Methodist Church Upholds Authority of Scripture – What Are the Lessons for Holiness Churches?

The global United Methodist Church held what was touted as a historic special session of General Conference February 23-26. The conference had been called to deal with the church’s position on issues of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. The topics are nothing new. The church has been fighting an inward battle for decades as more and more clergy have chosen to openly defy the teachings of the church, to the point of appointing an openly gay bishop, ordaining homosexual ministers, and performing same-sex weddings – all without discipline from the greater church (or, more accurately, largely ignoring any discipline).

While I was watching the proceedings online from the comfort of my home office, I jotted down my observations, which I share with you below. I grew up in a United Methodist Church where my grandmother served as the Sunday School superintendent. But when I came to Christ at the age of 18, it was through the ministry of the neighboring Wesleyan church, and I have spent my adult life as part of that denomination. So, I don’t claim to be a member of the UMC. I was an outsider observing the conference via the Internet, so I certainly can’t speak to all the nuances of the denominational rift or what took place at conference. Nonetheless, here are my thoughts on each day’s proceedings.

Sunday, February 24 – Prioritization

First, I was impressed by the six hours spent in prayer on Saturday, February 23. The worship was sweet and pure, and the times of prayer were authentic. I found myself several times with tears streaming down my face as I prayed for our spiritual cousins in the UMC.

On Sunday morning, the members of the Commission on the Way Forward shared about their process and the plans that would be proposed. I want to go on record as saying that these men and women appeared to be very sincere, passionate, and compassionate pastors and lay members of the UMC. They were all well spoken and deliberate in their words. They admitted their struggles and the deep sense of urgency and responsibility that had been entrusted to them. There was a clear call to unity and to listening to the Spirit.

However, I did sense that most of the speeches were an attempt to sway the members of the conference to adopt a particular agenda for the church. I was saddened by the applause and cheers when one pastor introduced himself as an openly gay pastor of a Methodist congregation. There were calls for diversity (by which they meant diversity of beliefs on doctrines pertaining to human sexuality) and “contextualization” of doctrine to reach the most people with the Gospel.

Contextualization always takes place when we share the Gospel – in how we share it and the illustrations we use. However, it isn’t contextualization when we change the doctrine of the church or misapply the intended meaning of Scripture. Using that rationale, you should be able to contextualize the Gospel if you were working in prison ministry by declaring that crimes are not really sinful. Or, if you were a pastor in a primarily Muslim or African nation, you would be able to affirm and bless polygamy in the interest of contextualization and removing hindrances to the Gospel.

I think the confusion comes in wanting to be compassionate to the point that we don’t want any “harm” to be felt by anyone simply because they don’t agree with a denomination’s clearly stated doctrinal beliefs or agree with the plain teaching of Scripture or thousands of years of Christian faith and praxis. Most parents agree that they feel bad when they need to tell their children no or to reprimand them for unacceptable behavior. Harm is not the intention, but we discipline those we love. In the same manner, staying true to the church’s doctrine may be unpleasant to those who defy it, but staying true to the faith is ultimately an act of love.

2 Corinthians 7:8-10

Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it —
I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while — yet now I am happy,
not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance.
For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us.
Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret,
but worldly sorrow brings death.

What I find difficult is that those who are openly gay and affirm homosexuality and same-sex marriage chose to do so within the context of the UMC, knowing full well that they were defying the church’s doctrinal standards at the time. And now they want those standards changed in the name of compassion and diversity and reaching those in their ministry context. There may be diversity of doctrine within the Church universal, but each denomination is identified by a common doctrine among its churches. The One Church Plan, which would allow different doctrinal positions to be held by annual conferences or individual churches in the UMC, basically results in the death of the denomination, because churches would no longer be united by a common doctrine. Christian unity is not to be solely in a common purpose, but in a common set of beliefs about Jesus Christ and the commands He has left for His followers based on His word revealed in Scripture. If Scripture can now be changed or reinterpreted to accommodate sin (and homosexuality is the one sin so severe that God destroyed two entire cities on account of it), there can be no unity with those who choose to do so.

What about shrimp? I was asked on the Wesleyan Covenant Association Facebook page if I am opposed to eating shrimp, since it is also prohibited in the Old Testament. This was my response:

“If my denomination forbade the eating of shrimp, and I became a member knowing that it was a prohibition, but then I decided I was going to eat shrimp anyway and encourage others to do the same, and then I tried to force the entire denomination to change its original stance so I don’t have to exclude shrimp from my diet… wouldn’t the problem be with ME and not with my denomination?”

I didn’t receive a response. The food restrictions of the Law were addressed by Peter in Acts chapter 10, telling us explicitly that God has declared all foods clean. However, the New Testament is very clear that God has not made the sin of homosexuality acceptable. On the contrary, the New Testament declares homosexual behavior to be sinful in multiple places (e.g., Romans 1:24-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 18-20; Jude 4-7; and Jesus himself confirms that marriage is between one man and one woman in Matthew 19:4-6).

Unity can never come at the expense of truth. In fact, there is no unity outside of truth. In Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer in John 17, He prays that we would be one, just as He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. The Father, Son, and Spirit are in complete unity on doctrine.

1 Corinthians 5:9-13

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning
the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters.
In that case you would have to leave this world.
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister
but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler.
Do not even eat with such people.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

The speakers seemed to be trying very hard to reframe the issue as a “social justice” issue rather than a sin issue. That is the saddest point of all. Because before long, the UMC will be in this same position, but the issue will be transgenderism or gender fluidity or non-binary gender, or polyamory, or polygamy, or pedophilia [see here where activists are trying to have pedophilia designated as an “orientation” so it receives discrimination protections] or some other issue regarding human sexuality. Where will the UMC draw the line? Will they simply keep changing their doctrine to satisfy the culture in the name of evangelism? Where will it end up? What will our culture look like with no voice willing to stand up and declare truth even if it hurts?

During the prioritization process, it became clear that the will of the conference was far different from the “historic” denominational shift the LGBTQ community had hoped for. Thanks largely to the African delegation, the Traditional Plan wound up ranked second on the priority list, with two petitions for disaffiliation (i.e., a “graceful exit”) following. Then came the One Church Plan, which was the favorite of the Council of Bishops. A Simple Plan was at number 8, and the Connectional Conference Plan (another plan put forth by the Committee on a Way Forward) was at number 14.

Previous to the conference, LGBT delegates had threatened to shut down the conference if the Traditional Plan or the disaffiliation petitions were approved. You might find the tone of these delegates to be rather interesting. Their goal was not compromise, tolerance, or Christian love (according to the words of those quoted in the article). Their goal was dominance, and they were willing to push out any who didn’t agree with them. But after prioritization, with the real possibility of the adoption of the Traditional Plan, their hopes began to fade and their tactical approach became one of delay and vilify.

Monday, February 25 – Legislative Committee

On Monday, the entire body of delegates became a single legislative committee tasked with working through the plans and petitions as they were prioritized. The very first motion was to postpone discussing the Traditional Plan to the end of the day (even though it was the second priority of the conference and postponing to the end of the day would be tantamount to tabling the plan, since the committee had only one day to do its work). A few amendments were approved (though not nearly enough to fix the constitutional issues in the plan) before a motion was made to close debate and take an immediate vote. The Traditional Plan was approved by 56% of the delegates. Later, the One Church Plan was voted down by a 53% majority.

In the final vote of the day, 60% of the delegates voted “No” on the Simple Plan, which basically would have removed all language in the Discipline referring to marriage being between one man and one woman and to language stating that homosexuality is sinful behavior.

Here are a couple of the observations I jotted down during the deliberations.

The Chair had expressed several times the importance of not applauding speakers in favor of or in opposition to various petitions. The traditionalists, from my vantage point, did a good job of not gloating over their “wins.” However, when the pro-homosexual group broke out in raucous applause and singing during and after an impassioned speech from one clergyperson, nothing was said by the Chair. I wondered why the rules didn’t apply to them, but since they had been disregarding the Book of Discipline and Scripture by their behavior prior to the conference (in regard to homosexual behavior and affirmation, that is), I realized I shouldn’t have been surprised that they had difficulty following accepted rules for behavior. 

John 17:14-19

I have given them your word and the world has hated them,
for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.
My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.
They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.
Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.
As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world.
For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

The final speaker on Monday was a gay pastor who was against the Simple Plan because it didn’t go far enough. She quoted Wesley as saying to first do no harm, but to instead do good. Just removing “harmful” language from the Discipline wasn’t enough – she hoped for the day when the UMC would do good by affirming LGBTQIA persons. And there you have it. This is the agenda of the LGBTQ community. Any step is never enough. They will never be satisfied until their behavior is applauded and affirmed. Even if the Simple Plan were to be adopted, the chaos and discord in the UMC would not stop, because the LGBTQ community will keep pressing to have its way. While today they say other countries are free to adopt the definitions they want and no church has to affirm a position with which they disagree, tomorrow will be another story. The only way forward for the UMC is to stand on the never-ending and never-failing truth of God’s Word.

“’For me it’s about who’s in God’s love, and nobody’s left out of that,’ said Lois McCullen Parr, 60, a church elder from Albion, Michigan, who identifies as bisexual and queer. ‘The Gospel I understand said Jesus is always widening the circle, expanding the circle, so that everyone’s included.’”

I think she misunderstands Jesus. He said, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate, and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:13-14) and, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21). I think I’m going to stick with Jesus on this one. Herein lies the real problem: a low view of Scripture. Our feelings don’t matter. Our preferences don’t matter. What God says matters! His Word must be the basis of our faith and practice, even if it’s unpopular. Even if we don’t like it.

Tuesday, February 26 – Plenary Session

Tuesday’s plenary session was painful to watch. The parliamentary tactics used by the homosexual-affirming progressives were designed to filibuster and to ensure that work could not be completed. A motion was made to substitute the entire body of the Traditional Plan with the wording from the One Church Plan. Numerous motions were made to refer the Traditional Plan to the Judiciary Committee or to the General Counsel and Financial Advisory Committee for review. At least four times the Chair was challenged and her ruling was appealed, necessitating a vote to uphold her decisions. Points of order were so numerous it was hard to keep track of them. There were accusations of misleading information from the parliamentarian.

It wasn’t until 4:52 p.m. Central Time that the vote was finally held on the Traditional Plan, which was supported by 53% of the delegates.

Earlier in the day, an accusation was made that the traditionalists had bribed delegates and were buying votes, a matter that was referred to the Ethics Committee. Here’s the skinny on that from the Wesleyan Covenant Association (Florida Chapter): “The Renewal Coalition purchased coats for African delegates. St. Louis is cold. There is a free breakfast for all delegates sponsored by Good News. It is networking. It is no different than the OCP [One Church Plan] rallies and hundreds of thousands of advertising dollars they spent.”

During the speeches, delegates were urged by speakers to abstain from voting if they couldn’t support the One Church Plan. There were threats to vote no on every amendment in order to keep the Traditional Plan from being voted on or from meeting constitutional requirements. The Traditional Plan was likened to a “virus” being let into the church. Delegates pointed to the laxity of the church in the past (regarding sex outside of marriage, divorce, and remarriage) as rationale for allowing homosexuality and same-sex marriage (as if more laxity was the solution for failure to discipline other sins in the past – failing to realize that no one was advocating for any of these sins to be affirmed by the entire denomination or wearing it as a badge of honor when they introduced themselves). There was loud chanting, standing protests, an attempt to get on the platform, registering in favor of a position but speaking against it, and vilifying those who dared to hold to a traditional, biblical position.

When all was said and done, the Oregon-Idaho delegation approached the microphone and declared that they would continue to be fully inclusive and watch the “new thing” God wanted to birth among them. They invited other churches to contact them and join with them in their opposition to the Traditional Plan in their ministries. So, in essence, the conference meant nothing, because those who had been refusing to yield to the authority of Scripture and the Discipline are determined to continue their defiance.

LESSONS FOR THE HOLINESS CHURCH

• The trajectory of the social justice movement is to undermine biblical authority by equating the practice of homosexual acts that are clearly prohibited by Scripture with racial discrimination or women’s rights (neither of which have to do with actions but of skin color or gender, over which no one has control).
• When we allow “love,” “unity,” “diversity,” “harm” and other words to be defined by culture instead of the Word of God, the consequences are disastrous. It results in ignorant and childish Christians who allow emotionalism to dictate their decisions and actions.
• Giving in to those throwing temper tantrums until they get their way (or until their behavior is affirmed) will not lead to unity or harmony within the church. Once the behavior is condoned, it will be used over and over as a weapon against any who disagree.
• When subjective feelings take precedence over the authority of Scripture or when we twist Scripture to rationalize sin, we find ourselves on a slippery slope that will take us down a path that leads us further and further from holiness.
• Lack of discipleship and knowledge of the Bible puts Christians at risk of being led astray by fine-sounding arguments that fail to consider the whole counsel of Scripture.
• Disagreement is not “hatred.” We need to preach about a love that risks offending others if it will bring them closer to Jesus.
• We need to get clear on 1 Corinthians 5. We are not to judge those outside the church, but Paul says we have a responsibility to judge those within the church. It’s reckless to allow sin to go unchecked. It’s unloving to leave people in their sins.
• Unity at all costs is a lie from the enemy. We are to be united in Christ. When we are obedient to His commands (the true test of love in John 14:15-24), we will find fellowship with one another. We are bound together by the truth of who Jesus is and what He’s done. If others don’t serve our God faithfully, or if they deny the truths of the Bible, we can’t have unity no matter how hard we try.
• We need to learn from the United Methodist Church. A church that allows sin to flourish will never grow. Sin will fester until it destroys the church. That’s the nature of sin. If our holiness churches coddle sin or excuse it, we’ll find ourselves in the same position as our UMC brothers and sisters in another 10 years (if that).
• If you think of other lessons from the conference, please leave them below in the comments section. Note: you must be logged in to comment.

What’s the Final Outcome for the United Methodist Church?

Here is a final summary written by Dr. Marcel Allen Lamb, lead pastor of a United Methodist Church in Michigan:

To my friends and family who may be wondering about the events in the United Methodist Church and the special general conference that ended today, I want to share my thoughts.

First, let me say that the Traditional plan, which I support, did pass. However, there were some issues with it that needed to be fixed in order to be constitutional within the denomination. At this moment, the status of the vote has been referred to the denomination’s Judicial Council for review of its overall constitutionality. So, that is to say, we really don’t yet know the outcome of the conference.

Second, let me assure you that you will see varying coverage of this event in the news. Some will portray the denomination as supporting traditional marriage and some will portray it as attacked and expelling LGBTQIA persons from the denomination. No one is being expelled, and it is important to remember that the United Methodist Church has always held forth, officially, that marriage is heterosexual. So in this, we merely held the line on what we’ve always officially taught.

Third, when things get contentious and heated, our adrenaline makes us less charitable toward persons with whom we take exception. This has been demonstrated painfully by the behaviors that happened on the floor of the general conference. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of whatever transpired by persons in those emotional moments, let us forgive generously as Jesus taught. Forgiving does not mean condoning, and it does not mean that you want to encourage future behaviors like that.

Finally, because I find my personal disposition wanting to take action right away, I am enacting a personal decision for spiritual discipline. I will pray every time I have my reaction come to mind so that instead of my will, I will make myself listen for the wisdom of God. I also am waiting for input from persons of leadership whom I trust regarding their analysis of the real meaning of the outcome of special general conference 2019. After two days, I believe I will have given room for needed discernment.

Questions for Discussion

1. Why do you think the UMC has had such a difficult time dealing with the issues of gay clergy since 1972 and same-sex marriages over the past decade?
2. According to one poll, 44% of Methodists describe themselves as conservative, 20% as liberal or progressive, and the rest (36% ) as centrists or moderates. When asked about their source of authority, the traditionalists cited Scripture (41%) and Tradition (30%), but the liberals/progressives cited Reason (39%), and only 6% of them cited Scripture. Why do you think progressives in the church have such a low view of Scripture? Can you think of any causes of their lack of Bible knowledge or willingness to submit to its standards?
3. Do you think mainline churches like the UMC are declining in attendance because they’re “out of touch” with culture, or do you think they’re declining because they’ve adopted a more liberal view of theology and practice?
4. How should we as Wesleyans deal with the clash between faith and culture? Is it better to accept cultural definitions of right and wrong in order to reach people with the Gospel than to risk offending people by taking a more rigid stance on lifestyle issues? Where do we draw the line?
5. In a culture where emotionalism and “feelings” seem to trump any kind of orthodoxy, how should we share the objective truth of God’s Word? Is there a way to stand firm AND reach the felt needs of our culture?
6. Read through the list of  “Lessons for the Holiness Church” near the end of the article. Which do you think are the top three lessons? What can you do within your own sphere of influence to ensure your church doesn’t get tripped up? Why do definitions matter? What concepts or words have been redefined that you can help set straight?
7. One pastor at the conference said, “I’d rather be divided by truth than united in error.” How has “unity at all costs” hurt the United Methodist Church? How can it hurt your own church? How can we become more united as a church or denomination without compromising the essential truths of the faith?
8. If you could foretell the future, what do you think awaits us as a denomination? What can we do now to ensure we don’t find ourselves embroiled in the type of controversy the UMS is embroiled in?