Growing together @ Faithbridge UM Church Dale E. Galloway explores this thriving congregation in Houston

Experiencing the truth of ScriptureRobert E. Coleman teaches that experience makes the Word come alive

An impossible possibility: Raising $8 million for global AIDS Donald E. Messer address the greatest health crisis on the planet

The Lorax hears a Who: Stem cell research Amy Laura Hall explains why blastocysts matter

Joan of Arc leaves indelible mark Jen Waters reports on the interest surrounding this 15th century saint

Truth getting distorted about ‘amicable separation’ Maxie Dunnam sets the record straight about Bill Hinson’s speech

Remembering President Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)President George W. Bush eulogizes President Reagan

(sidebar)President Reagan’s actions opened door for new mission in Russia
Linda Bloom reports on how a President opened the door for missions

Mainline churches participate in abortion rights march John Lomperis investigates the March for Women’s Lives in Washington DC

Truth getting distorted about
'amicable separation'
by Maxie Dunnam

I'm amazed at the distortion of truth surrounding the 2004 General Conference in Pittsburgh, particularly the issue of amicable separation. Not only the secular but the religious press-as well as persons who were in fact present at General Conference-put their own words in the mouths of others.

For instance, the inscription underneath Dr. Bill Hinson's picture in the United Methodist Reporter referred to a conversation about amicable separation that General Conference delegates rejected overwhelmingly.

No proposal for separation ever came to the General Conference. No legislative committee dealt with the issue of separation. Talk of "amicable separation" has been going on for years. It surfaced in a dramatic way in a speech by Dr. Hinson at a breakfast meeting of "UMDecision  2004," a consortium of renewal groups.

He confessed that it was probably the saddest day of his life. His sadness was grounded in a total lack of hope that we would be reconciled with those who do not share our foundational faith. He did not propose "division," but concluded his talk by saying it was time to explore an amicable, just separation.

It was both prophetic and compassionate. He did not call for division, nor was the spirit of it divisive.

Many have come to believe-I among them-that a deliberate amicable separation, worked out by all responsible people involved, is a far more Kingdom-like approach than the division which has already taken place and continues to divert us from mission and ministry.

In a hateful harangue against Dr. Hinson in the United Methodist Reporter, the Rev. Gary Keene, assistant to Bishop Mary Ann Swenson of Los Angeles, demonstrates the divide. The temptation is to defend or exonerate Bill Hinson, but Bill doesn't need that. His life and ministry is a statement of faithful Christian leadership and commitment to United Methodism.

I find it difficult to name even a few whose stand for racial justice, concern for the poor, missional stewardship, championing of women in ministry, and evangelistic outreach can be compared to his.

What Rev. Keene needs to admit is that there are forces within our denomination that have broken the covenant and separated themselves from the church. This shattering of the covenant has been deliberate, blatant, and consistent over several years.

The practice of homosexuality is the issue around which they organize themselves, but, as an earlier dialogue contended, homosexuality is the presenting issue. Revelation, the authority of Scripture, the uniqueness of Jesus as Son, Savior and Lord-those are the core issues on which we already are a divided church.

Those who are so passionate in their commitment to the ordination of acknowledged practicing homosexuals, gay marriage, and affirmation of the bisexual and transgender lifestyles have become so ideologically bound that they are willing to render the church missionally impotent and to radically diminish the membership, though they represent a very small percentage of United Methodists.

Rev. Keene accused Dr. Hinson of representing a "cloistered, ossified, punitive, divisive, and declining past." I would invite him to wake up to the fact that Dr. Hinson is standing within 20 centuries of the orthodox Christian faith and today with millions of Christians around the world who remain faithful to Scripture and its teachings on homosexuality, while Rev. Keene and those with whom he is standing are a tiny minority of Christians who are bowing to our debauched Western culture.

As to what part of the church is declining, the situation in the Western Jurisdiction speaks for itself.

United Methodists need to know what actually happened at General Conference. I was personally involved.

On Monday, May 3, Dr. Hinson, Patricia Miller, and I from the Confessing Movement, along with three members of the Good News movement, were invited to join in dialogue with the Rev. Bruce Robbins and about a dozen members of the gay-lesbian coalition. We met for more than two hours to do "holy conferencing."

We shared our feelings about the church and our prospects for reconciliation. All members of the renewal teams expressed an openness to any bridge that would unite us, but also shared our belief that it might be time for beginning conversation about an amicable, just separation.

We met from 10 p.m. to midnight, and agreed to return for more discussion at noon the next day.

Only two people from the gay-lesbian coalition showed up for that second meeting, and they did not want to talk. They were upset because the General Conference had clarified and strengthened the church's position against the practice of homosexuality.

Acting in good faith and in response to the facilitator of the group, a member of the Good News team on his own brought a resolution for amicable separation, together with talking points supporting it. He brought that paper simply as a point to enter into dialogue with the revisionist team.

However, we never discussed it. During the course of our meeting, a member of the gay-lesbian coalition, without permission, took the sheet of paper containing the resolution and talking points and reproduced it-all without our knowledge. Unfortunately, the denomination's General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns also distributed the paper.

There is something incoherent about people being so upset about this word of Dr. Hinson, and the way they have slandered and besmirched his name, when the General Conference welcomed, and some delegates and about 25 bishops stood with, an outside demonstration group that would change our church far more dramatically than a conversation about amicable separation.

I was so upset by the rumors and the "stolen" paper that had been reproduced and was being circulated as a proposal that was being brought to the General Conference that I awakened Dr. Robbins at midnight at his hotel that Thursday. I begged him to apologize for the role that the Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, where he served as chief executive until recently, had played in the rumors and requested that he clarify what had actually happened.

I appreciate Bruce's efforts. I'm not sure the delegates heard him clearly the next day. Feelings were so intense, but he sought to clarify the situation and he personally apologized to Bill Hinson.

No resolution for separation was ever considered, much less being "overwhelmingly rejected."

The overwhelmingly positive response to the one-sentence resolution of unity came immediately after Bruce, with Bill standing beside him, addressed the conference. I voted for the resolution, because I am committed to unity.

Yet, there was something less than genuine about the action. Who does not see the stark lack of unity when a segment of the church continues to violate the covenant-disregarding consistently the Book of Discipline of our church, when leaders and even bishops who know the mind of the church seek every way possible to "get around the law"?

The Episcopal Church (USA) has hopefully learned that they cannot violate the conscience of the world Anglican Communion and continue in fellowship. I was deeply moved by the Episcopal bishop of Pittsburgh, the Right Rev. Robert Duncan, who spoke to our renewal groups.

"It's ironic that this year Hollywood gave our nation The Passion of the Christ and the Episcopal Church gave the nation gay marriage and a practicing homosexual bishop," he said.

We are excited at the growth of United Methodism in many of our overseas Central Conferences. These Christians will not continue fellowship with a denomination that would succumb to the gay-lesbian lobby by ordaining practicing homosexual persons and performing same-sex unions.

Do we not see how this small, radical group, bound ideologically in this presenting issue of homosexuality, would lead us to schism from the world Christian communion?

Talk about amicable separation may awaken the church to what is at stake in the dialogue that to this point has proved unfruitful because the gay-lesbian coalition has no more passionate intention but to have a church that ordains practicing homosexual persons, performs same-sex unions, supports same-sex marriage, and affirms bisexual and transgendered lifestyles.

If that is not what we believe is God's will for United Methodism, isn't it appropriate that we begin a discussion about an amicable and just separation?

If not, isn't it time for the General Conference to establish a system that will hold all persons accountable for living within the covenant?

Maxie Dunnam is the chancellor and former president of Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. This article first appeared in The United Methodist Reporter. Reprinted by permission.

Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.