Conservatives consider ‘separation’ of United Methodist Church May 6, 2004 By Neill Caldwell* PITTSBURGH
(UMNS) — Despite favorable outcomes on most of their key issues at
General Conference, conservative leaders are considering un-uniting the
United Methodist Church. A
proposed resolution to the denomination’s top legislative assembly,
meeting through May 7, may not come to the floor before the end of
General Conference. But two key conservative church leaders openly
talked May 6 about an “amicable” divorce over “irreconcilable
differences.” “‘United
Methodist’ is an oxymoron,” said the Rev. Bill Hinson, president of the
Confessing Movement and former senior pastor at First United Methodist
Church in Houston. “We haven’t been united for a long time. Others
ridicule us as the ‘untied’ Methodist Church.” “We
have no expectation that we can ever reach an agreement,” said the Rev.
James V. Heidinger II, president of the Good News organization, “and
the dialogue and debate have gone on for 30 years. This is a deep
theological divide.” Heidinger
said the possible resolution “may or may not” be offered at this
General Conference. Copies of the document were distributed to the
media. Other
conservatives distanced themselves from the proposal. “I don’t want to
go there, and there are many who would take the same stand. I know a lot
of people have strong feelings, but that’s not where I am,” said the
Rev. Eddie Fox, director of World Evangelism for the World Methodist
Council and a delegate from the Holston Conference. Church
leaders quickly condemned the idea. Bishop Ruediger R. Minor of Moscow,
the outgoing president of the Council of Bishops, reminded reporters
that the General Conference has approved the position that “We will live
in Christian community together.” Liberal
groups also reject any split. The Common Witness Coalition, made up of
the Reconciling Ministries Network, the Methodist Federation for Social
Action and Affirmation, said it was not in favor of a schism and was
fully committed to inclusion of all opinions. “We
are a United Methodist Church that is not of one mind concerning the
issue of homosexuality,” read a statement released by the group. “Our
language failed to receive the number of votes, but the Holy Spirit has
not failed us.” “We
feel the movement of change and growth abounding,” said the Rev. Troy
Plummer, executive director of the Reconciling Ministries Network. “We
will remain here in the United Methodist Church today, tomorrow and
however long it takes to have a fully inclusive church.” “It
is not only a foolish idea, it is really a very hurtful and destructive
idea,” said retired Bishop C. Dale White. “Why should we destroy a
great church on the basis of peripheral issues? On the core issues of
ministry and theology, the whole church agrees, even if we articulate
them differently.” White,
who led an unofficial group that published the book United Methodist at
Risk: A Wake-Up Call in 2003, cited the good work done by the United
Methodist Church in Africa as an example of what a united church can do.
“Our church has affected incredible church growth in Africa, something
that is the envy of Protestantism,” White said. “And it was the whole
church, not Good News, not liberals or conservatives.” The
controversy came after two informal meetings this week between
conservative leaders and their liberal caucus counterparts. But one
pastor who participated in those meetings said the proposal being
circulated was simply a conversation starter. “This
document does not have any status,” said the Rev. Bruce Robbins, senior
pastor at Hennepin Avenue United Methodist Church in Minneapolis and
former chief executive of the United Methodist Commission on Christian
Unity and Interreligious Concerns. “It was never said that this was to
be a proposal. It was simply an interesting document that people started
sharing around and more people became aware of.” Robbins characterized the exchanges as “poignant, an important sharing that was valuable to me.” Still, Hinson and Heidinger say there is no middle ground for continuing a relationship. “It’s a sad day for me,” Hinson said. “But the gulf is indeed too deep.” “There
is not a happy bone in my body,” Heidinger agreed. “The fallout from
this will be tragic. But you have to ask yourself, ‘What’s the better
way for the church?’ And the church is the body of Christ.” Fox
said he felt sadness for another reason: “I am sad about the amount of
energy that we have focused on this. It’s taking us away from what we
need to do, and that’s spreading the good news to the world.” The
proposed resolution calls for the creation of a special task force to
prepare a process by which the denomination would amicably separate. The
body would comprise “seven members from the ‘progressive/liberal’
constituency … seven members from the moderate/centrist’ constituency …
and seven members from the ‘evangelical/orthodox’ constituency.” The
proposal calls for the “Task Force on Amicable Separation” to report to
a special session of General Conference in 2006. The legislative
meeting of the church is normally held every four years. “We
have spent endless hours and countless dollars focused on the genuine
conflicts that divide us, rather than the mission and ministry to which
we are called,” read a section of the rationale that accompanied the
proposal. However, church leaders rejected the proposal in interviews. Separating
the church would be difficult because of a long-standing trust clause
that all property belongs to the annual conference, said Bishop William
Oden of the Dallas Area. “I see us as a church moving toward listening
to one another rather than towards separation or divorce.” Bishop
Joe E. Pennel Jr. of the Richmond (Va.) Area said he was saddened that
Hinson did not want to work within church rules. “It’s not the United
Methodist way. Our polity holds us together. Our Book of Discipline
holds us together.” “The Spirit also keeps up together,” added Minor. Hinson,
who retired in 2001 as the pastor of one of the largest congregation in
the United Methodist Church, said he envisioned two new denominations,
both with different names. “I don’t think they would want us to take the
‘United Methodist’ name, and we wouldn’t want them to have the name
either.” He
said that those within the church who support inclusivity of
homosexuals “feel disenfranchised. They’ve asked to be set free, to be
given space and autonomy. They want to pursue their own glorious vision,
while we will pursue ours. The question is not whether to do it, but
how. “We
have a view of the Scripture and centrality of Christ,” Hinson said,
“and we’re dealing with persons who feel we need to bring our church
into our (secular) culture. That’s the worst thing we can do. We have to
be faithful to being the church. “They
say they feel spiritually assaulted,” he said, referring to groups
which support including homosexuals, “and that we’re using our strength
to push our laws on them. But our people are hurting, too. We hurt when
they hurt. Nobody is going home happy, because ‘we’ve held them off one
more time.’ We’re hurting each other, and we don’t want that to
continue.” Hinson
was careful to use the word “separation” rather than “split.” “A split
is viciously tearing something apart. We do not do anything that is not
in love.” Hinson called the idea “the 800-pound gorilla that is hanging around General Conference.” “Nobody
is talking about it,” he said. “So let’s talk about it. If God likes
this proposal, it will take on a life of its own in our congregations. I
think the laity will be more and more active now.” Hinson
said he takes “no joy” in the positive outcomes that conservatives have
celebrated at this General Conference. “The traditionalist has been
affirmed over the revisionist, there’s no question about that. But
already I’ve heard many delegates plotting (strategy) for four years
from now. I don’t relish the thought of gearing up for another battle. I
think there are better ways of using our time.” “As
we look at this General Conference and how we do our conferencing,”
Heidinger said, “the Book of Discipline is our guideline for our
covenant. But the Western Jurisdiction continues to say they will not be
silent in their advocacy of full inclusion for gays and lesbians at
every level of the church, including ordination. They are already
operating as a church within a church, which means not abiding by the
Discipline. If they are not willing to do that, do we even have a
covenant?” Hinson
admitted that the moderate and liberal wings of the church do not want
any division. “But they’ve also said that they will continue to defy
every (church) law that they feel does not have a moral consensus. They
will continue to perform same-sex marriages and ordain gays as clergy.
They feel they must do that. We’re at a stalemate. “We’ve ‘dialogued’ for years and years and years,” Hinson said. “I want to tear my shirt when I hear that word.” *Caldwell is a correspondent for United Methodist News Service. News media contact: (412) 325-6080 during General Conference, April 27-May 7.
After May 10: (615) 742-5470.
| 
Korean News
