Will the Fracturing of The “United” Methodist Church Impact the Church of Allen?
By John Thomas, III, Editor
As the new decade dawned, the Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church (UMC) issued a press release on January 3rd entitled “United Methodist Traditionalists, Centrists, Progressives & Bishops sign agreement aimed at separation”. Within hours, news spread like wildfire across United States media outlets and social media as this agreement heralds the end of decades of turmoil over issues of human sexuality in one of the nation’s largest Protestant denominations.
The division over the acceptance and status of openly-LGBTQ members culminated in the UMC 2019 Special General Conference held in St. Louis, Missouri that voted to adopt a “Traditional Plan” which strengthened prohibitions on the ordination of LGBTQ members and the celebration of same-sex marriage and enacted legislation for congregations that wished to leave the UMC. (Click here to see our coverage of the 2019 UMC General Conference). With the provisions approved by the 2019 General Conference taking effect on January 1, 2020, it is unsurprising that a new plan would emerge sponsored by the UMC leadership allowing for an amicable separation while forestalling some of the more punitive policies adopted in 2019. The plan includes a $25 million dollar set aside for a new “Traditionalist” denomination in exchange for no claim on UMC property. The plan is expected to be voted into action at the UMC’s General Conference to be held this May and a new “Traditionalist” denomination could be functioning as early as 2021.
Some AME members who followed the drama in the UMC immediately took to Facebook and other platforms with the question, “Will this happen in the AME Church?” It is no secret that the issue of gay marriage and open acceptance of LGBTQ members is a fraught one for the African American community and its pervasive “closet” culture. According to the most recent Pew Research Religion Landscape Study (2014), 61 percent of AME Church members accept homosexuality and 41 percent favor gay marriage compared to 51 percent acceptance of homosexuality and 40 percent in favor of gay marriage for churches in the Historically Black Protestant Tradition as a whole. The 2016 General Conference adopted a “Position Paper on Same Sex Marriage” that affirmed the prohibition against the celebration of same sex marriages and unions in the Discipline, but clarified the denomination’s stance towards members of the LGBTQ community and updated the 1976 “Statement on Homosexuality”. Outside the United States, biblical interpretations and social norms are far more rigid and the AME Church has a presence in several countries where violence against members of the LGBTQ community is rampant and indeed their open existence is illegal.
So, what of the division in the UMC? To quote a church adage, “What it’s about ain’t what it’s about.” The deeper roots of the impending split relate to The UMC’s creation. Since its founding, conservative groups (many with rooted in the former slaveholding Methodist Episcopal Church, South) created institutions to curtail the denomination’s progressive witness and endeavors. In recent years, there have been calls to hold apportionments for certain church agencies and restructure them due to a perceived “liberal” agenda. In his blog, “Hacking Christianity”, UMC pastor Rev. Jeremy Smith chronicles this history including rise of parallel entities—publishing houses, mission boards, and evangelism groups—created by Conservatives (now labelled “Traditionalists”) over decades culminating in the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA). The fact that the WCA still wishes to exit despite having its proposal being approved at the 2019 General Conference speaks to its deeper grievances with the UMC beyond LGBTQ issues.
And the AME Church? This writer does not see a split on the horizon for the Church of Allen. First, there are no clear lines of demarcation. We don’t have established AME Progressive, Conservative or Central Caucuses. Second, the issue of LGBTQ inclusion is much more nuanced and embedded in our structure (and the Black Church as a whole). We have opted for a clergy who subscribe to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy or are “out” in limited capacities to their congregations and their Bishop and active laity whose special “friends” we all know and welcome in our churches. Third, the Connectional AME Church does not have the money to finance a split. The 25-million-dollar settlement allocated for the conservative UMC denomination in waiting is more than the entire annual AME Church Connectional Budget of $16 million.
What is urgently needed is a constructive dialogue that comes from a place of understanding and not from dogmatic proof-texting rooted in heteronormative patriarchy. At the 2019 CONVO, I was disturbed by the caustic tone of the brief exchange on LGBTQ issues which assumed that there was one theology that needed to be “told” to others. A constructive and open environment to discuss our understanding of LGBTQ concerns and reflect upon them with Christ-like hearts and minds grounded in theology does not exist in our denomination. But it must happen soon. As a global denomination, we will have to deftly address the issue of LGBTQ inclusion without maligning our work in Districts 14-20. The alternative is a church increasingly at odds with itself and its desire to serve “Humankind Our Family”.
