Fascinated to see what happens with my church (we no longer attend since we moved away) - the main church is traditional / conservative but one of it's sister churches is very progressive.

Updates:

https://www.umnews.org/en/news/court-rules-two-gc2019-petitions-unconstitutional
https://www.umnews.org/en/news/court-cites-2016-decision-in-query-at-gc2019
https://www.umnews.org/en/news/gc2019-daily-feb-24

The Traditional Plan, which upholds the current language about homosexual practices, has received the most votes over the one church plan favored by the bishops and which would have allowed clergy to officiate at same sex weddings. There is much work to be done, but the church has held true to traditional biblical sexual standards for now. I would not be surprised to see liberal clergy leaving the denomination, as they probably should. Source is the United Methodist News Service...cannot link due to posting from my phone.

Are these the results of the official vote or is this just the word on the street is?

[url=https://www.umnews.org/en/news/effort-to-delay-traditional-plan-debate-defeated][/url]
Legislative committee passes Traditional Plan

Updated at noon, Feb. 25: The decision means the Traditional Plan, with amendments, moves ahead to a plenary vote Feb. 26.

Am I reading it right that it appears a split is almost certain to occur based on todays votes?

AgLiving06 said:

---

Am I reading it right that it appears a split is almost certain to occur based on todays votes?

---

From what understand, and this could very much have already changed, there was some sort of amendment that allows churches not wanting to adopt the traditional plan to leave the United Methodist umbrella with their property and start anew under a new name.

Again, this may not be 100% accurate, but that's what I read today

A split was pretty much inevitable regardless of the way the vote was going to go.

There will also be a 200k grant available to conferences that leave under the modified trad. Plan.

OnlyForNow said:

---

There will also be a 200k grant available to conferences that leave under the modified trad. Plan.

---

That's good! It would be a lie to have a church so divided pretend to be united. And this is a parachute for those electing to bail out.

UTExan said:

---

Good quote by Liberian delegate Rudolph Merab on his support for the Traditional Plan:
"It is better to be divided by truth than united by error."

---

Great way to sum it up!

UTExan said:

---

Good quote by Liberian delegate Rudolph Merab on his support for the Traditional Plan:
"It is better to be divided by truth than united by error."

---

Agree!

And the One Church folks really tried to paint the Traditional supporters as haters:

Quote:

---

After passionate speeches, prayers and tears, the "one, last shot" for the One Church Plan was defeated by a vote of 449-374 at The United Methodist Church's 2019 General Conference.
-----
Nancy Denardo, Western Pennsylvania, cited Scriptures in her argument against the One Church Plan.

"Friends, please stop sowing seeds of deceit," she said. "I'm truly sorry if the truth of the Gospel hurts anyone; I love you and I love you enough to tell the truth."
------
Aislinn Deviney, Rio Texas, who described herself as a young evangelical delegate, said many young people "fiercely believe marriage is between one man and one woman."

"We are here at the table because of our dedication, not because we demand a place because of our age," she said. "We speak for ourselves. We all have family and friends who are LGBTQ that we love and value."

The Rev. Cara Niklas, Oklahoma, in speaking against the One Church Plan, said people supporting the Traditional Plan have been called mean-spirited.

"That is a false narrative," she said. She talked about the love she has for a niece who is a lesbian. "When gay persons become convinced I don't love them because of their behavior, it causes damage with our relationships."
----------
https://www.umnews.org/en/news/gc2019-daily-feb-26

---

UTExan said:

---

And the One Church folks really tried to paint the Traditional supporters as haters:

Quote:

---

After passionate speeches, prayers and tears, the "one, last shot" for the One Church Plan was defeated by a vote of 449-374 at The United Methodist Church's 2019 General Conference.
-----
Nancy Denardo, Western Pennsylvania, cited Scriptures in her argument against the One Church Plan.

"Friends, please stop sowing seeds of deceit," she said. "I'm truly sorry if the truth of the Gospel hurts anyone; I love you and I love you enough to tell the truth."
------
Aislinn Deviney, Rio Texas, who described herself as a young evangelical delegate, said many young people "fiercely believe marriage is between one man and one woman."

"We are here at the table because of our dedication, not because we demand a place because of our age," she said. "We speak for ourselves. We all have family and friends who are LGBTQ that we love and value."

The Rev. Cara Niklas, Oklahoma, in speaking against the One Church Plan, said people supporting the Traditional Plan have been called mean-spirited.

"That is a false narrative," she said. She talked about the love she has for a niece who is a lesbian. "When gay persons become convinced I don't love them because of their behavior, it causes damage with our relationships."
----------
https://www.umnews.org/en/news/gc2019-daily-feb-26

---

---

The quotes in here are a perfect example of the way I feel. Once it became pretty clear that the OCP wasn't going to happen and that the Traditional plan would go through I was happy, but my happiness was pretty tempered.

I understand that people are hurt by this and that bothers me, But This was never about bigotry, it was about the Gospel,

The people who voted against the OCP aren't bigots. They are faithful Christians.

That's a pretty close vote. Interesting to think that it could have gone the other way. In a few more years it probably would have.

Average Guy said:

---

I wonder if someone who follows this more closely can comment on the idea that US delegates were overwhelmingly (the article said 2/3, I think) in favor of the one church plan. Did I read that right? Does it represent sentiment of US members overall?

---

I think so. But delegates both lay and clergy tend to be more liberal in the US. UM Communications did a limited survey last year of UMC members and found 44 % self-described as conservative/traditional whereas only 20 % did. The survey was conducted on line with regional variation and was quite surprising. It means liberals are concentrated mostly in clergy from the survey results. The African and European evangelicals saved us in this conference.

Quote:

---

Hmm. If the split among members closely resembles the split among the clergy, a breakaway of liberal churches from the greater UMC church would appear, at least in the US, like breakway of the conservative churches.

---

This is probably going to be the most interesting thing going forward. For example, I live in Dallas and there are a couple of churches that skew very liberal or very conservative. Oak Lawn UMC is almost certainly going to split, and I know for a fact that HP UMC won't. Those are easy.

But there are some in-between congregations that are going to be interesting to watch. Lovers Lane UMC is located in a high income area with a very mixed congregation.

My home church, FUMC Richardson skews more conservative, but there are certainly some liberal elements as well. Its been pretty noticeable with our pastor that he's worried about all of this, and I'm sympathetic to his situation. Its really a no-win situation for the pastors of these mixed churches, and they've got a tough road ahead.

But, ultimately, as we all have said, this isn't that hard. This is an issue of integrity, and as it was go eloquently put: "It is better to be divided by truth than united by error."

All for ~2% of your congregation.

TresPuertas said:

---

I understand that people are hurt by this and that bothers me, But This was never about bigotry, it was about the Gospel,

The people who voted against the OCP aren't bigots. They are faithful Christians.

---

But Methodism has always been more complex than simply looking at Scripture, right? Wesley instructs us to use scripture, tradition, experience, and reason to shape our faith.

For comparison, the Book of Discipline doesn't allow drinking alcohol. The Gospel, strictly read, would tell us not to ordain women or let them wear jewelry (as pointed out by Adam Hamilton through this process). None of us want that, so it's evident that Methodists generally do as Wesley suggested and add our own reason and experience to scripture.

So, when Traditional Plan supporters say "oh well, what can we do? It's just scripture, I'm not making my own judgments" it rings fairly hollow. I'd be far more sympathetic to the Traditional Plan if it also said that divorced people can't be ministers and we can't perform second marriages in the church. Because if it were truly just about the Gospel, it would include those things. I wish supporters were more honest about it. Say "it's not just the Gospel, my reason tells me we should exclude LGBT persons from the clergy."

The decision to focus on strict application of this one small element of scripture is not an accident.

Quote:

---

So, when Traditional Plan supporters say "oh well, what can we do? It's just scripture, I'm not making my own judgments" it rings fairly hollow. I'd be far more sympathetic to the Traditional Plan if it also said that divorced people can't be ministers and we can't perform second marriages in the church. Because if it were truly just about the Gospel, it would include those things. I wish supporters were more honest about it. Say "it's not just the Gospel, my reason tells me we should exclude LGBT persons from the clergy."

---

I'm not sure what one thing has to do with the other, and I think this only weakens your argument to go on this path....because you open yourself to the response of "You're right, they will be excluded next".

I think proponents of the One Church plan should focus on whether it's a sin or not and leave the fight there. Whataboutism never leads anywhere good.

FtWorthHorn said:

---

TresPuertas said:

---

I understand that people are hurt by this and that bothers me, But This was never about bigotry, it was about the Gospel,

The people who voted against the OCP aren't bigots. They are faithful Christians.

---

But Methodism has always been more complex than simply looking at Scripture, right? Wesley instructs us to use scripture, tradition, experience, and reason to shape our faith.

For comparison, the Book of Discipline doesn't allow drinking alcohol. The Gospel, strictly read, would tell us not to ordain women or let them wear jewelry (as pointed out by Adam Hamilton through this process). None of us want that, so it's evident that Methodists generally do as Wesley suggested and add our own reason and experience to scripture.

So, when Traditional Plan supporters say "oh well, what can we do? It's just scripture, I'm not making my own judgments" it rings fairly hollow. I'd be far more sympathetic to the Traditional Plan if it also said that divorced people can't be ministers and we can't perform second marriages in the church. Because if it were truly just about the Gospel, it would include those things. I wish supporters were more honest about it. Say "it's not just the Gospel, my reason tells me we should exclude LGBT persons from the clergy."

The decision to focus on strict application of this one small element of scripture is not an accident.

---

Part of what you say rings true with me. If the Methodists had held the line on holiness, including abstinence from fornication and had been more authoritative than amorphous in their theology, the Traditional Plan makes sense. LGBTQ people are not the problem; sexual immorality is the problem and this is now the hard line. The pro LGBTQ lobby is not merely about inclusion. It is largely about erasing any mention of sexual immorality. Hence, their Simple Plan which emerged prior to the conference. It is not about legalism nor is it about excluding LGBTQ people from church. Honest examination of remarks by Traditional Plan supporters would reveal that. But celebration of homosexuality is simply not indicated anywhere in scripture, yet there are UMC churches in my own conference that make a point of just that activity.