Reinstated Pro-homosexuality Pastor Organizes For Schism With Re-imagined "Professing Church" Proposal
[Excepts from In All Thing Charity July, 2000 Newsletter]
IATC Directors Report
Our delay in sending this issue of our newsletter has been intentional. We wanted to wait until some time had passed after the adjournment of General Conference 2000. The idea was to give all of us some time to reflect, analyze and begin to formulate responses that might be faithful and appropriate. This process will continue for some time. However, some things are becoming clear.
In the article in this newsletter titled, "The Professing Church," youll read one analysis of what the actions of General Conference mean. This issue also includes a slightly edited version of a letter I wrote on May 13, the Saturday following General Conference. These are not the only analyses out there, but they have a place in the mix.
In the midst of our discernment, we had a decision to make about the next step in the evolution of In All Things Charity (IATC).
IATC was created as a movement by two people after the 1996 General Conference. At that time, it was sponsored by 15 United Methodists from across the country who distributed a "Statement of Conscience" for clergy. That statement gained over 1,200 signatures. It was soon joined by a parallel statement by and for laity. In a short amount of time, IATCs mailing list and support grew.
In 1997 IATC came under the umbrella of Broadway Church where I was serving as pastor. The decision by Broadway to adopt IATC as a "national ministry" of the congregation enabled the resources of the church to be available to the movement. It also meant that contributors could make tax-exempt contributions to the movement and that financial accountability could be assured.
Following my Church trial and suspension in 1999, Broadway hired me to serve as Executive Director of IATC. The job description had three basic goals:
From its beginning and in every one of its expressions, IATC directed its efforts toward the 2000 General Conference. The signal work of the movement with AMAR (see the article, "Whither AMAR?" in this newsletter) completed that direction.
The future? On June 30, 2000, my suspension and term as director of IATC came to an end. As you receive this I am serving again as pastor of Broadway Church. The congregation voted to maintain IATC for the next six months, during which time it expects to support further discernment and exploration for the future. The committee will continue to manage the database, and protect the assets of the organization. Sometime before July 2001, that committee will make a recommendation to the Broadway Church Council for the ongoing future of IATC.
That future could include any number of possibilities. IATCs name, funds, database and other resources could be channeled to an existing group or organization addressing the issues that have defined our work. They could also serve as "seed" resources for a new movement.
The IATC Committee and Broadway Church welcome your input. YOU, after all, are In All Things Charity.
It is true that in 30 years of ministry I have never served with a harder working, more creative, more committed or more talented group of people than the IATC Committee and the volunteers who worked with them. Never have I seen such incredible work accomplishedboth in volume and quality! Never have I seen Christian discipleship more faithfully expressed, in relationships more faithfully treasured. I could not even begin to list names because someone truly extraordinary would be missed, I know. These folks were amazing.
But so were you. I want to thank you for your support, your witness, and your faithfulness to the full Gospel of Jesus Christ. Im not sure what shape this movement will take but I have no doubt that it will be richer for what you have helped to make it be. We all go on in the journey. Please stay in touch. I promise to try to do the same.
Grace and peace,
Gregory Dell, Executive Director
In All Things Charity
The Professing Church? One Option
Supporters of a more fully inclusive church have been trying to sort out the significance of our recent General Conference. It seems as though most of the analyses fall into two categories. There are those who believe that this assembly was not significantly differentexcept perhaps in consistency and degreefrom all or most of the General Conferences since 1972. Others believe this was a significantly different meeting, that a "watershed" occurred and a character shift took place revealing a change in the identity and direction of the denomination. The IATC Committee tends to support this latter analysis.
For IATC and others who find themselves with a similar reading of our denomination, it seems there could be four types of responses:
At this juncture it may be important to remind ourselves again that there isnt necessarily one "best" alternative. We can differ and still understand ourselves to be about the same search for and expression of faithful ministry. Please respond with your thoughts.
The Professing Church
Revised from ideas in a note sent on May 18, 2000
At the May 2000 General Conference, the United Methodist Church determined its position and identity not for just the next four years but for at least the coming decade. It was not only the decisive and consistent vote totals on issues relating to sexual orientation that support this conclusion. It was at least three other factors:
The irony is that the movement for full inclusion of persons without discrimination based on sexual orientation is far more faithful to Wesleys style of ministrythe quadrilateraland the United Methodist denominations historic way of dealing with difference than the majority is exhibiting. The movement is more Methodist than the newly defined United Methodist denomination!
So what is to be done? Two alternatives have already been suggested.
One proposal is that supporters of full inclusion just leave the denomination. As many have eloquently written, one doesnt remain in an abusive relationship and this has become abusive. Perhaps movement folks join the United Church of Christ or just find individually satisfactory congregations. Some have had it with the church and are leaving institutional Christianity altogether.
The other proposal rests on the indignant insistence not to give "the other side" the satisfaction of throwing out the "undesirables" and dissenters. "Hell no, we wont go!" is the rallying cry. "We will stay and keep on doing what we have been doing or maybe just do more of it." Such a stance takes the form of everything from converting the church individual by individual to invading the unfriendly geographic regions with teams of folks to share perspectives with people who have previously done the rejecting.
There is a third possibility: to create a "Professing Church" within our denomination. In candor, some would prefer simply to begin a new Methodist denomination. But, even if desirable, there are currently neither the resources nor the readiness to do so. A Professing Church would not presume that it would end up within the denomination or as a separate denomination. It simply
puts into process a vision that gets shaped by the people who are part of it and the events that occur within and around it. Part of its gift is that it does not presuppose its eventual relationship with the United Methodist Church.
A Professing Church would be a movement similar to the Confessing Church in Germany preceding and during World War II. The Confessing Church remained "Lutheran" but rejected the
apostasy of the Nazi-collaborating official Lutheran Church. A Professing Church would do the same in its relationship to the United Methodist Church.
It would be a movement of progressive UMs whowhile remaining in the denominationwould focus their efforts on aggressively recruiting from within the church and beyond people who are ready for a truly inclusive Methodist movement. Depending on its development the Professing Church could, like other groups have done, develop its own alternative structures and its own curricula for all levels and areas of Christian Education.
It would not be a "one issue" church. It would have as its foundation four assumptions:
Such a movement could have at least a "collegial" relationship with the Reconciling Congregation Program (RCP), the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA) and Affirmation. That could allow for those groups to continue their own identities as United Methodist movements. In All Things Charity, United Methodist Persons of Color for a Fully Inclusive Church, and other groups and movements could be part of the Professing Church or choose a relationship to it. In fact one or more of these groups and movements could be part of the call for the Professing Church. Such a call could be in the form of a national convocation to shape the design and detail of the Professing Church.
The Professing Church movement may not focus much energy on trying directly to affect the United Methodist Church. It might not even do much work for the next General Conference. Its primary purpose would be to build a movement of sanctuary, preparation and witness for either a new denomination split from the UMC or an ongoing witness within it. That choice would be determined by the experience of the movement.
Is there readiness and energy for such a movement? If you have interest, questions or thoughts, please respond to: In All Things Charity. Email: IATC98@aol.com. Snail mail: IATC, 3344 N. Broadway, Chicago, IL 60657
[Click] button If you would like to add your to the UCM News
<Back to News