How Long, O Lord?

One outrage piled on another. That is how we’ve been conditioned to interpret the almost daily breaking news flashes about the chaos in the United Methodist Church. With each new development, one side or the other does their best imitation of Captain Renault from the classic film Casablanca. The scene is brilliant in the sheer duplicity of it all. Renault shuts down Rick’s café when he discovers that gambling has been going on for some time:

Renault: “I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.”

Waiter: “Your winnings, sir.”

Renault: “Oh, thank you very much.”

The parallel is almost too delicious not to be shared. One of the triggers for feigned indignance is the recent announcement of the withdrawal of support for the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation by the very signatories who helped to craft the document, one of whom is now the President of the Council of Bishops of the United Methodist Church. Please tell me that no one is surprised by this.

Some of those advocating for the traditionalist agenda are really put out by this step. Others are cynical, while some may, in fact, be surprised (or, at least, caught off guard). Some of those who advocate for the progressive and centrist movements are trying not to allow their glee to be too obvious, with varying degrees of success. The fact of the matter, as I see it, is that the traditionalists got hoisted on their own petard. Indeed, 20/20 hindsight has led me to conclude that the traditional folks never held any substantive leverage or advantage. From the moment the tolerance for pastoral and episcopal disobedience became the rule rather than the exception, the Book of Discipline stalwarts have been outflanked, despite brief periods of smugness when the Protocol was agreed to. Here are some examples:

• In what universe did it make sense for the people demanding that everyone play by the existing rules already agreed to make the decision to walk away? The gift of acquiescence was a very noble thing for the traditionalists to do, but I fail to see how it has worked to their advantage, while simultaneously granting carte blanche to the progressives and centrists. How quickly the victim status (but not the momentum) shifted from the progressive to the traditionalists.
• When I was a young lad, I learned the hard way that if you want to be in someone’s club, you need to follow the rules. Any refusal to abide by the rules was met with a succinct “Get out!” (Though, come to think about it, there were always exceptions made for our “best” friends, even if they broke the rules everyone else had agreed to follow.) I also learned at a young age that once trust is broken, even among children on the playground, it is very difficult to restore it to the intensity it may have originally enjoyed. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
• The prospect of 25 million dollars “seed money” may have turned some heads, but you can’t spend promises. When did traditionalists lose sight of the fact that those in power (read the Council of Bishops) were not going to bring about their own irrelevance by allowing large swaths of the disaffected to leave the mothership with their pockets full? That’s as naïve as believing that the Congress will enact term limits. I mean, really? There just aren’t that many Mikhail Gorbachev’s out there.
• The arguments against a virtual General Conference – that it isn’t possible for all of the conferences around the globe to have access to the required technology – never felt legitimate to me. Could we not have created comprehensive documentation that those deprived of internet access could have studied and then submitted a paper ballot with their choices? It isn’t a perfect solution, but it largely works for many American electoral precincts (with acknowledgement of the potential for fraud.) To stall the resolution of the most consequential debate in Methodist church history in the pursuit of unattainable participation perfection is just strategic manipulation, laid bare.

In the time it has taken me to write this piece, the hue and cry has gone out from traditionalist corners that “the clock is ticking,” and “the doors open to disaffiliation are quickly closing.” That is true, certainly, but endless “poor me’s” about it on Facebook only strikes a match in a room filled with vaporized carbon-based fuel – it’s gonna’ explode! Cue the mock surprise. Instead of clear-headed thinking about disaffiliation, what will result is that a lot of small churches without the capital reserves to “pay the piper” will just die from ambivalence and spiritual neglect. Dystopian prophecy aside, the result is the same: the United Methodist Church (continuing or otherwise) will adopt the progressive agenda because there won’t be enough traditionalists left in the denomination to influence the vote.

Game. Set. Match. Traditionalists are being forced into radical, risky decisions in order to affiliate with a church they believe (and expect) has gravitas. The legislative solution that the Protocol offered was dead from the start, but hope sprang eternal. Duplicity is offensive but should not come as a bolt from the blue. Remember that the “United Methodist Church” is a structure of human creation, and since the Fall of Man humanity has proven time and again that integrity is often a charade. But I do believe there is a pathway that traditionalists can follow that will take them out of this morass (just know that it won’t be desirable or easy.)

The only remaining options for churches to exercise if they wish to become part of the Global Methodist Church (or any other evangelical denomination) is to pay the annual conference whatever their asking price is for leaving with the assets held under the trust clause, or to simply walk away from the UMC, leaving them the building and whatever fungible assets that exist. I warned you that you wouldn’t like it.

Before you dismiss the idea let me walk you through my thought process.

• Continuing to fight is a zero-sum game. In fact, it better resembles a scorched-earth mentality. There comes a time when the only responsible choice is to move on. Traditionalists need to acknowledge the very limited options left to them by the established power base (however Machiavellian their behavior may be) and choose whether to adapt to the coming liberalization of church doctrine or to make the strongest statement possible about their unwillingness to conform by simply handing the keys over to the conference trustees.
• The fighting (or should it be called “open season”?) is also becoming the cause of friendships and professional respect cultivated over years being torn to shreds because “they can’t say that and expect me not to respond” is not a mature affect. Stop engaging in the vitriol – all sides – and act like adults who agree to disagree. Wouldn’t John Wesley be pleased?
• What this will require is for pastors and laity alike to make a radical shift in their sense of ownership of the assets of the church. Once you tithe or donate you transfer control of the asset (money, land, finished goods, etc.) to the recipient. It is no longer the property of the benefactor, and to try to exercise non-existent rights is a waste of time and resources. Whatever is held by the church is only through the grace of God, so let Him deal with the ownership debate.
• Traditionalists (and, frankly, centrists and progressives) will need to adopt a Wesleyan attitude about church growth. God places a call on our lives to love one another, not to create and subsequently defend a leviathan-like institution. We can do that best when we are no longer shackled by the yoke that binds us to the property we call “the church.” Making the choice of what is right for each pastor and congregation must be made independent of the material components that we allow to define us too often. In short, traditionalists should coalesce around the mission they believe God has called them to, regardless of where they gather for worship and fellowship.
• Of course, pastors will shoulder the greater risk of such a move. Consider that the economic security of their families will be under assault, particularly when they need to find housing, healthcare coverage and a pension plan. It should not be lost on anyone that pastors will need to weigh their convictions and passions against their own financial health, and some may decide that they simply cannot choose to leave. Traditionalists should anticipate this and love those pastors and their families enough to respect their choice.

In purely practical terms, the nut of this approach is to get comfortable with church planting, even if that means moving to a rented space with no stained-glass windows or any of the trappings of tradition. For the annual conferences that must assume the maintenance and tax liabilities of the empty churches, this will likely result in some financial stress that may be substantial. For the progressives and centrists, cue the mock surprise.

This may terrify (or, at least, intimidate) all concerned – and it should, but God has created us for the boldness required to take this action in this time and place. Waiting for the 2024 General Conference is not a recommended strategy – it is pure complacency when facing this season of difficult decision-making.

The chaos and rancor in the church is no longer dirty laundry we can try to conceal. We’ve graduated to mainstream media awareness, which means every person with internet access has a chance to express their opinions. If the tone and tenor of the Facebook traffic I’ve seen is an indication of true sentiments, we have, sadly, progressed far beyond the notion of restoring trust in one another. Posting an opinion, regardless of how erstwhile it is intended, has become an invitation for clergy and laity to demonstrate how little regard we have for one another. Cue the mock surprise.

Whatever a congregation and/or pastor chooses, it will telegraph to the community they serve their sense of hope (or lack of it). Wouldn’t it be best if what they broadcast was a renewed commitment to the local mission by demonstrating to all that being the church is not constrained by property lines and impressive worship centers? Who knows, maybe new disciples will even be made. Cue the real surprise.