For more than 45 years, conservative United Methodists have controlled the church’s policy on LGBTQ inclusion, but the actions of the 2019 General Conference (GC2019) may have gone too far. The purpose of that special General Conference was to find a way forward as one denomination, despite internal division over sexuality. Led by the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA), conservatives not only rejected two plans that would have allowed that to happen, but by a thin margin, they pushed through their own “Traditional Plan,” which upholds bans on gay marriage and ordination but also imposes strict, mandatory penalties on violators – a plan clearly designed to drive off progressives. In so doing, they poked the bear and woke up the large “Methodist middle” that has, until now, helped preserve the unity of the church.
For several decades, centrists in the denomination seemed comfortable with the UMC policy, which simultaneously affirmed gays and lesbians as persons of sacred worth, while requiring that they refrain from same-sex intimacy. Many considered this acceptable middle ground that acknowledged both biblical condemnations of same-sex “practice” and modern understandings that one’s sexual orientation is not chosen. Furthermore, the policy allowed the church to remain united, even as factions on the right and left moved farther apart.
However, fifty years after the Stonewall riots that catapulted gay rights, that movement has gone mainstream: Ellen Degeneres just launched a clothing line for Walmart, and a gay presidential candidate, Pete Butigieg, is in the top tier of the large Democratic field. American Methodists, including many centrists, are increasingly supportive of LGBTQ persons. The Pew Forum found that acceptance of homosexuality among United Methodists grew from 51% in 2007 to 60% in 2014. A more recent poll indicates that approval of same-sex marriage among white mainline Protestants increased from 60% in 2014 to 66% in 2019, and while poll data was not broken out by denomination, the Methodist trend towards LGBTQ support has no doubt continued.
Despite growing acceptance of homosexuality in the US, the UMC has retained its restrictive policies through the votes of more conservative delegates from outside the US and moderates who recognized this issue’s divisive potential. But that ended with GC2019, when conservative delegates from the US and overseas, by a 53% majority, rejected the One Church Plan, which would have allowed for different responses to sexuality within a single denomination, and instead approved the Traditional Plan.
Like an angry bear roused from slumber, the remaining 47% uniformly denounced the Traditional Plan. Progressives, centrists, and even some conservatives proclaimed that the plan goes too far and does not represent who we are as a church. Centrists especially, who saw the One Church Plan as the church’s best chance to remain united, felt betrayed that it had been cast aside in favor of plan that delegates found hypocritical, and even “hateful.”
Adam Hamilton, one of the UMC’s most prominent centrists, who has himself had a change of thinking on LGBTQ inclusion, spoke for many delegates when he said: “The WCA said . . . they were tired of fighting about this. But with the Traditional Plan, that adds teeth, you’ve not only alienated progressives, but also centrists. You think these churches will quietly accept this regressive Traditional Plan with teeth? . . . [Y]ou’ve inspired an awful lot of people who are not really engaged in the struggle before. And for that I thank you. You’ve inspired them to action. They’re mad. They’re upset. They’re hurt.”
Conservatives failed to recognize that LGBTQ acceptance is no longer a progressive stance but is embraced by many centrists and a growing number of people who are theologically conservative. Many have changed their thinking because they know LGBTQ persons and have seen the pain that the UMC’s policies cause them. Progressives are now joined by those who have been in the middle or even on the right regarding this issue, but who reject the Traditional Plan for going too far.[1]
This growing coalition is reflected in the election of US delegates for the 2020 General Conference (GC2020). Knowing that the future of the church hangs on the actions of that body, advocates for and against the Traditional Plan were intent on electing delegates who would support their position, with opponents of the plan carrying most US conferences. While it is estimated that US delegates at GC2019 voted against the Traditional Plan by a margin of 2:1, delegates to GC2020 oppose it 3:1.
I generally resist describing LGBTQ inclusion as having two sides. Although there have been strong voices at both ends of the spectrum, it is a nuanced situation with multiple perspectives. However, the Traditional Plan moves the UMC so far to the right that it has created a binary of those who support it – and everyone else.[2]
Despite the opposition to the plan among the US delegation to
GC2020, shifting demographics mean there will be 22 fewer US delegates and 20
more from Africa and the Philippines, so the Traditional Plan may well be upheld.
If it is, conservatives will use that victory to drive a separation plan. If
GC2020 overturns the Traditional Plan, the WCA has made it clear they will
leave the denomination. Either way, the UMC may be in formal schism by this
time next year. However, any plans that conservatives had for taking a large
portion of the Methodist middle with them were dashed by their own hard turn to
the right.
[1] Walter Fenton claims that centrists switched sides when it became fashionable, denying the possibility that one can have a genuine change of heart on this issue and demonstrating the absolute and nonnegotiable nature of LGBTQ rejection.
[2] Even as some many centrists moved to the left on this issue, some progressives, frustrated with the slow pace of change, envision a church centered on LGBTQ persons and people of color, thus a schism may not yield just two Methodist bodies.