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}
