here in Charlotte, in other words: worshiping, growing, serving.

I do anticipate that whatever is decided or not decided at the General Church level, there will be heartache and blame, acrimony and division. Do not be surprised if you hear of departures and less than graceful exits, whether of persons, clergy, congregations, even groups of congregations pulling out of the UMC in favor of independence, or new denominational alignments.

But at Hawthorne Lane we will continue to follow Jesus, make disciples and transform lives.

I pray for a miracle in St. Louis: that God will show us a way to honor our Scriptures, the church’s traditions, our various ways of thinking and all our divergent experiences into one Church. In other words, I pray for something that will surprise us, one and all!

Even as I do, I am confident that by God’s grace our congregation and its ministry will continue to thrive. And thrive even more.

I will be writing a blog (or two, or three) each day from St. Louis. I have no particular wisdom or insight to offer, but I want to be there as it happens.

I will be as faithful as I can be to a) offer faithful impressions of the discussions, b) record as honestly as I can both the actions of the General Conference delegates, c) and interpret as presciently as I can what it might all mean for us.

And on Sunday, March 3 (the Sunday after I return from St. Louis) I will hold, as it were, “a special, called conference,” a Town Hall, immediately following worship—to report and discuss further.

Please pray for our delegates, for me, and for our church in this unprecedented season.