Dear St. Andrew Family,
I am writing this morning from Kansas City on the third and final day of the UMCNext gathering. About 600 leaders (clergy and lay) have been in deep conversation about the future of our denomination in the aftermath of the General Conference policies on human sexuality passed in February of this year. These three days have brought greater clarity about the beauty and diversity of our United Methodist connection, as well as the dysfunction of our institution.
The objective of this gathering is not to definitively determine what the future of our denomination will be, but to name the possibilities and preferred outcomes for those who identify as centrists and progressives and who reject the regressive Traditionalist Plan and policies that will take effect in January 2020.
What I want to share briefly is that there is not consensus among this group about the preferred strategies and timing for achieving a fully inclusive United Methodist Church. Three options have been under consideration: (1) to negotiate the dissolution of the UMC in order to form two or three new denominations; (2) to create a pathway for centrists and progressives, who represent the majority of the UMC, to depart and form a new denomination; (3) to stay in the denomination and resist the Traditionalist Plan.
The two options most supported by this group are to negotiate a dissolution of the UMC, and to stay and resist the Traditionalist Plan. Later today, a press conference will be held to announce that the immediate course of action for centrist and progressive United Methodists will be to “stay and resist.” For some, this may mean violating prohibitive policies concerning same gender weddings and the ordination of LGBTQ candidates for ministry. For others, it may mean greater advocacy for full inclusion. How “stay and resist” will play out in the US will be largely determined by one’s ministry context, one’s personal conscience, and one’s tolerance for risk. The goal is to continue to work for change by opposing and disrupting an unjust system. We can understand this as the “long game” which will not solve the more immediate problem of protecting the most vulnerable United Methodists after January 2020, when the new policies become church law.
I do not support “stay and resist” as an effective strategy for United Methodists in the West in general, and for us at St. Andrew in particular. This option did not carry the majority of the informal vote here in KC. We have been resisting for years and, as I have said often, I’m no longer willing to sacrifice the dignity of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters on the altar of church unity. Our Mountain Sky Conference delegation here is united in our commitment to seek a better way forward as we consider, among other options, the formation of a new expression of Methodism for our annual conference. While this will take many months, we’ll begin conversations about this exciting possibility at our annual conference gathering in Billings, Montana, in a few weeks.
I’d like to share more, but I prefer to delay sharing additional details until I can further reflect on a proper response that speaks specifically to the needs and context of St. Andrew—not to mention that I need to get back to meetings here in KC!
Please know, as I have said for months, St. Andrew will continue to be a leader in this emerging conversation, and will continue to embody the fullness of God’s inclusive, boundless, unconditional love and welcome in Jesus Christ.
I’ll see you back in CO!
Much love to all of you,
Rev. Mark
