What's the Big Deal with the Reconciling Network?

This week's edition of the Iowa Conference Midweek Update included a story about a Cedar Falls church affiliating with the Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN).  I'm trying to figure out why the Conference's Communications office would want to pass along this divisive action.  And what's the big deal with the RMN anyway?  Why should anyone care what this minuscule group of people who reject United Methodist doctrine does?

According to the article there are over 18,000 members of the RMN.  Let's put that into perspective.  That amounts to about two tenths of one percent (0.2%) of all the United Methodist in the US.  Any time they make the news it's definitely a case of the squeaky wheel getting the oil.  There is no reason at all that such a tiny minority of people should have much influence within the church.  They are the mouse that roars.

In comparison, the Confessing Movement of the UMC which seeks to uphold the doctrinal standards outlined in the Book of Discipline boasts 681,825 Confessing individuals, including 1,535 Confessing Churches and 5,355 Confessing Pastors.  That's nearly 40 times the membership of the RMN.

In order to combat the divisiveness that the RMN and its members try to inflict upon the UMC, one must remember that they are an insignificant number of very loud individuals who would impose their heretical beliefs upon the church.  Just as the Church has had to stand against heresy in the past proposed by a minority, so the UMC today must stand against those who would lead the church away from God's Word.

Comments

[Alan]

Not sure why there's such a focus on numbers here. Is Truth determined by a majority? Rather relativistic thinking, eh? Or is it more of a "Well, it's only a few people, so who cares if we trample them" attitude?

Funny thing about numbers ... they can be manipulated. For example, the Presbyterian Lay Committee, the PCUSA group that correspond group to the Confessing Church group in the UMC boasts hundreds of thousands of members. Turns out, they count members by counting the number of people who are on their mailing list. *I'm* on their mailing list -- three times.

:)

[John Meunier]

I'm confused by the vocabulary here.

How is arguing on behalf of changes to the social principles and the administrative rules in the BOD a heresy?

The parts of the BOD that can be changed by a vote of the General Conference are always open to revision and change. How can it possibly be heresy to attempt to follow the lawful process set out by the BOD for doing so?

[Alan]

I was confused by that as well. Even if he's just talking about LGBT inclusion, there's never been a time when that has qualified as a "heresy" in the Christian church.

[Kevin]

John,
Great post. I have included it on my website at www.churchandworld.com for tomorrow 1/28/08. Hope you will check it out. It will be posted after 9am and run for one day.
Thanks!

[Mark]

I suppose the deal is that a relatively small number of people, by your account, who are clearly ill-favored by many can now identify one more congregation of people who won't broad-brush them as a bunch of heretics but will deal with them one-on-one, as beloved of God and attempt to understand how it might be that glbt people can profess Christ and still tell truth about their sexuality.

[John]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it heresy, but yes, the Church must stand up against those who wish to normalize sinful behavior -- in all its many varieties.

[Michael]

I guess I will remain unsettled by the reality that the BoD can be changed by a vote of a majority. Who within the Annual Conference is to say what is heretical and what is not if the defining text is one that can change every four years? Until the Bible is considered the final word, I guess this is the way it will always be ... at least for as long as it lasts.

[John]

Michael, the restrictive rules help with this considerably. We can't change the Confession of Faith or the Articles of Religion.

So we can just ignore them instead.

[~c.]

By these standards, the multitudes were right to kill Jesus.