What I Learned at a WCA Informational Event
I’m a self-avowed, practicing United Methodist who is also a homosexual. In October, I learned from reading a post on Virginia Methodists for a New Thing that the Wesley Covenant Association (WCA) would be holding a series of informational meetings around Virginia “for the purpose of informing the laity of the UMC, and clergy, of [their] plans for the new expression of the church.” The nearest meeting was on Sunday November 3 at Laurel Hill UMC in Eastern Henrico County. I thought it was in my best interest to hear what they were presenting to people so, despite having prepared and helped present a weekend of Reconciling activities at my home church, Centenary UMC in Richmond, I set off with a church friend to see what there was to see.
Rev. Jim Lavender (Corinth UMC in Goochland) and Rev. Ben Horrocks (Lane Memorial UMC in Alta Vista), led the meeting. About 18 people attended, largely representative of a single race and age demographic.
Rev. Lavender began by saying that they were not there to tell us what to believe, but that something is going to happen at General Conference and annual conferences in 2020 because of disagreements about sex. He spoke of his close professional association with Keith Boyette, the President of WCA, and let us know that WCA is simply a label for traditional conservative Methodists and that progressive and centrist groups also exist. He then presented the vision for WCA United Methodism—there were no handouts or printed information.
A partial list of the points covered includes WCA’s intentions regarding:
The adoption of a new Book of Doctrine and Discipline, which they have already drafted
Revitalizing an emphasis on church planting and mission outposts
Upholding the current doctrinal standards on sexuality
Downsizing the infrastructure of the institutional church
Doing away with Boards and Agencies
Remaining a global church
Eliminating the trust clause
Instituting lay engagement in clergy deployment (when a new pastor is needed a congregation would pull from a national pool, select and interview candidates and inform the bishop of their choice)
Implementing a limited-term episcopacy (Bishops would serve as pastors after completing a term)
Defining clearly a Bishop’s job description
Streamlining the path to ordained ministry (should not take 12 years, scholarships provided and a greater emphasis on local licensed pastors)
They then began what appeared to be the unscripted portion of the meeting, focusing on the church’s disagreements about sex. If you’ve stayed with me this far, I want to be clear that I was not attending the meeting because I was open to being convinced, but I have absolutely no interest in misrepresenting what I heard. The remarks appeared to be targeted to a group that was already in full agreement with the speaker. I’ve heard this referred to as ITTYTWIT: I Think That You Think What I Think. If my friend and I had not been there, I think this would have been the case in this group.
Rev. Lavender told us that he has gay friends with whom he is “willing to shake hands but not to lock arms.” Then he proceeded to explain acronyms to the group.
“LGBTQ+. What do all the letters mean? The L and the G were bad enough, but then you add the B—that’s for bisexual. So you know that means—multiple sex partners. The T—where does this come from? You know, parents are asking their children now: What do you want to be? I’ll be a boy today, mommy. I’ll be a girl today.”
“Now in California they are looking to add a P for pedophiles to protect and respect pedophiles.”
At this point I spoke up to say that this was incorrect and inaccurate, a hoax that has been debunked. I also told him that it was a scary thing to share with groups like this one. Rev. Lavender said yes, it was indeed a very scary thing. I said he did not need to tell already scared people things that were not true. He said he was pretty sure he had read it, in fact, he had read it on the internet. I told him I was sure a person can read just about anything on the internet. It’s a great big internet.
He segued into talking about Bishop Karen Oliveto, saying he did not care what she gets up to in the bedroom but that she said Jesus was prejudiced when she was preaching on the text of the Syrophoenician woman.
Earlier we had been invited to submit questions on index cards and Rev. Horrocks read and answered the questions. My first question was whether WCA churches would refer the homosexual children of their members to other churches where they could be nurtured in their faith as people of sacred worth. Rev. Horrocks clarified that the WCA does not differ from the current UMC stance on homosexuality, that it is incompatible with Christian teaching. They have had gay members in their churches, with participation open in all matters except marriage and ordination. They would tell the family to come and join the church, but would be clear on what the church believes.
My second question asked about where the WCA comes down on remarriage of divorced persons. Rev. Horrocks replied that the UMC, like most mainline churches, had become liberalized on this issue and recognized that there is brokenness in the world. He then offered an example of two different men—each twice divorced and married to a third wife—who asked to be considered for ordination. The specifics of his comparison between the two men were not clear to me but he summarized by saying they would be considered based not on their circumstances, but on how they lived out their faith, adding that this is not an issue in other denominations. I asked this question because Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, but spoke clearly and specifically about divorce. Please believe me, I’m not trying to take remarried divorced persons out of the running for ordination, but it was interesting to me that they would set aside Jesus’s actual words on this issue while enforcing their strict ideas where he offered no guidance. I could live with my denomination basing a decision for marrying or ordaining a person on how she or he lived out their faith.
The meeting wrapped up with some additional statements, ranging from debatable to outright incorrect. To bring the message home:
“There’s nothing that holds the UMC together.”
“The WCA is a connection among bible-believing churches versus churches that believe relative to changing times.”
“We can’t withstand another General Conference. The Church is exhausted, and the public is exhausted.”
“There needs to be an amicable separation and congregations need to decide what direction to take.”
“Progressives in the Virginia Conference hired a professional political consultant to advance their Slate, resulting in really bad demographic representation lacking in diversity.”
Rev. Lavender approached me afterwards to say that he hoped he didn’t offend me. I let him know I was from Centenary UMC and that I was pretty sure my congregation had decided which direction to take.
While these are tough times for United Methodists, for faithful LGBTQ+ members even discussions with allies can be fraught as core elements of one’s being are dissected in pursuit of greater understanding. It still troubles me that the WCA message would rely on trivializing and misrepresenting matters of human sexuality, rather than seeking greater understanding. I’m troubled by the eagerness with which many receive this message. And I remain resolutely unconvinced that the WCA does not care what Bishop Oliveto “gets up to.”
Jim Hill is a life-long active member of Centenary UMC in downtown Richmond where he was baptized as an infant, confirmed as an adolescent, and accepted as a gay adult. He lives in Richmond’s Carver neighborhood with his husband Doug. They have been together for 28 years, married for the last six.