aefenglommung (aefenglommung) wrote,
aefenglommung
aefenglommung

Further thoughts on United Methodist separation

Quite a few traditionalists aren't happy with the announced deal brokered between all the major players to separate. Specifically, they are unhappy that there is no forced choice: you have to choose to leave; meanwhile, a congregation that can't make up its mind or doesn't want its members to have to argue over the alternatives or is just afraid of taking a leap of faith will default to the (continuing) UMC. That probably means that fewer decide to leave for traditionalist territory than would have if everybody had to make a choice.

Why should we leave, when we have the votes? the traditionalists ask. Why don't the disobedient people leave? If I had my druthers, that's the way it would turn out. But I don't have my druthers, and upon further reflection am not even sure my druthers would please me.

Consider the Indiana Annual Conference. I have speculated before over which side (centrist/progressive or traditionalist) would muster a majority if it came to a forced choice. The proposed plan requires a 57% vote, but still. It would be close. Painfully close. But let's say we did it. The traditionalists muster 57% of the voting membership of the Indiana Conference and vote to join the new trad church as a body. What would be the results of that?

First, we inherit all the bureaucracy and the overinflated lease on our conference HQ and a whole bunch of non-performing congregations. Oh, and half the clergy want to leave. The next several years of managing the Indiana Conference would be one long misery. And what would we gain? The only thing I can think a new start-up conference might like to have would be a nice church camp, but we could get by without one. If the trads fail to muster 57%, or decide not to try, the centerprogs get the joy of managing the decline.

This doesn't mean that I'm eager to leave, or would do so without regrets. But if you've got to eat a frog, it pays not to stare at it too long beforehand. One big swallow is what it takes. And then you're on to the exciting job of building all new networks of ministry. I'm sure finances will be a struggle for a while, but the faithfulness of the clergy and laity will make amazing things happen.

Looking ahead (once GC 20 is in the books), the big thing is, Who will present the options to the congregations of the conference? Will ordinary UMs be given the chance to hear the pitch to join the new trad church, or will our leadership try to prevent congregations from considering the possibilities? Even with the doors wide open, what misrepresentations and roadblocks will be put in the way of those interested in the question? We've taken a major step -- a positive one -- but there are still trust issues to be addressed.
Subscribe

  • What does the sign signify?

    I read an interesting investigative blogpost on the Eagle Rank recently which confirmed my impressions of what is going on with Scouting’s highest…

  • My goodness, has it been that long?

    This spring is the 50th anniversary of my high school graduation. (It’s also the 30th anniversary of my Ph.D. commencement.) The three most useful…

  • On preaching

    My first appointment as a student pastor was in 1976. With only a year of seminary under my belt, I was made the pastor of three churches. Every…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment