by Chris Ritter
Tom Berlin is one of the great figures in the United Methodist Church. He is on the Progressive side of social and theological issues, and he is intensely interested in church vitality and growth. A large church pastor, he is a gifted communicator and a pragmatic solution-seeker diligent in tackling the divisive issues bedeviling The United Methodist Church. Tom developed a well-known illustration involving sugar packets to describe of the various camps in our denominational human sexuality struggle. He attributes the basic categories to Tom Lambrecht, Vice President and Business Manager of Good News.
On the theological left of the UMC, Progressive Non-compatiblists demand that the entire church change our stance on human sexuality as they work to completely stamp out discrimination based on sexual practice. On the other end of the spectrum are Traditionalist Non-compatiblitists who are insistent on maintaining the current language in the Book of Discipline around ministry and human sexuality. Progressive compatiblists, while desiring to see same-sex weddings conducted in the UMC, are deferential to the existence of conservatives in the church whose stance they realize is born of genuine conviction.
Then there are Traditionalist Compatiblists. Berlin defines folks in this category as follows:
These people hold traditional views on human sexuality but understand that other pastors or churches would like to have the option of offering marriage ceremonies to same-sex couples. Some Annual Conferences want to have the ability to ordain people who are practicing homosexuals. While they do not want to be forced into performing such a marriage, they can live in a denomination where this occurs, understanding that there are many issues beyond this where they find unity in our connection.
Descriptions of these four categories can be quite misleading if people come to think they are equally populated. They are not. The majority of United Methodists believe what the Book of Discipline teaches about human sexuality whether they are vocal about this or not. The Traditionalist Compatibilist is actually a very rare bird. I myself spent some considerable time and effort trying to stake out ground in this category. I might have even been its standard-bearer as I proposed several “jurisdictional solutions” that would sort the U.S. church into two basic ministry approaches while retaining connection with one another.
The election of Karen Oliveto to the general superintendency of our denomination caused me to abandon hopes for a lasting structural peace that uses our current definition of Connectionalism AND includes all the players currently in the UMC.
ALL MIDDLE GROUND IS TRANSITIONAL
Progressive Compatiblists have decided that acceptance of same sex marriage is a fait accompli in the larger U.S. culture and that the church will soon need to get on board in order to have a future. Many of these folks are rather muted about their convictions in their local churches, waiting until the cultural temperature adjusts in the church. They don’t want to conduct potentially divisive same sex weddings today, but five years from now that story might change. They are on the Progressive journey in terms of their understanding of human sexuality.
Tom Berlin and other self-described Progressive Compatiblists are working hard to put together a moderate coalition in order to maintain their version of United Methodism. This is a challenging task. They see the powers that be in the Western Jurisdiction, Northern Mid-West, and East Coast are defiant and will not relent until the entire denomination views human sexuality they way they do. The absolutism of the far left tends to dash hopes for a stable settlement. Traditionalists have the votes at General Conference to keep the language in the Discipline as it now stands, but accountability is a wearying struggle.
CENTRISTS = PROGRESSIVE COMPATIBLISTS
As stated, Traditionalist Compatiblists are a micro category in the larger church. You can only spot them if you know where to look. For people like myself, it can be a transitional state adopted to consider options for structural peace. The permanent residents of this category are folks that put the preservation of the institution above their scriptural ideology. Watch for people elected to high positions of leadership or those whose position is dependent upon the status quo. Some are institutional loyalists in denial of what we are actually facing. Like faithful Sears shoppers, they don’t want to hear how things are soon going to irrevocably change.
When you hear about meetings of “Centrists”, just know that you are dealing almost exclusively with institutionalists of the Progressive Compatiblists variety who aren’t quite ready to be thrown in with the Western Jurisdiction. Progressive Incompatiblists will cheer on these Centrist efforts because all they ultimately need is the passage of some sort of Local Option to break us away from the influence of the global church. If they get the rules changed, they can apply pressure to pick off hold-out conferences one by one. Their crusade can continue unabated.
A group of 48 Progressive Centrists gathered in Nashville recently to strategize their future. I look for a very compelling, newly-packaged version of the Local Option to be championed by these folks.
TRADITIONALIST INCOMPATIBLISTS ARE THE LARGEST AND MOST DIVERSE CATEGORY BY FAR
As I moved from Traditionalist Compatiblist to Traditionalist Incompatiblist, I discovered what a diverse group we actually are. This is by far the most ethnically diverse category in the UMC, but its diversity can be seen in other ways. Some are very “high church” and some are quite “low church”. We have Evangelicals and members of the Order of St. Luke. We have almost all the Holiness folks and Charismatics currently in the UMC. The Africans are by far the largest segment of the category, and they are quite institutionally-minded. The Central Conference of the Philippines and many other Asian United Methodists would reside here. We also have some Europeans.
The Wesleyan Covenant Association also fits securely into this category. Some in WCA, like myself, are “leaning in” to the UMC as we maintain hope that the denomination can be saved. Others in WCA are “leaning out”, seeing a brighter future starting over from scratch. A few isolated defections aside, we have decided to throw our lot in with each other and see this thing through together as the Council of Bishops presents its solution.
CONCLUSION
Sugar packets aside, we have arrived at the point where the only two categories that matter are (1) those who will abide by our Discipline and (2) those who will not. The moral vision of the New Testament related to human sexuality is authoritative or it is not. A center category between these two options is becoming a ghost. A structural solution that holds both these opinions in the same sort of Connectionalism we have now died with the election of Karen Oliveto.
The burden is on the dissenting conferences to come up with a compelling rationale for why and how they should be allowed to carry the UM banner even though they reject the discernment processes of the UMC. I think the best way forward is to formalize the autonomy these conferences have demonstrated and negotiate in good faith for their customized participation in the general agencies of the denomination. Collaborative plans could be made to swap clergy and congregations between traditional conferences and newly autonomous conferences in order to achieve a stable peace. I hope the Commission will be recommending something like this to our Council of Bishops.
People Need Jesus 
Why is this post password protected?
Sent from my iPhone
>
Sorry about the password. It is now removed. I needed to let some friends fact check some things before publishing this.
I would like to see statistical data that support your second “sugar” picture, which represents “Traditional Non-Compatibilists” as more than twice as many as the other three categories combined. Otherwise, you’re just expecting us to take your word for the numbers behind the image.
It would also be interesting to see the breakdown for United Methodists in the US only. If the Way Forward Commission recommends making the US a separate, Central Conference, the “sugar” distribution would look quite different.
Thanks, Keith. My pictures are not really intended as a statistical graph, but as an anecdotal correction to the original image that could leave the impression that the categories are somehow equally populated. I am counting Africans as United Methodists in this article… because they are. I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond.
I know you are counting Africans as United Methodists, as you should, because they are. But there is an inequality that needs to be addressed. Central Conferences can alter some disciplinary regulations to fit their particular mission contexts, but UMs in the United States cannot. Indeed, delegates from Central Conferences vote on regulations that are binding for American UMs, but not necessarily binding for them. I know this won’t be addressed in 2019, but if the denomination is to survive, it must be addressed at some point in time.
And yes, the original image does give the wrong impression and needs a corrective. Perhaps a small disclaimer on your image would help.
One of the misconceptions out there is that Central Conferences can set their own ministry standards. They cannot by Judicial Council ruling. The ministry standards of the U.S. BOD are in effect worldwide.
Yes, I’m aware of the Judicial Council ruling (1969) that established this limitation on changing ministry standards. I don’t agree with it, but that’s irrelevant.
I also hope for something like this, but I have persistent and as of yet unanswered questions. All official statements from CoB have consistently stated that they have only charged the Commission with opening paragraphs related to sexuality and that these are the only paragraphs to be addressed at the special GC. How do you get to Autonomous Conferences while staying in those paragraphs? Are you aware of any public statement from CoB that they would abandon that position to permit such a plan on the floor in 2019? I understand that a GC could suspend the rules once assembled, but that requires multiple super-majority votes throughout the session in order to take a conference somewhere the chair does not want it to go.
Lots of unanswered questions all around. I don’t know any more than you do. Thanks for reading and responding.
Chris, this is clearly a thought-provoking post. May I reprint it on United Methodist Insight?
Sure. Thanks for your interest.
Thank you! I really appreciate your contributions that help to broaden and diversify the conversation.
Do you have stats to support your assertions? If not, this comes across as very anecdotal.
Anecdotal is a fair critique. I am writing as one who tried to stake out a position in the compatiblist realm and found the ground unstable. My sense of the breakout in the four categories includes Africa, of course. Thanks for taking a look and responding.
I think your statement, “A structural solution that holds both these opinions in the same sort of Connectionalism we have now died with the election of Karen Oliveto”, says it all! I thoroughly enjoy having persons on the “other side” of the argument within my denomination and as friends, but how can we remain together when we can’t abide by the agreed upon set of rules? I’m afraid the future is bleak for our beloved denomination.
I thought that since your title was a question maybe you would offer an answer. I did not find your answer to the question you raised. Of course, I have a horribly short attention span and easily read into things what I want to find there.
Sorry for my lack of clarity. They are hard to find because they (almost) don’t exist.
I commend you for trying to keep everyone together but it is really too late for all that. Ever since I came back to the UM, I have kept up with conversations in the UM blogosphere and all those places have went cold. People from differing positions are just tired of it I guess. I know I am. I personally like having a pretty wide tent and I love our connectional way of life together as a denomination. It truly is different from any other church body.
I don’t think there is much that the Commission can do except say, “We are not in agreement and will not be able to live together. You need to figure this out now.” That’s about it.
If there is going to be actual renewal and new mission, then confession of sin is going to have to be made. Those in the Western jurisdiction and in other conferences have just plain ol’ lied and acted deceptively. This whole fiasco about trying to figure out if two people in a “homosexual marriage” were actually committing “homosexual activity” was ridiculous and I am glad that the JC didn’t play that game.
The elephant in the room is that there is about to have to be sweeping changes in the denomination whether people want it or not. Conferences are having to decrease the number of jurisdictions because churches are closing and money is running out. There is some tremendous stress in our local districts. Things are going to change whether we like it or not. The Western Jurisdiction will likely be unsustainable in a few years anyways. The whole denomination is one generation from collapse.
I personally have decided that I am not going to even worry about this stuff anymore. There are too many factors at work. It’s too big a problem. I am just going to join those doing mission and lead. There will always be a place for those who want to see a renewal of the Wesleyan/Methodist movement.
Well, aren’t you a little ray of sunshine?
Is that the reality or not?
I am considered “young” clergy and have been engaged in all sorts of mission since entering. And one thing I am sick and tired of is people sticking there head in the sand and ignoring reality.
P.S. I think your reply is pretty immature for someone of your age and experience
Is what the reality or not? That’s it’s too late? I don’t think so. Many others also don’t think so. Some UMs, you included, do think it is too late. You are certainly free to choose how YOU wish to respond, but don’t act as if yours is the only sensible way to respond.
My remark to you wasn’t intended to be mature, so that should have been a clue to you about the spirit in which I said it. I’ve known folks throughout my career who would say, “I don’t like all this stuff going on at the annual conference or jurisdictional or general church level, so I’m just going to focus on my flock.” Some said this because they were selfish or ambitious or lazy. Others said it because, in their hearts, they didn’t truly believe in the connexional system. Your statement of it strikes me as arising from a jaded cynicism. To me, this denial of the connexional nature of our church is a greater betrayal of one’s membership and/or ordination vows than performing a same-sex wedding or being in a same-sex marriage.
Hi, Chris! When you state, “The absolutism of the far right left tends to dash hopes for a stable settlement,” I was waiting for a similar statement which I believe would also be accurate, “The absolutism of the far right tends to dash hopes for a stable settlement” as well. You alluded to it, but I believe each side should take equal responsibility for dashing “hopes for a stable settlement.” BTW, I consider myself, and the local church I serve, as traditionalist/compatibilist.
please edit: first “far right” should be “far left”
I appreciate this comment, Randy. I can consider myself a TC, too, if that means favoring a structural solution that avoids the Local Option. The problem with all remaining structural solutions is they they, since July, require a divided episcopacy. If we have two episcopacies, it is difficult to see how that equates to anything other than two churches. I sincerely hope the two churches would work together so closely as to be a sign of hope for our divided world.
Have we not in most ways had a divided episcopacy since 1939? The creation of Jurisdictions – whose only real reason for existence is to elect Bishops – set that in place decades ago. It has only become problematic as the regions each jurisdiction represents have become more culturally diverse – both in the United States and abroad.
In some ways, yes. But bishop’s are paid through the Episcopal Fund financed by all apportionment-paying UM’s. They also preside over General Conference and are General Superintendents of the whole. Bishop’s are supposed to be signs of unity, not division. You are right that the Jurisdictionalism of 1939 led to the current situation.
Hi Chris, would you be willing to have a phone conversation related to some of your thoughts? I attended the Nashville meeting referenced. Thanks for considering!
Rev. Melissa Maher, melissa@mercystreet.org. Drop me an email and we can exchange phone numbers. Grateful for a Wesleyan posture of conversation.
Sure!
Thanks for your observations. What I have not heard even mentioned in the research that has been done is the fallacy which assumes the rank and file Western Jurisdiction member agrees with their leaders in stances of I ncompatibility. Conversations with members in the Western JD seem to indicate that some feel their leaders left them to go left and that they have no voice in their future at GC19. There is a concern to me that many in the West feel abandoned by their traditional denomination, which seems content to abandon them and not rescue them for traditional values. I am not sure we have adequate ways to hear those in the pews. When the leadership does not reflect the pews, injustice can occur. Praying for the peace of the UMC.
I am a retired member of the Texas Annual Conference, where many liberal/progressive pastors and lay members feel the same way but in reverse. Our delegation is made up entirely of Confessing-Movement-approved delegates who support either the TP or the MTP.
Our voices will not be heard at GC2019.
Who will “rescue” us and the denomination we love from being taken over by the Traditionalists?
This is what happens when we see differences of opinion as a battlefield, our brothers and sisters as opponents to be beaten, votes as opportunities for “victory,” and the majority as the custodians of the truth.
You are correct and it reminds us that no Jurisdiction or conference or even local church is in complete agreement in this issue. The good thing about the big umbrella we have lived under we could agree on things or not, but still worship and do ministry as one people. When persons have to align themselves in one camp or the other, the unity has be cut. The battlefield mentality against those on the same pew cannot be the unity of faith to which we are called.