The GMC Incites Deaths in Nigeria

Really? I guess this constitutes the first set of “GMC incited” deaths. Three United Methodists were killed in Nigeria as a result of GMC violence.

“We further urge GMC members, at all levels, to put an immediate end to the violence and refrain from disseminating misinformation that fuels fear and disdain that can lead to violence. Likewise, we call our United Methodist members to be guided by integrity and respectful while working towards maintaining peace.”

“The Global Methodist Church leaders are concerned about their future as The United Methodist Church in Nigeria continues to make steady progress. He noted that the majority of United Methodist laity and clergy stayed with the denomination.”

To read about it, see this ARTICLE.

I have always, I remain, and I will always STAY UMC.

The “Tax Collector Complex”

I have decided to call it the “tax collector complex.”

In Jesus’s time, the tax collector was like the “king of sinners,” the worst of the worst of the worst. Jews found them repulsive. They are even treated as their own special category (Jesus was asked “why do your followers eat with tax collectors and sinners?”).

Because of what it says in the Bible? No. Did some of them steal off the top? Of course, the Bible says they did. Did all of them? That’s highly unlikely.

They were repulsive to Pharisees but that’s absolutely and unequivocally about culture wars (the tax collectors collaborated with the Romans). That’s why Jesus told the story of the Pharisee who prayed “thank you that I’m not like that tax collector over there” … because that’s how repulsed they were.

Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin (which I do NOT, I believe homosexuality is an orientation you are born with, it is actions that can be sinful or not), why are people so hyper focused on it? The tax collector complex. That’s the only reasonable explanation.

Here’s a simple example. We offer plenty of grace regarding divorce and remarriage (which Jesus clearly called adultery, which by the way is in the 10 commandments), but there are folks who offer NO grace at all about being queer (which Jesus never mentions at all, EVER, and it’s NOT in the 10 commandments). I am not saying we should condemn divorce, not at all. I’m saying offering grace about divorce and remarriage, but not about being queer, can simply NOT be justified biblically. It’s culture wars, plain and simple.

I debated with Nigerian pastors over their views condemning the actions of General Conference. I kept asking, if they believed homosexuality is a sin and they also believe polygamy is a sin, then why were they so offended that we simply neutralized language in the Discipline about homosexuality, but they never, EVER insist on filling the Discipline with harmful language about polygamy?

They never could answer my question. Of course they can’t … because the only justification for the difference in attitude is the “tax collector complex.” I told them they were comfortable dealing with their own social issues regionally, but they were refusing to allow us to do the same.

John Wesley Addresses the Disaffiliators

My friend Dean McIntyre shared a quote from John Wesley that is very applicable for today:

"I dislike your speaking of yourselves as though you were the only [ones] who know and taught the Gospel; ...But what I most dislike is your littleness of love...your want [lack] of union...your want of meekness, gentleness, long suffering; your impatience of contradiction; your counting every [person] your enemy that reproves or admonishes you in love; your bigotry and narrowness of spirit, loving in a manner only those that love you...your censoriousness...  of all who do not agree with you; in a word, your divisive spirit.”

John Wesley 

Letter to the perfectionists in London

November 2, 1762

My Thoughts on the Regionalization Plan

I was on an online forum where someone asked if the plans for regionalization “only affects Africa.” I thought I should share my response here.

“No, regionalization would affect everything. Right now, there is some level of Contextualization allowed for central conferences outside the US, but NONE is allowed within the US. Regionalization would allow all areas of the world to have Contextualization over agreed-upon general areas. This would be a peaceful and unifying resolution to our current crisis, because the African church, for example, would not be pulled into voting on matters that only affect the US. It makes sense. Then the US delegates could find a way forward with something like the ‘one church plan.’

“Frankly, in my opinion the WCA has used manipulation tactics to use African delegates for their votes in a way that resembles colonialism, and it’s now become evident by the WCA’s own schismatic actions. They never intended the ‘traditional plan’ passed in 2019 for unity. It is now evident that their agenda was to force their opponents to leave, and if they could not do so, then to rise up and leave themselves. We know it’s true because that’s exactly what they did. The ‘traditional plan’ that the WCA pushed was not devised for unity but for schism.

“My sense from the African church is that they by and large voted for the traditional plan with the understanding that it would bring unity, not division. The truth has now made itself evident. Many African pastors I know of are in favor of regionalization, so they will no longer be pulled into conflicts that do not concern them.

“I mean no offense, but that’s the way I see it.”

For official information on the regionalization plan, click here.

Balancing Resources (latest version)

There is plenty of biased and misleading information available on the internet to promote the separatist narrative for leaving the UMC. I offer these balancing resources.

Is the United Methodist Church Really …? – Mythbusting by “Ask the UMC” from United Methodist Communications (parts 1-11 so far)

"Proud to Be UMC"

Bishop Bickerton’s “Mid-State of the UMC” Address

Council of Bishop’s Narrative for the Continuing UMC

Celebrate the UMC Event in Montgomery - Featuring Tom Berlin

Sermon by John Robbins of Pulaski Heights UMC on Staying in the UMC

Adam Hamilton Responds to Maligning and Misleading Videos of Rob Renfroe

Bishops Push Back Against Recruitment Tactics of WCA

African Bishops Condemn the WCA and refuse to go into the GMC

What We Believe – The United Methodist Church

United Methodist Social Principles

“Should I Stay or Should I Go” series by United Methodist Communications

Stay UMC - Grassroots coalition of North Alabama United Methodists

“Why I’m Not Leaving the United Methodist Church” -Letter by Steve West that went viral after first Clear Branch event promoting leaving the UMC

“Open Letter to Chris Ritter” - Letter by Steve West that went viral in response to biased sideby-side comparison distributed by the WCA

“We Believe!” - Steve Harper dispels myths about future beliefs

“That We May Be One” – Texas Conference

“Abide” - South Georgia Conference

United Methodist News Service

“United Methodist Insight”

"Beginning Again" - Guide for Remaining United Methodist 

An Open Letter to Chris Ritter

Dear Chris,

The United Methodist Church that you and I both love is facing schism. It is a matter of public record that the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA), the advocacy group which you help lead as part of their Global Council, has announced that whether or not the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation finds support at our next General Conference, the new breakaway denomination called the Global Methodist Church (GMC) will be formed without delay.

I have not had the privilege of meeting you, though you served as keynote speaker in a rally in Birmingham, near my home, held to gain support for the new Methodist movement that will be seceding from the UMC. I wrote a public letter after that event, indicating personal reasons why I am choosing to stay in the UMC. It surprised me as much as anyone that it went viral, and a response to my letter was written and signed by the North Alabama chapter of the WCA and others who organized the rally.

In the spirit of open conversation, I offer this open letter to you, since you recently published a comparison chart that is being distributed by the North Alabama chapter of the WCA, and I presume other chapters as well. It was a well-designed effort in which you contrasted what will be the post-separation United Methodist Church with the newly announced denomination the GMC.

I can see the appeal of such an exercise. Laity need to understand the issues before us, and the issues are complex. There is generalized anxiety in the church. There are many variables, since there is a strong possibility that General Conference will be delayed again due to the coronavirus, and it is possible that the Protocol will not pass, or that one of the other plans coming before General Conference will pass, or that the Protocol will pass but with significant changes, or that all or part of it will be deemed unconstitutional by the Judicial Council. However, no matter what happens, the GMC has announced that it will withdraw and form as a new denomination. As churches prepare for a journey that may eventually lead to local church decision making, a chart makes it simple and easy to understand.

Most of what you indicate on the chart could be considered accurate. However, there are three major blind spots which force me to deem it a well-designed promotional piece, intended to persuade people to leave our denomination, instead of providing a balanced and complete picture.

First, the sections describing the beliefs of the post-separation UMC on abortion and pluralism are pure conjecture and have nothing to do with the Protocol. Of course, the UMC will continue to have a General Conference every four years. But no changes in teaching on these issues are indicated in any of the Protocol legislation. Speculating about these “hot button” culture war issues muddies the waters, alarms and confuses laity, and makes the chart a biased effort with partial truth, at best.

Second, it is conspicuous that the chart does not address contrasting information that is less of a “selling point” for people you are hoping will join you in the new denomination. For example, there is a section on “congregational fidelity” in the GMC’s Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline by which a local church can be summarily dismissed from the new denomination if their beliefs or practices are deemed unacceptable in some way by governing bodies beyond the local church (this has no parallel in the United Methodist Discipline). There is a subtle but important change in how the doctrine of grace is presented in the new Transitional Discipline compared to the standard, traditional UMC teaching. There is an intentional change in language about laity trials, compared to the same section in the UMC Discipline, that implies laity could be put on trial for their sexual orientation. There is a self-appointed governing body called the Transitional Leadership Council which has an overwhelming amount of influence over the affairs of the church and broad powers it can later bestow on “its successor.” We have no such thing in the UMC. I could go on.

Third, the very nature of your chart implies that this is a binary choice between two destinies, and this is simply a false narrative. The Protocol does not split the denomination into two parts. Rather, if it even passes, it will allow for the gracious withdrawal of more than one denomination, at least one “traditionalist” denomination and one “progressive” denomination, from the main body of the UMC with millions in start-up funding. The post-separation UMC would remain the largest Methodist body in the United States and remain diverse in thought with traditional, centrist, and progressive pastors, laity, and churches. The Protocol does indicate that the post-separation UMC will remove controversial language in the Discipline regarding human sexuality. However, this action does not “redefine marriage” or force pastors, local churches, or annual conferences to make any decisions or follow any practices they aren’t comfortable with. Rather, it is choosing to allow for diverse and contextualized ministry across the country. In contrasting your two projected denominations on the subject of ordination, for example, you use a simple “yes” or “no.” This does not reflect any nuance of what the post-separation UMC might negotiate to contextualize ministry in the future, according to the Protocol itself.

I am not condemning your attempt to provide a chart. I am appealing to the laity of the church to read your chart with discernment. Some may find it helpful, but it is clearly intended to persuade and it does not give an accurate and balanced picture. I have attached a list of more primary sources from a variety of perspectives that should be read in concert with each other. This will give laity a better picture of the whole.

May God bless your new movement so that together, we can reach different people for Christ in the ever-expanding streams of American religious tradition.

Warmly,

Rev. Dr. Steve West
Member of the North Alabama Conference of the UMC

---

Resources for Study and Discernment

Factual Resources
Video Overview by Tom Berlin

The Protocol
The GMC Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline
United Methodist Social Principles

Primary Resources intended to Persuade
Traditionalist Resources:
The Wesleyan Covenant Association
The Global Methodist Church
Centrist Resources:
Uniting Methodists
UMCNext
Progressive Resources:
Reconciling Ministries Network
The Liberation Methodist Connexion

For readers that are part of my home conference, the North Alabama Conference, there are two grassroots resources intended to persuade that should be read and compared:
New Methodist Movement (traditionalist)
Stay UMC (centrist)