The Orchard Secedes from United Methodism

Rev. Dr. Bryan Collier, Lead Pastor at The Orchard

"You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit."
Matthew 7:15-20

The Orchard Church of Tupelo, Mississippi became the first congregation to officially secede from the United Methodist Church in the current controversy over same sex relationships.

A press release by the Wesleyan Covenant Association, a traditionalist “renewal” group within the United Methodist Church, began this way:

“The Mississippi Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church and The Orchard have announced that negotiations have been concluded between them, resulting in the withdrawal of The Orchard from The United Methodist Church. The Orchard is one of the 25 fastest growing churches in the United States. Dr. Bryan Collier is the senior pastor of The Orchard and a member of the governing council of the Wesleyan Covenant Association.”

Bishop James Edward Swanson, Sr. and the Mississippi Annual Conference “negotiated” an amicable separation in which Orchard Church would pay an exit fee of $69,000 and keep the church assets. The bishop and the conference effectively waived the “trust clause” included in all United Methodist Church deeds, which provides that if a local congregation closes or otherwise ceases to be a United Methodist Church, the property reverts to the Annual Conference.

Obviously, the trust clause is supposed to have serious meaning in terms of dollars and cents, but it is also about connection, accountability and community.

Orchard Church will walk away with a $7,000,000 property on which they have a mortgage of $5,000,000. They will also walk away from more than $200,000 in unpaid apportionments over the last five years. And, apparently, they will not repay the Annual Conference for the funds used to purchase the property when the church was started.

For a more detailed discussion of the terms and conditions, please check out Jeremy Smith’s excellent blog post.

The website for The Orchard is wonderful. It is inviting, encouraging, and uplifting. If you are looking for a church home, they present themselves as a welcoming possibility.

For starters, “The Orchard” is a great name. They will not be confused with the stuffiness of a thousand “First” United Methodist Churches all over the country.

I could not find anything on their website to indicate that they had ever been part of the United Methodist Church, or that they had withdrawn from the denomination. Or that they were leaving because they believe that the UMC has not been firm enough in punishing those clergy who have acted against the UM Book of Discipline by officiating at same sex weddings, or in disciplining bishops who have ordained and appointed gay pastors.

In a section called WHAT WE BELIEVE, they have this statement:

“The Orchard is a place devoted to the cultivation of fruit for Christ’s kingdom. We remember that Jesus said to his disciples, “I chose you and sent you to produce fruit, the kind of fruit that will last.” (John 15:16) At The Orchard we are trying to live up to this challenge. We focus on our “cultivation” efforts by Growing Deep and Branching Out. Growing Deep means that we commit ourselves to deepening our love of God and helping others do the same. Branching Out means that we reach out to others with Christ’s love. We are called to live as faithful messengers of God’s grace and hope in the world.”

The statement is almost universally applicable to churches all across the country and all across the spectrum of theological perspectives. But it isn’t boilerplate.

In a section called BRANCHING OUT, they tell us:

“We believe each of us are uniquely gifted by God. All Christians are ministers and are called to serve together, learn together and discover innovative ways to communicate the Gospel to the world. At The Orchard, we seek to discover and use our gifts with excellence as we Branch Out to serve God and others.”

Clearly, they know what they are doing. At the most basic level of presenting the message in ways that are attractive and inviting they do a much better job than most churches. They have a lot to teach us.

But.

If I were a gay man searching for a church home, there is nothing to warn me that my spouse and I would be warmly welcomed by people who would love us even though they believed that our “lifestyle” was a sinful abomination.

The Senior Pastor, Rev. Dr. Bryan Collier, is a member of the governing board of The Wesleyan Covenant Association, which describes itself as “an association of congregations, clergy persons, and laity who desire to cooperate in the mission of the WCA to promote the ministry of the gospel from a Wesleyan theological perspective within The United Methodist Church and kindred bodies.” The WCA advocates for the “traditional” biblical understanding of same sex relationships as incompatible with Christian teaching and the prohibition against ordaining or appointing “practicing homosexuals” as pastors.

Although Dr. Collier is no longer serving a United Methodist Church, and has led his congregation to secede from the denomination, the WCA board recently voted to maintain him as a member of their leadership and to continue the Orchard as a member congregation. In a press release, they explained,

“Some have raised a question about whether Dr. Collier's continued service on the WCA Council is consistent with the WCA's emphasis on covenant-keeping within The United Methodist Church, and our deeply-held conviction that promises - especially those made at ordination - must be kept. We believe that it is, and that our remaining connected to Dr. Collier and the Orchard is a sign of the hope we have for the future of the global Wesleyan movement.”

Think about that.

And consider the fact that Bishop James Swanson, who blessed the agreement with The Orchard, was the featured preacher at a recent gathering of the WCA.

The Wesleyan Covenant Association emphasizes “covenant-keeping within the United Methodist Church” and has a “deeply held conviction that promises – especially those made at ordination – must be kept.”

One wonders how leaving the United Methodist Church can be seen as covenant keeping within the United Methodist Church, or how Bryan Collier’s decision to lead his congregation out of the denomination that ordained him and in which he made his vows of ordination can qualify as keeping the promises he made at his ordination.

Apparently, what the WCA believes is that acting against one small part of the Discipline by offering the ministry of the church to a same sex couple asking to be married is worse than throwing away the whole book and the whole church.

Thank you for reading. Your thoughts and comments are always welcome. Please feel free to share on social media as you wish.

We Shall Still Be Joined in Heart

Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Genesis 12:1-3

When Dr. Harrell Beck, my Old Testament professor, said, “Covenant,” he always clearly enunciated all three syllables. “Cov-e-nant.”

Holding the lectern with both hands, he would rise up on tiptoe to emphasize the importance of the word.

I don’t know whether I would love that passage in Genesis as well if it were not for Dr. Beck.

The LORD calls to Abram.

“Go.”

“Leave” everything that is familiar and comfortable and safe, and go.

But where?

“To the land that I will show you.”

With Harrell Beck, a lecture was also a sermon.

God always calls us into the future. It is always unknown. It is always both terrifying and full of possibility.

Just before our United Methodist General Conference met in Portland, Oregon, Bishop Scott J. Jones, who presides over the Great Plains Annual Conference, published an essay in the online journal, Ministry Matters, about the importance of keeping our clergy covenant.

He begins by saying that during the last few months he has had “multiple invitations to break my vows.” And then he explains that, “Many people have suggested that, in the name of protesting against perceived injustice, I should disobey the discipline of The United Methodist Church and violate the sacred promises I have made at two key points in my life — ordination as an elder and consecration as a bishop.”

“I decline those invitations,” says the bishop, “I will keep my promises. I will be faithful to God’s calling on my life as a leader in our church.”

He is talking about his refusal to officiate at a same sex wedding, or to condone clergy who do. And he speaks of the treatment of LGBTQ persons in the church as a “perceived injustice.” 

This is not surprising. Two years ago Bishop Scott told the clergy of the Great Plains Conference that he had been asked what he would do if 100 clergy were to conduct same gender weddings, he said that he would first suspend all 100 clergy and then there would be 100 clergy trials. And he said that he would do this even though he knew that each trial would cost $100,000.

If a bishop is willing to spend ten million dollars ($10,000,000!) on trials you can assume that he or she is pretty serious about maintaining discipline.

I do not doubt that the bishop sincerely believes what he is saying. And I commend him for the way he speaks about those on the other side of this issue. “I deeply respect and love many people who disagree about key issues in the life of our church” he writes. “They are friends and colleagues.”

Apart from my disagreement with him in terms of this issue. I also disagree with him about the nature of the covenant we share. 

His final paragraph illustrates our differences:

“When people justify their actions as ‘civil disobedience,’ they are misusing language. It is not disobedience against the government. It is ecclesial disobedience. They are violating the rules of a church they have freely joined when other, similar churches offer acceptable ways of pursuing their calling. If I ever get to the point where I cannot in good conscience obey the key aspects of our discipline — and I pray such a day never happens — it will be time to surrender my credentials as a United Methodist bishop and elder and find some other way to follow Christ.”

We agree that it’s not civil disobedience. I’m not sure who is using that language. And yes, it is ecclesial disobedience. 

The next sentence is where we part ways: “They are violating the rules of a church they have freely joined when other, similar churches offer acceptable ways of pursuing their calling.”

Yes, it is “a church they have freely joined.”

And that is precisely the point. In my ordination (and earlier, in my confirmation) I freely joined a church.

I joined a church. I did not join the Book of Discipline.

I freely professed my general agreement with and affirmation of our United Methodist doctrine and polity. And I agreed to uphold the discipline (not the same as the Book of Discipline) of the church. But as the children’s hymn says, “the church is a people.” That’s what I joined.

I joined Harrell Beck, and Paul Deats, and Walter Muelder. G. Bromley Oxnam and Henry Hitt Crane. Harold Bosley, E. Stanley Jones, Georgia Harkness, and Ralph Sockman. And in our corner of the world, I joined Dale White and Gil Caldwell, and Bill Ziegler, Evelyn Burns, Jane Cary Peck,  and Bobby McClain, and so many others. When I was ordained the pastors were almost all men, but I joined a church made up of wonderful human beings. The great Methodist preacher Halford Luccock called that church an “Endless Line of Splendor.” 

Our covenant, like Abraham’s covenant, is with God. But it is lived out with real people here and now. And across time with that great “cloud of witnesses.”

A church is more than the people who have joined it. We need order and we need discipline, and we need a common theology. We need a common covenant.

But in our current situation, the covenant has been reduced to the Book of Discipline, and the Discipline has been reduced to a rule book.

And the rule book has been reduced to the rules that exclude LGBTQ folks.

That’s not my idea of a covenant. Or a church.

Unity and Disunity in the United Methodist Church

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
I Corinthians 10:16-17

According to Saint Paul, unity is a central part of our theology.

We may disagree on many things, but we are still one in Christ because we break the one loaf and share the same cup.

By comparison to the disagreements in Corinth, our disagreements within the United Methodist Church are minor. 

For us, it is about a few short paragraphs in our Book of Discipline.

In a recent post about the question of unity or schism at our coming General Conference, Steve Harper argued that it basically comes down to a simple question of whether or not we value unity. He summarizes it this way:

“If the delegates at General Conference believe unity is a higher value than schism, then we can anticipate some plan for remaining together. If not, we will see some plan for separation. In either case, theological language will be used to justify the ideological and institutional manifestation. But however it is worded, the preference for unity or schism will reflect the deeper and final influence of will.”

Taking the opposite point of view, Drew McIntyre argues that, “We are not faced with a choice between the desire for unity or for schism. The true issue is a conflict between covenant fidelity and celebrated infidelity.”

Seriously, those are the choices?

We are choosing between “covenant fidelity” and “celebrated infidelity.”

Not just infidelity. Celebrated infidelity.

My guess is that most of us are in favor of covenant fidelity, but that’s not the issue. It’s not about the covenant. It’s about whether LGBTQ persons are excluded or included in the life of the church and it comes down to a few sentences in a book that is many hundreds of pages long.

We should be clear that when those in favor of exclusion talk about covenant, they are not talking about the biblical covenants, they are talking about the “clergy covenant” in which United Methodist clergy promise to uphold the Book of Discipline as part of their ordination vows.

So let’s look at the Discipline.

This is what it says under “Qualifications for Ordination:”

“While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.”

I think the wording is important. It says, that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Not Christian faith, or Christian theology, or Christian ethics.

The statement is descriptive rather than normative. It says that this is what (some) Christians have taught and continue to teach. It is a description of what is rather than a declaration of what ought to be.

The descriptive nature of the statement is clearer in the Social Principles:

“We affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God. All persons need the ministry of the Church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us.  We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.”

It is an offensive statement. It is hurtful and insulting and basically unchristian. But again, it is descriptive rather than normative. This is what we have done. Sadly, it is also what some of us are still doing. But we know that Christian teaching changes and evolves. This is not forever. It is an observation of what is, rather than a declaration of what ought to be.

Some of us believe that in order for the United Methodist Church to become what we ought to be, we need to ignore that one sentence about incompatibility. We believe that in order to fully affirm the rest of that paragraph, and to be faithful to Gospel, we need to ignore the offending sentence. 

My Old Testament Professor, Dr. Harrell Beck, liked to say that “change is inevitable, but growth is possible.” In this case, I would prefer growth, but I will settle for change. And the change is inevitable.

It is sad that on this critical issue the United Methodist Church lags behind the secular culture. But change is coming and we need to hold together as we trust God to lead us into the future. Dr. Beck loved the verse from the Prophet Habakkuk: 

I will stand at my watchpost, and station myself on the rampart; I will keep watch to see what he will say to me, and what he will say to answer my prayer.
Then the LORD answered me and said: Write the vision; make it plain on tablets, so that a runner may read it. For there is still a vision for the appointed time; it speaks of the end, and does not lie.
If it seems to tarry, wait for it; it will surely come, it will not delay.
Habakkuk 2:1-3