United Left-Wing Churches Putting the Squeeze on Congregations Leaving

"So long, and thanks for all the fish.
Too bad it had to come to this." 
Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy.

"Key points: The Lewis Center for Church Leadership has done a report that compares characteristics of disaffiliating churches with those remaining in The United Methodist Church. The large majority of exiting churches are in the South and Southwest. Disaffiliating churches are more likely than remaining churches to have a male pastor and to have a majority white membership. United Methodist Council of Bishops President Bishop Thomas J. Bickerton said the report has information that can help guide the denomination as it seeks to renew itself, including in areas where many churches have disaffiliated."

The United Methodist Church (or parts of it) backed the Social Gospel Movement at the very beginning of the 20th century. Every time a group of Methodist churches left Holy Mother Meth, the liberals cheered, increased their power, and Marxified their political agenda. Consequently, the conservative element within the United Methodists kept bringing up the Biblical errors being paraded by the denomination.

Like ELCA and the Episcopal Church, the Methodist leaders are making it as difficult as possible to leave with their buildings and savings. 

Similar exits among Lutherans have created congregations harkening back to the old days, with ELCA enjoying its emphasis on pride, empty churches, and failing seminaries.

One reader especially enjoys Nadia Bolz-Weber graphics and ELCA radicalism. Nadia tried to be a stand-up comedian, but Leftists have no sense of humor. Instead, she pioneered an ELCA congregation that "looks like her."

Rev. Nadia Bolz-Weber

Will LCMS-WELS Make the Same Deal?

 "We had no idea it was that kind of a video we were plagiarizing, scene by scene, while stealing a protected song. But we forgive Ichabod for slandering us. (pout)"

Compromise to Split Denomination

There’s broad support for a new plan to allow traditional marriage proponents to leave the UMC with $25 million in funding.

JEREMY STEELE

 JANUARY 03, 2020 10:10 AM

Factions in the United Methodist Church (UMC) have reached an initial settlement around its intractable division over LGBT marriage and ordination—offering $25 million to a group of conservative congregations who want to break away and form a new denomination.

The rest of the article can be read here.

***

 I wrote about Liberalism in 1991. WELS did not want to publish it, but it quickly went into three printings.

Breaking up is hard, but right thing for the UMC - The United Methodist Reporter

Breaking up is hard, but right thing for the UMC - The United Methodist Reporter:

By Jack Jackson, Special Contributor…

After years of debate over progressive views of lesbian and gay ordination and marriage, the United Methodist Church reaffirmed its traditional stance at the 2012 General Conference in Tampa, Fla. Due to the UMC’s growth in Africa and Asia and decline in Europe and North America, many progressives fear the denomination will retain current prohibitions around LGBT inclusion for years to come. Advocates of inclusion are, therefore, left with four choices of how to proceed: covenanting to partner with the majority (whether or not it reflects a progressive vision), leaving the denomination for progressive ones, civil disobedience, or starting a conversation for an equitable division of the UMC.

Jack Jackson

This summer, the Western and Northeastern Jurisdictions, along with numerous pastors and churches in other jurisdictions, chose civil disobedience. While calling for noncompliance to the Book of Discipline heartens many progressives, it may destroy the possibility of their progressive Wesleyan vision coming to fruition. Of the four options, I propose that for missional reasons the best alternative for progressives is to begin a conversation about an equitable division of the denomination. By missional I mean a vibrant community of churches that lives its corporate understanding of Christ’s call to ministry in the world.

But let’s look at all four options. The first, to stay in covenant with the UMC while working toward inclusion, is the one most progressives chose over the last 30 years. Despite the demographic shifts mentioned above which indicate United Methodism will retain its theological stance against inclusion, some progressives will choose unity over protest or division. But this is increasingly untenable for many progressives, as evidenced by their recent embrace of the second and third options.

The second option is to leave, or never join, the UMC in favor of progressive, fully inclusive denominations. While it is difficult to quantify the popularity of this option, I know many laity and seminarians who have changed denominational affiliation because of the UMC’s lack of inclusion. Even at General Conference, I talked with people who said they were tired of the conversation, concerned about the poor prospects for change and were leaving for other denominations. My suspicion is that many people simply don’t become United Methodist because of the ongoing conflict over inclusion: progressives because of the UMC’s lack of inclusion; and traditionalists because they don’t want to be part of a denomination that’s in constant turmoil over the issue.

The third option for progressives, one increasingly in play, is civil disobedience. The growing appeal of this was evidenced this summer in three acts: retired Bishop Melvin Talbert’s call to the California-Pacific Conference to act as if denominational prohibitions do not exist; the Western Jurisdiction’s “Statement of Gospel Obedience”; and the Northeastern Jurisdiction’s call to work against the Discipline when conscience dictates. Many progressives now choose to defy General Conference when they believe it acts unjustly and unbiblically.

Destructive option

Yet exercising this option, for a number of reasons, may destroy the possibility for a more progressive vision of Christian mission to flourish in the UMC.

First, progressives don’t seem to have the resources to both stem the tide of decline nationwide and work towards inclusion. The UMC in the West and Northeast is retreating at an alarming rate. Choosing disobedience means resources of time, energy and money will continue to flow to the debate instead of bearing down on the reasons behind the UMC’s plummeting membership. If the UMC is to survive we must focus on the critical problems that plague our denomination. Yet it is the belief that inclusion is a justice issue, worth any cost, along with a belief that time is on progressives’ side, which justifies to some their advocacy of civil disobedience.

Second, there is little if any chance the denomination will become inclusive over the next generation. Africa and Asia, where the UMC is growing, voted almost 100 percent in support of current language. Even if 25 percent of these regions voted for inclusion in the coming years, a highly speculative assumption, General Conference as a whole would still vote to retain current prohibitions. While progressives may grow as a percentage of the UMC in North America, they almost certainly will not grow globally.

Therefore, after another generation of fighting, progressives will be little, if any, closer to making the UMC inclusive. But with 30 additional years of diverted resources and of progressives leaving the UMC for other denominations, the opportunity for a vibrant progressive vision of Christian mission in the UMC will have faded. Progressives will have a sense of pride in fighting the fight, but the result will be a shell of a progressive movement within the UMC. Time is no longer on the progressives’ side.

Third, the civil disobedience option ignores the reality that many progressives are choosing the second option of leaving the UMC or never entering it. People who might have chosen to live out their call to ministry or membership in the UMC are actively looking for, or have already moved to, other denominations. Many young progressives care about the LGBT inclusion, but are not willing to fight in a denomination they see as unfaithful. The longer progressives live in this third option of civil disobedience, the more their future lifeblood drains away.

Fourth, many advocates of civil disobedience ignore, or seem unaware of, the way many traditionalists will respond if current prohibitions are overturned. It is impossible to give percentages, but a significant number of traditionalists will not be part of an inclusive denomination. Were the UMC, either in the United States or globally, to become progressive on LGBT ordination and marriage, many traditionalists would simply exit for new or existing denominations (Wesleyan or otherwise). The result would be an enormous financial and material burden to progressives who remain. Let’s imagine only 10 percent of North American membership were to leave over a few years. The resulting financial burden would overwhelm the current apportionment system, crippling the UMC infrastructure.

These reasons make the choice for civil disobedience a destructive option with little chance of establishing a sustainable, progressive vision of United Methodist mission.

True endgame

If what progressives desire is a vibrant Wesleyan movement rooted in progressive values, especially as they relate to LGBT ordination and marriage, as opposed to an inclusive UMC at any cost, I propose a fourth option. Let’s begin serious discussion about dividing from one UMC to at least two new, distinct denominations.

This conversation would of course have to navigate many significant issues. They would include property (local church, Annual Conference, Jurisdictional Conference and denominational property), clergy pensions and seminaries, to name but a few. Other issues—such as the fact that the progressive/traditionalist divide is not purely geographic as a number of congregations and clergy in the West are rather traditionalist, while many progressives find their home in the Southeast—will also be problematic. Furthermore, the majority of the UMC that tries to live in the middle may be hesitant to claim a home in either a progressive or traditional vision of United Methodism.

Nevertheless, out of missional necessity, and in the light of the denomination’s continued decline, it is time for a conversation to begin on an equitable split of the UMC.

Beginning the conversation acknowledges the true endgame of our current direction: division. Progressive and traditionalist visions of human sexuality are simply incompatible. Most of Protestantism recognizes this. We can argue all we want, but there is no solution to our theological quandary that offers unity, common visions of Christian mission and an ability to focus on the deep systemic issues which plague the UMC.

Starting this conversation will require humility from progressives and traditionalists alike. Progressives will have to realize that time is not on their side and ask for an equitable division, or at least be given the chance to create a new Methodist denomination that reflects their progressive values. They will have to recognize that traditionalists could simply leave the denomination were progressives to succeed, and that their departure would leave a financially unsustainable UMC.

Traditionalists in turn will need to recognize that equitable division, or allowing progressives to take appropriate assets and form a new progressive denomination, is actually in their best interests. Not allowing a split means a generational fight that they may win, but which will drain their already declining resources for years to come. United Methodism, even its most traditionalist vision, is barely holding its own in the United States. Turning resources towards a vibrant missional future, instead of continuing the fight, will allow traditionalists to focus on the broader mission to which they feel called.

We’ve reached gridlock. The UMC continues its  decline and there is no solution to the stalemate over human sexuality. Division may provide space for the Holy Spirit to bless one or both visions. If Christ’s mission is our goal, and if progressives and traditionalists love our church, then it is our vision of mission, not unity, which must be our prize.

The Rev. Jackson is E. Stanley Jones Assistant Professor of Evangelism, Mission and Global Methodism at Claremont School of Theology and an ordained elder in the Florida Conference.

'via Blog this'


***

GJ - I found this link on the ALPB discussion forum. ELCA is having the same slow-mo split, effectedby one congregation after another leaving - or just not giving any more money. The second style is difficult to measure. Sometimes the ELCA congregation will join the LCMC or NALC officially without leaving ELCA, just so ELCA will kick them out.

The Episcopal Church began splitting before ELCA. Active Episcopal bishops began the departure in some cases.

In ELCA, only retired bishops left - after they had collected plenty in salary and benefits.  I imagine the LCMC (formed from The ALC) wondered where all the NALC leaders (LCA bishops) were in those lonely years before the 2009 ELCA decision. The 2009 decision was made especially famous by the ferocious storm that knocked down the cross on the downtown church where they worshiped.

WELS and Missouri love to work with ELCA while looking down on ELCA. That makes them "confessional."

May Day! May Day! All Engines On Fire! Emergency Landing! May Day!

May Day Announcement

United Methodist Church Adopts Full Communion Proposal with ELCA



FORT WORTH, Texas (ELCA) -- By a vote of 864-19, the General Conference of the United Methodist Church (UMC) adopted an implementing resolution April 28 that will establish full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Full communion will be fully realized by both churches should the same proposal be adopted at the next ELCA Churchwide Assembly, which meets Aug. 17-23, 2009, in Minneapolis.

The UMC General Conference, meeting here April 23-May 2, is the Methodist's chief legislative body and meets every four years. The ELCA Churchwide Assembly is the ELCA's chief legislative authority, meeting every two years.

The ELCA and UMC have been in formal theological dialogue since 1977, which led to beginning a relationship of "Interim Eucharistic Sharing" in 2005. That relationship called for members to pray for and support each other, to study Scripture together and to learn about each other's traditions in anticipation of achieving full communion.

Full communion means the churches will work for visible unity in Jesus Christ, recognize each other's ministries, work together on a variety of ministry initiatives, and, under certain circumstances, provide for the interchangeability of ordained clergy.

April 28 was "a banner day" because of the UMC General Conference vote on full communion, said the Rev. William Oden, ecumenical officer, UMC Council of Bishops, at an April 29 news conference. "This has been a long time coming. A lot of careful work has been done," he said. Oden emphasized that the proposal is a relationship between the two church bodies and not a "church union."

The Rev. Mark S. Hanson, ELCA presiding bishop, Chicago, said he eagerly awaits the ELCA Churchwide Assembly vote in 2009 and hopes that it, too, will be a strong affirmation of full communion with the UMC. Hanson also preached at an April 29 worship service at the UMC General Conference.

"This is about revival of two church bodies that are deeply committed to re-presenting themselves in a pluralistic, dynamic changing culture for the sake of mission," Hanson said.

The two church bodies must consider what they can do together as full communion partners that was not possible before, Hanson said. He suggested possible cooperative ministries in campus ministry, global mission, advocacy for justice and peace, to name only a few. He also agreed with Oden's assertion that full communion cannot be successful if it is considered to be a "top down" action. Full communion should be a relationship in which mission initiatives should "bubble up" in the two churches, Hanson said.

"I always think of full communion as merely a step along the way toward a new, possible future because of the relationship," Hanson said. "That new, possible future is the for the sake of the world. It's for the sake of mission. Full communion calls for ecumenical, missional imagination."

Full communion also gives "formal expression" to what is happening in both churches already, said the Rev. Greg Palmer, president, UMC Council of Bishops. "In one way we're leading, and in another way, we're following. We are catching up with people on the ground who are doing things in partnership, in mission and in ministry," he said.

Christians "must find meaningful, significant and substantive ways of honoring the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ in one another and together, living that before the world. We must live before the world what God intends for the world," Palmer added.

Assuming the full communion proposal is adopted by the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in 2009, a coordinating council with representatives of both churches will be appointed, said the Rev. Donald J. McCoid, executive, ELCA Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Relations, Chicago. That council will coordinate how the two churches will plan for mission together and consider practical matters such as interchangeability of ordained ministers, he said.

The ELCA's five full communion partners are the Episcopal Church, the Moravian Church in America, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Reformed Church in America and United Church of Christ.

While the ELCA has successful cooperative ministries with its full communion partners, it must improve how it receives and implements full communion agreements, McCoid said. "We need to do better with how we are able to be intentional (in) sharing ministry. Grassroots sharing is really very critical, and I'll just echo that again and again and again. The best way we can do that is by giving people permission and encouragement."

If adopted by both churches, this will be the UMC's first full communion agreement outside of the Methodist tradition.

The ELCA is one of 140 churches in the Lutheran World Federation and is the third-largest Lutheran church in the world with 4.8 million members. The United Methodist Church is a worldwide church with nearly 8 million members in the United States.

***

GJ - Who is more desperate - the United Methodists or the ELCA? No denomination is more anti-confessional than the Methodists. Their chief doctrinal book is Wesley's Sermons. The UMC bragging point has been this: repeated mergers have sent the more conservative followers off to create more traditional Methodist groups: Nazarenes, Wesleyans, etc. Each split has made the UMC more radical or wishy-washy. Just like ELCA. Now I get it.

The UMC pioneers were behind the Federal Council of Churches and the Social Gospel Movement. They were big supporters of abortion as a woman's religious right. Yes, a religious right. No one knows when unborn life is a baby, they reason. Everyone is different, they argue. QED, abortion is a religious right.

The UMC is more ecumenical than James and Paul Tiefel put together. That also suits ELCA, which partners with every hue of the doctrinal rainbow.