Letter Responding to my Stay UMC Presentation

This is a letter I was honored to receive after a recent presentation. I share it with you (edited to remove identifying information) because it beautifully and succinctly states, from a layperson’s point of view, why the vast majority of traditional United Methodists feel compelled to stay UMC.

—

Dr. West, 

I hope this isn't an imposition.  I was in the audience at {my local UMC}on Wednesday night. I wanted to speak to you after, not least to ask how you're enjoying "Strange New Worlds," but you had a number of folks waiting and we knew you had a long drive home ahead of you. 

First, I want to thank you.  It's obvious that this is a subject you're passionate about, and I truly appreciate you giving of your time.   I also have something that I simply can't get my head around.  My brilliant wife and I have talked about the matter extensively. I've spoken with {our pastor} at length, done a lot of reading, and watched what feels like hours of video (including more than one iteration of Rev. Stafford's informational session).  We have a 10-year-old son, and as I helped him with his Reading Fair project on Sherlock Holmes this past school year, we talked about the idea of "Qui bene?" that Holmes comes back to when he's stuck on a problem.  Believe it or not, that's what is really confusing to me about the present situation.  It may be that I'm not sophisticated enough or just not well-versed enough in the complexities of the thing, but I'm having a really hard time understanding how the traditionalists benefit from this.  I understand that they want a church that more closely reflects their social ideology, and that may be the answer, but I don't understand why the UMC has to be shattered to accomplish that.    

Beyond that, I find the GMC's references to Paul and Barnabas as a touchstone somewhat disingenuous.  Those two parted ways over a personal disagreement as far as I can tell, not any theological divide. It also bugs me that the whole premise of Rev. Stafford's presentation appears to be internally inconsistent, first stating that declaring Jesus as Savior is all that is required for salvation, regardless of doctrine or rules (emphasis mine), and then lamenting breaches of the Book of Discipline in nearly the next breath.  His appeal to probability, saying that because there are more and more "liberal" pastors being ordained in the UMC that even if you're a predominantly "traditional" UMC congregation, you're probably going to get a liberal pastor that doesn't align with your views, strikes me as a shabby trick more appropriate to Harold Hill.  Those, however, are my own gripes and not likely to have much of an impact on anyone else.

Sir, I know you're incredibly busy, and I understand completely if you're not able to respond.  Part of writing this was just to sort out what's been banging around in my head on this for a long while.  I'm going to vote to stay, if it comes to a vote at {my church}.  Like you, I'm sure, people I love and respect are on the other side.  If our church disaffiliates, I have no doubt we'll be able to find another church home.  What it comes down to for me, really, is that I can't see myself being part of a church that says to anyone, "You can attend worship here.  You can sit in the pew if you want. But you can't fully be part of this church because of who you are."  It seems to me it's the same as saying, "Jesus does not want you here."

Thank you, sir, again, for your time and your passion and for letting me get all this out.  I'm not sure if any of it makes sense.  If I can be of any help to you, please don't hesitate to ask.

Very Respectfully,

{name}

Addressing the Misinformation about our Core Doctrines

I've had several thoughtful and positive comments on my sermon on Trinity Sunday, so I thought I'd share a portion of it here. It's important!

I'm excited about being part of God's church because of who God is and what God is doing in us. No church is perfect. Last time I checked, it's full of people. And no denomination is perfect. All of them are struggling, but the church is the gift that God gave us, a gift of not only witness for God but for the "with-ness" of God.

And as we talk about the Trinity, I think it's important to address some misinformation that you will find out there in the world. Some opponents of the United Methodist Church say that the UMC is going to somehow abandon core doctrines like the authority of the Bible, or the resurrection, or the virgin birth, or the lordship of Christ, or the Trinity. You name it, I've heard it. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I'm going to tell you a couple of reasons why.

First of all, one method of rhetoric is to take outlying examples - something somebody said, somewhere, in a 12.5 million person denomination - and then you exaggerate it, take it out of context, wrap it into a narrative of the infidelity of the whole, and use it as justification for leaving.

It's a method of rhetoric. But it's an untruth, because second, our core doctrines of the United Methodist Church can not be changed. They're part of something called the Articles of Religion. They are in a constitutional section of our Discipline and were written by Wesley's very own hand, as he adapted them from the Church of England. It would take a 3/4 vote of all lay and clergy members of all annual conferences everywhere, throughout the entire world, to change those core constitutional doctrines.

And the very first one reads like this:

Article I — Of Faith in the Holy Trinity There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

You can not be more clear, and that's "A Number One."