This is another commentary on the Traditionalist Plan passed by the Special Called General Conference in St. Louis in February, 2019. This is a response to a critique by Tom Lambrecht of the "Good News" organization. Her other commentaries on this site are: Witch Hunts in the UMC and The United Methodist Oh-So-Very-Radical Plan. These three articles are also on UM-Insight.net. Please visit and support Cynthia Astle's important and independent journalism. The UM-Insight links are:
- The United Methodist Oh-So-Very-Radical Plan
- Down the Rabbit Hole with the United Methodists
- St Louis as a 'Damascus Road' Conversion
St Louis as a 'Damascus Road' Conversion
Why Many United Methodists are Appalled by the So-Called-Traditional Plan, Dismayed by the Actions of our Friends in the Conservative Renewal and Reform Coalition, and Newly Awakened from our Ecclesial Slumber
by Rebekah Miles
May 28, 2019
Special to United Methodist Insight
Author’s note: My two pieces outlining the wonky Traditional Plan legislation that was passed by General Conference provoked public rejoinder by Good News leaders. (See my “The United Methodist Oh-So-Very-Radical Plan” on the constitutional legislation and “Down the Rabbit Hole with the United Methodists” on the unconstitutional, as well as Rev. Tom Lambrecht’s “Rejoinder to Rebekah Miles.”) Although I am tempted to rejoin the rejoinder on every point, I focus here on a few pervasive misunderstandings and ask that you read the articles linked above.
Tom Lambrecht’s “Rejoinder to Rebekah Miles” and many other comments by conservative renewal and reform leaders show that they have deeply misunderstood many United Methodists – moderates, progressives, and even some conservatives. In short, many of us are genuinely appalled by the extreme legislation passed at General Conference, bewildered that our conservative renewal friends supported it, and horrified by the language used by some conservative renewal members when talking about LGBT persons and others. Moreover, many of us are exasperated at being dismissed by conservative renewal groups as theologically progressive when it is precisely our conservative Wesleyan theology that grounds our objection to the So-Called-Traditional Plan and now fuels our newfound commitment to challenge it.
Scaremongering Unnecessary When the Facts Themselves Are Appalling
First, I, along with others, have been charged with scaremongering. But scaremongering is totally unnecessary when the facts themselves are so appalling. Please know that many of us, including most moderates and even many conservatives, are genuinely horrified by the actual facts of the So-Called-Traditional Plan in both its constitutional and unconstitutional parts and think that it is anything but “traditional.”
For starters, we are dismayed that our church enacted harsh mandatory minimum penalties (suspension without pay for a first offense and loss of ordination credential for a second), and for only one infraction – officiating at the marriage of same-gender couples. A pastor could be an adulterer and a thief and get off with lighter penalties than if he officiated at the wedding of his own beloved gay child. To make things even worse, this and many other parts of the So-Called-Traditional Plan eviscerate the authority of the annual conference across the board. Please do not think for a minute that our dismay is “disingenuous."
We are horrified that we just made it harder for bishops to resolve disputes regarding the ordination and marriage of gay and lesbian people and every other church conflict as well, pushing us toward more church trials and the horrible publicity and actual harm that inevitably come with them.
We are shocked that we voted to require Boards of Ordained Ministry to examine the social media accounts of every candidate for licensed, commissioned, or ordained ministry, looking for evidence that the person is a “practicing homosexual.” (Note the absence of the word “self-avowed” both in this original version passed by General Conference and in the amendment that had been prepared by the conservative renewal groups. Because this was ruled unconstitutional, the Committee on Correlation would have no reason to consider “fixing it.” In any case there is no sign that it was an “accidental” omission.) I could go on and on, and I have done so elsewhere – both here and here!
In short, there is no need to scaremonger when a straight-out description of the legislation will raise the hair on the back of your neck and give you a fearsome case of the heebie jeebies.
Not Dreamed Up by ‘Some Mad Church Scientist’ but By Our Friends
Second, as dismayed as we are by the legislation, many moderates and conservatives are even more bewildered that our dear friends in the conservative renewal movement would support this extreme legislation and then have the cheek to call it “traditional!” Rev. Lambrecht writes, “The way [Dr.] Miles describes the Traditional Plan, it sounds like the provisions of the Traditional Plan were dreamed up by some mad church scientist having a nightmare.”
No! If only that were true! It is so much worse than that. We know exactly who dreamed it up. It wasn’t “some mad church scientist” but our friends! We can’t get over the fact that our dear brothers and sisters in Christ (including my actual big brother), who we have worked and prayed with for our entire ministries, would support something so extreme. That’s the nightmare! I’m not being disingenuous, as Rev. Lambrecht charges, but as ingenuous as I know how to be!
An Orthodoxy Wrestle-Off
Third, we are simultaneously mystified and exasperated by the attempts of many in the conservative renewal coalition to paint opponents of the Traditional Plan as theological progressives. For many of us, it is precisely because of our conservative theological commitments and our devotion to Christ and his way of holiness, that we are flabbergasted by the So-Called-Traditional Plan.
I don’t want to have an orthodoxy wrestle off; it’s bad form and a worse witness. But if the conservative renewal leaders keep labelling all of us who oppose this legislation as theological progressives, I will happily join in. I’ll see your Nicene Creed and raise it with the Articles of Religion. Game on!
The Octogenarian Invasion of Birmingham
Fourth, we are disturbed by the tone and language of many members of the conservative renewal groups when talking about LGBT persons and other groups. I’m preparing a longer essay analyzing the racist and homophobic language of the conservative renewal members over recent decades. For now, I will just focus on one small example in Rev. Lambrecht’s “Rejoinder to Rebekah Miles.”fter having criticized my “over the top rhetoric” Rev. Lambrecht then goes on to describe the presence of octogenarian African American Bishop Melvin Talbert, who went to Birmingham to do a same-gender wedding, as an invasion of another bishop’s territory. John Lomperis of the Institute for Religion and Democracy also describes Bishop Talbert using the language of invasion.
Let me get this straight. Two men from the Midwest – one in his 60s and the other in his 30s – describe an octogenarian African American Bishop, southern born and raised, a civil rights leader who spent three days and nights in a southern jail with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. back in October 1960, as invading Birmingham! That’s the exact language that white segregationists often used about civil rights activists in the early 1960s.* You can’t make this stuff up.
Several of my colleagues have wondered if using the “invasion” language is a dog whistle, an attempt to rile up supporters, or if it is simple unconscious racism. I’ll go with the latter, but either way, it’s unfortunate. Whatever you think about his actions, the elderly Bishop Talbert did not invade Birmingham; he drove his sedan down from his home in the Nashville suburbs.
Okay, Let’s Talk about Context and History
Fifth, Rev. Lambrecht blasts me for focusing on the extremes of the So-Called-Traditional-Plan legislation and not on the context and history that proceeded it; as he put it, I began with Act 2, not acknowledging the Act 1 of progressive disobedience which proceeded it. Okay, then, let’s talk about context and history.
We can talk about recent ecclesial disobedience, but let’s not stop there. Let’s talk about the offensive language conservative renewal members have used against LGBT people over the decades. Let’s talk about support for “gay conversion camps” and conversion therapies which are derided by major medical and psychiatric organizations. Let’s talk about the high rates of suicide among LGBT youths that have been driven up by the hate they encounter not only in the larger society but also their churches. Let’s talk about the racist history of the jurisdictional system in the United Methodist Church and our long racist history as a church. Let’s talk about the reality that we label only one thing as “incompatible with Christian teaching” – the “practice of homosexuality.” Let’s talk about the sexual infidelity and downright abuse practiced by too many straight United Methodist clergy. And let’s talk about the indisputable fact that most moderates, including me, have until now done so little in the face of this brutality. We have a lot to talk about.
St Louis Waking Moderates from Their Ecclesial Slumber
Sixth, for this and all the reasons outlined above, St. Louis proved to be a catalyst for change among many United Methodists. Moderates describe St Louis as a tipping point, a moment of transformation, and even as their Damascus Road. Many moderate and even conservative United Methodists who consider ourselves traditionalists reject the So-Called-Traditional-Plan precisely because it is not traditional but extreme. We who have been staunch defenders of the institution, now feel compelled by conscience to consider actions that would have been unthinkable just four months ago. The Traditional Plan’s most dramatic and long-lasting effect is to awaken moderates from our ecclesial slumber. And now, friends, we are wide awake.
Agreement on One Crucial Point
For all our differences, I agree with Tom Lambrecht and other conservative renewal leaders on one crucial point. It is time for either a negotiated dissolution or a significant restructure that offers significant separation between the resulting bodies. I lay out this case more fully, offering an ecclesiological and missional argument for restructure or separation in my article, “When Brothers and Sisters Fight to the Death: Ecclesiology, Mission, and the United Methodist Church,” in Where do We Go From Here? Honest Responses from 24 United Methodist Leaders. Unfortunately, this seems to be an unpopular opinion among moderate and progressive leaders who appear to prefer to stay, resist, and reform. However much I appreciate their loyalty to the institution, I find the idea of another decade of conflict unthinkable. Even worse, I can’t stand the thought that we would give even more years of our lives to continued fighting when we could be focused instead on ministry and mission. For me, that’s truly appalling. May it not be so.
*There are many examples from the 1960s of white segregationists talking about the “invasion” of civil rights activists, and it is often noted in histories of the period. See for example, We are Not Afraid (Bantam Press, 1988) which chronicles the 1964 murders of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner in Mississippi by KKK leaders and local police.
-------------------------
The Rev. Dr. Rebekah Miles is an ordained elder and five time General Conference delegate from the Arkansas Conference and Professor Ethics and Practical Theology at Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University.