One Church Plan: Key Issues to Think About Before You Vote

The United Methodist Church will be meeting in General Conference on February 23-26 in St. Louis, Missouri. The General Conference has been called specifically to act on the report of the Commission on a Way Forward which was authorized at the 2016 General Conference. This 32 member commission has not produced a single “solution,” but have outlined three possible ways ahead.

The three plans are as follows:

Traditionalist Plan: This plan would affirm the current language about homosexuality in the Book of Discipline and seek to strengthen enforcement for violations of church law.

One Church Plan: The one-church model would allow different United Methodists in different places to make different decisions regarding ministry with or by LGBTQ persons rather than maintaining a single standard that operates everywhere throughout the worldwide church. This plan would remove all restrictive language from the Book of Discipline and give conferences, churches and pastors a “local option” to decide what they determine is best.

Connectional-Conference Plan: This plan would create three connectional conferences based on theology or perspective, each having clearly defined values (accountability, contextualization and justice). The three connectional conferences would function throughout the worldwide church and the five existing U.S. jurisdictions would be abolished.

The Council of Bishops has thrown their support behind the One Church Plan and they are actively supporting it through blog articles, websites (onechurchplan.org), and various video releases. The Traditionalist Plan has the support of a minority of bishops, who have struggled to have their voice heard. I endorse the Traditionalist Plan because it moves us closer to historic orthodoxy and has the most overwhelming support from Scripture, our Wesleyan heritage, and the global church. The One Church Plan, in contrast, has a number of serious problems. This essay seeks to highlight six of the key issues which are before us as we are asked to contemplate this solution as “the way forward.”

Issue #1: The Nature of Church Unity

The framers of the One Church Plan are clear that they are motivated primarily over a desire to maintain church unity. The One Church Plan is widely regarded as the only way to keep the church from hopelessly splitting into three or more factions. Therefore, this proposal is widely regarded as the greatest hope for “church unity.”

Our Episcopal leaders often remind us that they have sworn in their consecration vows to “uphold the unity of the church.” However, there seems to be confusion about what is meant by 
“church unity.” When some hear the phrase, “uphold the unity of the church” they think this is referring to the organizational and bureaucratic, churchly machinery known denominationally as the United Methodist church. This is not true. When Jesus said “I will build my church” He was referring to the people of God, the church of Jesus Christ throughout space and time of which He is the Lord and head. Our unity is rooted in that sacred unity. Our unity is in Jesus Christ. Our unity is in the gospel. Our unity is with the people of God around the world and back through time. If keeping the unity of the church was an organizational, denominational mandate, then there would never have been a Reformation. The Reformation was not fundamentally a schismatic movement – but the church’s greatest act of catholicity. It was a remembering of the ancient faith and a return to the apostolic message.

The word “unity” has a clear and compelling definition found in our Discipline which is quietly ignored. (See, par. 105, Doctrinal Standards and our Theological Task). Our unity is not found in our ecclesiastical structures, but in the gospel which is given to us in God’s Word. Every Bishop and Elder in the United Methodist church has promised before God to uphold the Discipline and to defend the church “against all doctrines contrary to God’s Holy Word.” That is the basis of church unity. We must not forget this.

Issue #2: Biblical Authority

The second issue at stake with the One Church Plan has to do with the nature of Scripture itself. In short, is Scripture authoritative in the life of the church, or not? This is not a question intending to nullify the role of tradition, reason or experience. The question is whether Scripture is one of several sources of authority, or if Scripture has a final voice in deciding doctrine among the people called Methodists. This leads to a second, but equally important question. If Scripture is authoritative, then how is the meaning of Scripture known and received in the life of the church? I am not convinced that the “crisis” within United Methodism is about who can have sex with whom. That is, of course, the leading presenting issue; but it has always been evident to many that the deeper issue has to do with the authority of Scripture and how we interpret and apply Scripture to the various issues which are before us.

The November 9th release from the Council of Bishops notes several “values” which are guiding the process. The three primary values noted were unity, space and contextuality. There is the notable omission that there is no reference to the value of the final decision being biblical or that, in the end, Scripture has any role in deciding this crucial issue. Am I the only one, or was anyone else absolutely stunned that the Council of Bishops would put out a pastoral letter about such an explosively contentious issue which needs to be resolved and threatens to tear our church asunder, and never mention the Bible or Scripture in the entire document?

Throughout my thirty-three years of ministry as an ordained United Methodist Church pastor there has been a notable and consistent lack of interest in Scriptural references to matters of human sexuality, not to mention the deep theological structures which underpin marriage in the Bible (e.g. creation account, theology of the body, body of Christ imagery, marriage supper of the lamb, etc.). To be fair, theologians and biblical scholars have been invited to deliver papers to the Commission. However, the influence this has had on conversations and proposals and blog postings, etc. in the wider church has been tepid. There are, of course, passing references to how certain broad biblical themes such as justice or mercy, but not the deep, thoughtful theological and biblical engagement with specific texts which is required.

The paucity of biblical engagement is due, perhaps, to a misunderstanding about the so-called “quadrilateral” which has been popularized in our denomination. The quadrilateral, rightly understood, is about the primacy of Scripture and the secondary role which tradition, reason and experience should play in our deliberations. We are, after all, the “people of one Book.” What the quadrilateral is not, is a statement of four equal values. Yet, in our deliberations one sometimes gets the impression that the quadrilateral has been flipped on its head. In our conversations, pastoral considerations and anecdotal stories tend to “rule the day.” In other words, we have turned the quadrilateral on its head and we often end up using experience as the definitive lens through which we understand scripture and tradition. It would be very helpful if our commitment to the primacy of Scripture as the final authority in the life of the church were to be made clear. Our Discipline says, “United Methodists share with other Christians the conviction that Scripture is the primary source and criterion for Christian doctrine” (p. 83). There is nothing wrong with highlighting values like “contextuality” and “space” but neither should be understood as primary values. The church deserves to see the biblical and theological evidence which supports the One Church Plan. It is very disconcerting that the website which the Council of Bishops released to support the One Church Plan (onechurchplan.org) contains no section on how this proposal relates to our biblical, theological or historical heritage as Christians.

Issue #3: Biblical Teaching Regarding Homosexuality

The New Testament contains numerous prohibitions against unauthorized sexual behavior. On this point, there can be no dispute. The question is whether any of these prohibitions would include homosexual acts, especially between consenting adults.

There are a number of passages, especially the so-called “sin lists” in the New Testament, which employ a range of Greek words which need exploration. The primary terms are as follows: porneia, akatharsia, malakos, komos, and arsenokoites. As I understand the “progressive” argument, they insist that what is condemned in the New Testament sin lists is not consensual, committed sexual activity between two men, but exploitative sin such as pederasty (sexual activity between a man and a boy). This argument is not entirely false. The New Testament does condemn a practice reflected in the Greek word “malakos” which refers to “effeminate call boys” which was a form of prostitution in the ancient world which was exploitative and would clearly fall under the category of pederasty. It is also true that there are some broad, more general words for sexual immorality used in the New Testament which do not specifically name any particular sexual behavior. The two most prominent examples are the words “porneia” (where we get our word pornography from) and “akatharsia.” Porneia means “sexual immorality” – a broad term for a whole range of sexual sins without specifically naming what those sins are. The word akatharsia means “sexually impure” or “immoral sexual sins.” Again, it is a broad term without specifically citing what sexual sins fall into that category. There are other broad words like komos which is used quite broadly to refer to everything from excessive eating, to general carousing, to sexual orgies, and so forth. Thus, the progressives are correct in noting that several of the terms in the New Testament do, in fact, refer specifically to pederasty or to broad terms which cover a range of sexual misconduct without specifically mentioning homosexuality.

The difficulty with this argument is that it ignores a mountain of other biblical evidence which makes it exceedingly difficult for progressives to, in the end, offer a convincing case. First, the word “arsenokoites” is also used in the “sin lists” of the New Testament. Arsenokoites means a “man who practices homosexuality.” There are several reasons why it is difficult to argue that this word refers only to pederasty. Arsenokoites appears in the Pauline sin list right along with the other terms. In other words, in I Corinthians 6:9,10 Paul specifically condemns “porneia” and “malakos” as well as “arsenokoites.” It is clear that “malakos” and “arsenokoites” are not interchangeable words. Paul says, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” Furthermore, Paul would have been familiar with the Greek Old Testament (known as the Septuagint). It is this Greek word “arsenokoites” which is used in texts in the Old Testament such as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 which quite explicitly condemn homosexual activity. This happens again in I Timothy 1:10 where he identifies both the general word “sexual immorality” (porneia) as well as homosexual practice (arsenokoites). (By the way, this passage is also where Paul condemns slave holding, dispelling the other common argument made by some of our leaders that the Bible somehow endorses slave holding and we now have better insights than they had). Of course, once it is clear that arsenokoites is forbidden by the New Testament, then it also would fall under the general categories of “sexual immorality” (porneia) and “sexually impure acts” (akatharsia).

Second, we also must not overlook Paul’s argument in Romans 1:26 where he states that “God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” While there is legitimate debate about the full scope of the phrase “dishonorable passions” it is quite clear that Paul is not limiting the discussions to pederasty since he is referring more generally to departures from God’s natural design. In short, the New Testament is consistently negative about normalizing same-sex behavior, and nowhere in the Bible are there positive or affirming portraits of same-sex behavior.

Third, we must not forget the positive teaching from Genesis 2 which is quoted by Jesus in Matthew 19:5, 6: “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.’” The New Testament only explicitly condemns 67 “named sins” even though we realize that sin is a much bigger category. Just because the New Testament never explicitly condemns polluting a river does not mean that we have license to do it. The New Testament theologically enshrines biblical marriage between a man and a woman and, as shall be developed in a future blog, all other sexual acts are disallowed. However, the theological case for marriage as between a man and a woman will have to wait.

But, for now, it is clear that the One Church Plan requires that we consider all of the language around sexual immorality in the New Testament as either generic, non-specific or only referring to a very tiny slice of sexual immorality; namely, pederasty. Yet, as we have seen, the exegetical case for this is not defensible. If we are being asked to sign off on this option and “agree to disagree” on this issue, then we will need to have a much better conversation about the biblical data which pertains to this question. I, for one, remain completely unconvinced by the progressive argument and am actually disappointed that they would argue so strongly about their commitment to biblical authority and yet provide no serious exegetical argument for the dramatic changes they wish to usher into the life and faith of the church. To move a named sin from a New Testament “sin list” and declare that we are now to regard it as a “sacrament” is unprecedented. Christians have every right to resist this doctrinal innovation which is being embraced by a few declining mainline denominations in the western world.

Issue #4: A Christian View of the Body

The 2016 General Conference established the Commission on a Way Forward to help the church resolve our differences over homosexuality. However, very quickly, the bishops moved the conversation beyond the issue of same sex marriage and broadened it to include allowing the church to permit the ordination of homosexual, bi-sexual, transgendered and gender non-conforming people. This appeared as early as the November 9 letter from the Council of Bishops which calls for a “way forward” for “LGBT inclusion.” By removing all prohibitive language from the Discipline, it renders the church silent on a whole range of issues. Indeed, the One Church Plan would allow any annual conference to ordain not only lesbian and gay persons (LG), but also bi-sexual (B), transgendered (T), and queer or gender non-conforming (Q) people.

This is entirely new ground and raises a range of new questions. It also demonstrates that the normalization of same sex relationships was never the “end” of any debate, but just the beginning of a whole new range of affirmed states, the end of which we do not yet know. If LG, then LGBT, then LGBTQ, what possible objection would the church raise against LGBTQIA, as so on. The point is, once the church is prepared to relinquish the natural gender distinction established in creation, then no other boundary can possibly hold.

Ordination for any ecclesial body is the highest and most sacred act of “setting apart” for ministry. Ordination is intended to embody and display holiness to the world through human vessels set apart for word and sacrament. It is surely among the most sacred honors a church bestows. The One Church Plan would invite bi-sexual and gender non-conforming persons into ordination without a clear explanation of how, or if, this might challenge our traditional theology of the body and human sexuality. We have spent 45 years discussing gay and lesbian relationships, but not 45 minutes on this. I could explore these in more detail, but I would like to focus on the ordination of transgendered persons. It is here that we see with greater clarity that our struggle has never actually been about who can have sex with whom. Our struggle is over the Christian view of the body. The affirmation of one’s decision to change their gender, either through hormonal therapy, or through various operative procedures, moves us towards a gnostic view of the body.

One of the fiercest theological struggles of the early church was the struggle against gnosticism. Gnosticism refers to a wide range of movements which claimed that they had special “knowledge” about reality. The word “gnosticism” comes from the Greek word “gnosis” for “knowledge.” One of the doctrines espoused by gnostics is that the material world is evil. The “spirit” or “inner light” of a person is trapped inside a body, which is regarded as untrustworthy or evil. The early Christians fiercely resisted gnosticism, as this struggle is found in many passages in the New Testament. The idea that a person might be a male trapped inside a female body, or a female trapped inside a male body reflects a low view of the body. The notion that someone who is biologically male or female can decide that they really are another gender, or no gender at all, because of some insight “on the inside” has enormous theological and ethical implications related to the Christian view of the body. Gnostics say, “you cannot trust your body, but your heart is pure.” Christians say, “your heart is deceitful, but your body can be trusted.” Indeed, for the Christian, the whole physical world has been declared “good.”

Any disassociation of the “real you” from your biological, God given, bodily identifiers has historically been regarded by Christians as a grave error because, in one stroke, it erodes two major Christian doctrines. First, it erodes the doctrine of creation. Creation, for the Christian is good and can be trusted. This is what makes scientific enquiry possible. Christians have always believed that there are moral boundaries inherent in the created order and one of these is that God created us “male and female.” This is declared in the creation account (Gen. 1:27), and reaffirmed by Jesus himself in his discourse on marriage and divorce (Matt. 19:4-6). Christians have never accepted the notion that we can autonomously decide what gender we are, or declare that we have no gender. Second, it erodes the doctrine of the incarnation. Christians fiercely opposed the gnostic view of the body because, in the end, it disparages the doctrine of the incarnation: Jesus Christ has come “in the flesh” (John 1:14). The Apostle John is so strong on this point that he says that anyone who does not recognize that Jesus came “in the flesh” (not just a spirit inhabiting a fleshly creature) is not of God, but of the spirit of the Antichrist (I John 4:1-3).

This historic Christian view of the body has absolutely nothing to do with the increasingly popularized “regional view” of sin which is being propagated in our church today. This argues that what is regarded as “sin” in the southern USA may not be regarded as “sin” in California. However, this kind of teaching can only be sustained through a “reader determined” method of interpretation which assumes that every reader of the Bible has the right to shape multiple potential “meanings” of a biblical passage for himself or herself. This is to be contrasted with an exegetical approach based on a careful reading of the original context and grammar of the Bible on its own terms which allows it to speak clearly to us God’s revelation.

Let us be clear. Transgendered people, like all people, have been created in the image of God and are men and women of infinite worth and should receive, like all people, the hospitality of churches who open their doors wide to all. There is nothing sinful about an attraction towards the same gender. Only our overly sexualized culture demands that all attractions culminate in sexual activity. Likewise, there is nothing inherently sinful about having a gender identity crisis. We all have struggles which the gospel addresses and which calls forth the wonderful pastoral gifts which Methodists are known and admired for. What must be opposed is any so-called “solution” which espouses a non-Christian view of the body.

Issue #5: Is There a Divine Design for Marriage?

One of the areas where I find myself in agreement with the progressives is their exasperation that we, as a church, might be known as “those people who are opposed to homosexuality.” This is a valid point. We must be known for what we are “for” not what we are “against.” The “progressive” solution is to essentially agree with much of the culture on their views of sexuality and the human body. In my view, this is neither wise nor prudent if one of our shared goals is to remain firmly within the bounds of historic Christian faith. The solution which would reinvigorate our church would be to re-cast the positive Christian vision of human sexuality and the theology of the body.

Our problem as a denomination goes back many decades because our vision for the very nature of Christian marriage itself has been lost. The whole notion that there might be a divine design to marriage is never addressed. In fact, many Christians, quite tragically, embrace the larger societal view of marriage. This is the popular narrative in broad form: Marriage is a way to find personal fulfillment and make you happy. Marriage is defined, so the narrative goes, as a legal arrangement which allows two people to fulfill each other’s emotional and sexual needs and desires, and find economic stability. Accepting this narrative is the source of many of our woes. Individual freedom, personal autonomy and fulfillment are very high values in the West and marriage has been domesticated to fit within that larger utilitarian framework. The culture has a utilitarian view which sees marriage as a commodity. We should have a biblical vision which sees marriage as covenant. The utilitarian vision sees the body of a man or woman as an object which can be assessed like a car – is it bright, new, shiny and full of power, or not. Is your body thin or fat; does it conform to the shapes we admire or not; is your hair the right texture and color, or not; are your teeth shiny and straight, or not. In the covenantal vision, the mystery and glory is that we have bodies and those bodies are beautiful to God because they are living sacraments in the world, an outward sign of an inward and spiritual grace, since all of the means of grace come through the physicality of the body.

Since the church has unwittingly accepted the wider culture’s view of marriage, we have very little room to maneuver. Once a functionalistic, commodity-driven, utilitarian view of marriage is accepted, then we really have no solid ground to stand on in opposing a whole range of new kinds of relationships which might be called marriage. As the mantra goes, “Why should we care who someone loves as long as they are happy?”

We must remember what Jesus did when he was asked the “burning question” of his day: “Can a man divorce his wife for any reason at all?” (Matt. 19:3). Rather than answer directly, Jesus directs them to return to story of creation and remember God’s original design for marriage. Jesus does not answer their question, he re-frames the question. We must learn to ask the right question. Unfortunately, the first right question is not, “should the church support same sex marriage?” or “should we permit the ordination of homosexuals?” Jesus’ reply teaches us that to answer that question without first understanding God’s original design tacitly ends up accepting all the broken presuppositions which gave rise to the question in the first place. The first right question is this: “What is God’s design for marriage?”

Jesus calls us back to the creational, covenantal and Eucharistic mystery of marriage. First, by creating us “male and female” God designed two different, complementary glories who come together as one. It is the primordial sacrament of creation which would someday become the grand metaphor for Christ and the Church celebrated in the marriage supper of the lamb. In Ephesians 5 when Paul commands husbands to love their wives, he tells us that he is speaking ultimately about the mystery of Christ and his church. In the Scriptures, the body is primarily a theological category, not a biological one. Second, marriage was designed to invite us into the mystery of creation by becoming co-creators with him. Through the miracle of childbirth, we actually participate with God in creation by becoming co-creators with him. Indeed, while honoring the special calling of celibacy, the church understands that the building of families is at the heart of God’s design. This is one of the many reasons why the church has never declared moral equivalency between marriage between a man and a woman and a homosexual marriage. Third, the family unit has been designed by God to reflect the mystery of the Trinity itself. Husband and wife become, through the gift of family, father and mother, and they stand before God with their children as a sign and seal of the Triune God. The family is meant to be a reflection of the Trinity with mutual gifts, submission, joyful exercise of kingly and queenly authority, love, discipline, self-donation, and becoming co-creators with God.

The Bible begins and ends with a marriage (Garden of Eden and Marriage Supper of the Lamb). It is one of the great threads which connects the great themes of creation, redemption, and even the Triune nature of God himself. We must reject the notion that marriage is merely a human institution which can be shaped or defined by a majority vote as we see fit. I plead with our church leaders, there are many things we can vote on in the church, but the definition of marriage is not one of them.

Issue #6: Holy Conferencing, the Wesleyan Way

I know that there is a general weariness about this issue and a sense that because we have been discussing it for 45 years, we should surely be able to decide one way or the other by now, and move on. However, the reason we cannot, and will not, be able to “move on” is that, despite 45 years of debate, we have never actually had a proper discussion about it. The driving questions raised in this article about the nature of church unity, the authority of scripture, the exegesis of key texts, the Christian view of the body, God’s design for marriage and so forth have all been silenced under much weaker questions.

We have all been subjected to endless vague questions which have been wearily imposed upon our beloved church: “Is it not time for the UMC to become more inclusive?” “Haven’t we been called to love all people?” “Just as we have evolved in our views regarding slavery and the role of women, is it not time to evolve our views regarding homosexuality?” We must insist that better questions be asked. There is too much at stake. Our church deserves our best thinking. Sometimes questions wrapped up in the word “inclusive” have tacitly carried the assumption that the church has some moral obligation to embrace every conceivable view which is put forward, even if it is a new doctrine invented last Tuesday. Sometimes the word “love” is ripped from its biblical rootedness in God’s covenantal holiness, turned into a modern emotional disposition, and then used as a lever to convince us that we cannot “love our neighbor” unless we also embrace the sins of our neighbor. Sometimes we are asked to believe that the church in disobedience to scripture (e.g. attitudes towards women, minorities, or slavery) is the same as the actual teachings of Scripture. Sometimes we hear the phrase, “my experience teaches me” as if experience is the final arbiter of any dispute, carrying more weight than Scripture itself. Sometimes we are given endless pragmatic arguments about how our empty pews will be filled with young people if we just “get on the right side of history.” Sometimes we are told that because same sex marriage is not explicitly condemned in the Apostles’ Creed, this is all “much ado about nothing,” neglecting the point that no sins are listed or mentioned in the Creed. Sometimes we hear statements which confuse the church’s glorious diversity with the accommodation of endless human preferences. Sometimes we are told that passages which have been abundantly clear to the church for 2,000 years are suddenly unclear and no one has a clue what they mean. We are not given an alternative solution to consider, and weigh on its merits. We are just lulled into the sea of what Michael Ovey ingeniously calls “imperious ignorance.” I could go on, but these are a few examples of the intellectually fragile position we have allowed ourselves to be pushed into.

What we desperately need is a proper, nuanced conversation about church history, biblical texts, theology and pastoral care. We must, frankly speaking, grow up and act like we are part of the church of Jesus Christ which stretches back through time and around the globe. We are not a human organization like the Kiwanis Club. We are the divinely commissioned church of Jesus Christ. We must have a rebirth of both catholicity and apostolicity. We must pray for a renewed encounter with our own vibrant tradition which continues to call us to be a people of “one Book” and to “spread scriptural holiness.”

Brothers and sisters, we need to recover a far more robust understanding of holy conferencing. The weak questions we have been grappling with has led to weak thinking, more divisiveness, and, at times, the shaming of those who adhere to the official position in the Book of Discipline. Weak questions have led to the incapacity to speak prophetically to a culture which is in such deep malaise. We have become like the doctor who thinks that he or she cannot properly treat any of their patients until they catch every disease that they have.

Mirslov Volf, the well-known theologian, statesman and author writes in his landmark book, Exclusion and Embrace, “Vilify all boundaries, pronounce every discrete identity oppressive, put the tag ‘exclusion’ on every stable difference – and you will have aimless drifting instead of clear-sighted agency, haphazard activity instead of moral engagement and accountability, and, in the long run, a torpor of death instead of a dance of freedom” (p. 64f). May the risen and exalted Christ wake us up from this protracted denominational slumber, for our only hope is in His divine action. This is not the time for either clinched fists or wringing hands. Rather, it is the time for open arms lifted up to the Lord of all who raised Jesus Christ from the dead. He can raise us up to new heights of proclamation, witness and hope. However, the only true “way forward” for our denomination, or any other in crisis, is to return to our biblical, historical and theological roots.

Remembering Our Ordination Vows

Every Bishop and Elder in the United Methodist church has promised before God to uphold the Book of Discipline and to defend the church “against all doctrines contrary to God’s Holy Word.” Integrity demands, does it not, that those who can no longer in good conscience uphold the Discipline or defend the church against heterodox doctrines should gracefully step aside? If, on the other hand, they are confident that their new views are scripturally defensible then they are duty-bound to present their exegesis to the church for careful evaluation, holy conferencing, and a vote.This has, of course, not happened in relation to our struggles over human sexuality as we approach the General Conference in St. Louis in February. Hundreds of pastors and laity across the country have pleaded for the biblical basis for the one church plan, but none has been provided.

The authority of God’s Word as the normative rule of faith and practice in the life and witness of the church is the real unstated question which is before the General Conference in February. I do not know what has troubled me more: the fact that no biblical or theological case has been made for the so-called One Church Plan, or that none has even been officially asked for. It shows just how deep our malady is. The steady breezes of pragmatism blow across the church in almost every public statement, but any reference to the authority of Scripture is strangely absent. The newly launched website by the Council of Bishops to promote the One Church Plan (onechurchplan.org) provides no scriptural support for the plan and even the FAQ section addresses thirteen questions, none of which are “what is the biblical basis for this position?”

Our episcopal leaders regularly cite that they also promised in their consecration as Bishops to “uphold the unity of the church.” Yet, there is a persistent dust storm kicked up over the meaning of the word “unity” while the clear and compelling definition of unity found in our Discipline is quietly ignored. (See, par. 105, Doctrinal Standards and our Theological Task). Our unity is not found in our ecclesiastical structures, but in the Gospel which is given to us in God’s Word. We must not allow ourselves to lose our shock over this. The fact that the majority of bishops have embraced the One Church Plan and even launched a website and videos to promote it shows just how formidable our pathway back to orthodoxy truly is. However, having traveled across this country and spoken with dozens of United Methodist pastors, it is quite clear that many of the rank and file pastors and lay people understand exactly what this is all about.

I have to hand it to influential United Methodist Pastor pastor and well-known author Adam Hamilton who understood from the start what was really at stake for the church. He knew that progressive views regarding human sexuality could not more forward without an equally progressive view of Scriptural authority. He laid out the case for this as early as 2014 in his book, Making Sense of the Bible. One of the many stunning conclusions offered to the church by Adam Hamilton is the assertion that the inspiration of the Scriptures is no different from all the ways we claim to be inspired today, such as in writing a sermon, or a poem. Hamilton argues that St. Paul’s inspiration in writing letters to the Corinthians is “not qualitatively different from the way God inspires or influences today” (p. 143). The only difference Hamilton allows between the “inspiration” of the biblical writers and the “inspiration” we experience today is that they were historically closer to the actual events (p. 138). Yet, Hamilton’s own assessment of how we are to interpret scripture often overrules the assessment of those closest to the events (See, for example, p. 213).

We will hear quite a bit about the need to preserve the unity of the church. However, the best and most faithful way we can preserve the true unity of the church is to stand boldly against this so-called “One Church Plan.” Our unity within our global communion (or with Christians around the world and back through time) will only be broken if we fail to protect the church “against all doctrines contrary to God’s Holy Word.” I have been around long enough to remember when our leaders were all enamored with Bultmannian theology which was going to “rescue” the church and get us “up with the times.” We were all encouraged to endorse the idea that Jesus Christ didn’t actually rise bodily; rather, he “rose” in the preaching of the Apostles. How did that turn out? I remember in the early 1990’s when the Re-Imagining Conference invoked the worship of a female deity, Sophia. I remember when they gave “communion” with milk and honey rather than bread and wine, and Dr. Delores Williams stated, “I don’t think we need a theory of atonement” and, “I don’t think we need folks hanging on crosses, and blood dripping, and weird stuff like that.” How did that turn out? Brothers and sisters, this is a long and protracted struggle and we should not forget what we are struggling over.

I returned recently from Brazil and witnessed first-hand the growth of the Methodist church in the sixth district of Brazil due to a courageous and godly bishop (Bishop Joao Carlos Lopes) who for over twenty years has led those under his episcopal care with a strong commitment to evangelism, church planting, and most importantly, the authority of the Word of God. We need to find ways to encourage and strengthen all Episcopal leaders who, even as a minority voice, are committed to Scriptural Christianity and Apostolic faith. That is the only true “way forward.” In contrast, the One Church Plan promotes theological pluralism, ethical relativism, and in the process, abandons our historic Methodist ecclesiology. Even though the One Church Plan allows me to remain personally orthodox, it requires me to say that the United Methodist Church now has two official, and contradictory, orthodoxies. The One Church Plan would force me to accept the moral equivalency between biblical marriage and a seemingly endless array of new arrangements, the full extent of which we do not yet even know. But, in my ordination vows I promised to defend the church “against all doctrines contrary to God’s Holy Word” and that is what I intend to keep on doing because, as Martin Luther said in 1521 at the Diet of Worms in the face of the waywardness of the church in his own day which has lost its own catholicity and apostolicity, “my conscience is held captive to the Word of God.”