Our podcast today uses the example of the Methodist Church schism as a model for solving the ideological differences in America between Democrat socialists and natural rights conservatives.
“We’ve discovered the United Methodist Church can’t live in the same house together peaceably, but we can live next door to one another,” said the Rev. Kent Millard, president of United Theological Seminary, who helped organize the strategy for civil dissolution.
The strategy for dissolution for the Methodists is called the “Indianapolis Plan.” It is sparked by what church leaders called “irreconcilable differences,” the same language used in no-fault divorce civil law.
The Methodists are split over the interpretation of their constitution regarding the role of gays and lesbians in performing church functions, like marriages.
The Methodist constitution is contained in a document titled, the Book of Discipline, which describes “the practice of homosexuality” as incompatible with “church teaching.”
The analogy between the Methodist divorce and the national divorce between socialism and competitive free market individualism follows the same ideological differences in the sense that the differences are “irreconcilable.”
The social and cultural values of the Democrat socialists do not connect at any point with the cultural and social values of natural rights conservatives.
On every single principle of a natural rights republic, the socialists have an alien, subversive, view of America. The bedrock starting point for the differences is that socialists deeply believe that America is a flawed, and racist nation, founded on the sin of slavery.
In the absence of commonly-shared cultural values, the socialists disavow voluntary allegiance to obey the rule of law.
Conservatives must find the moral courage to deal with socialists in a strategy of civil dissolution much like the Methodist conservatives are dealing with the ideological divisions in their church.
Our podcast concludes that conservatives must come up with a plan, like the Indianapolis plan, to lay out the strategy for dissolving the nation, and splitting up the assets, in a no-fault divorce.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this is the copyrighted Citizen Liberty Party News Network podcast for August 23, 2019.
Our podcast today is under the CLP topic category Irreconcilable Differences and is titled, Methodist Church Civil Dissolution a Model For National Dissolution
The most recent podcast of the CLP News Network is available for free. The entire text and audio archive of our podcasts are available for subscription of $30 per year, at the CLP News Network.com.
Civil Dissolution as the Solution to Irreconcilable Differences
The Methodist Church constitution and rules bar United Methodist clergy from officiating same-sex weddings, and they forbid the ordination of “self-avowed practicing homosexuals.”
The flash point for civil dissolution in the Methodist Church is the internal legal proceeding of the Iowa United Methodist Conference Committee on Investigation against the Reverend Anna Blaedel.
On Tuesday, August 13, 2019, the Iowa Conference Committee on Investigation voted to refer the bill of charges against Blaedel to trial.
Blaedel is an ordained minister, and admits to being a “self-avowed practicing homosexual” as defined in the rules of The United Methodist Book of Disciple.
According to the indictment of Blaedel, she is in violation of Paragraphs 304(3) and 2702.1 (b) in the Book of Discipline, which prohibit United Methodist clergy members from certain practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teaching.
Among other charges, Blaedel is accused of performing same sex marriages, openly engaging in the gay lifestyle, and using the Church assets to promote homosexuality.
The case of Blaedel has led conservatives in the Church to conclude that the differences are irreconcilable and that the Church must split into two different churches.
“We desire to move away from the vitriol and caustic atmosphere that has too often marked conversation in the UM Church and move into a new season where for the sake of Christ we strive to bless one another, even as we send one another into our respective mission fields to multiply our witness to Christ,” said Kent Millard.
“The disagreement is so sharp and the visions for ministry so different that some sort of separation needs to take place for the sake of the mission,” said the Rev. Bob Kaylor, lead pastor of Tri-Lakes United Methodist Church in Monument, Colorado.
“We began by asking ourselves, ‘If a separation is going to occur, how might it occur?'” said Keith Boyette. Boyette is president of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, a conservative group that supports a ban on LGBTQ clergy and same-sex weddings in the church.
One proposal for the church divorce is promoted by Bishop David A. Bard of Michigan and Bishop Scott J. Jones of Houston. In this proposal, the UMC would be divided into theologically aligned units that shared church-wide agencies such as the General Council on Finance and Administration.
A second strategy for divorce, announced August 9, 2019, is the Indianapolis Plan, which proposes to split the UMC into two denominations, a traditionalist version and a centrist-progressive version.
The plan would require that local congregations vote on where to align themselves. This method of allowing local churches to vote is the same one adopted by the Presbyterian Church, when it split in 2012, over the same ideological differences about homosexuality, as the Methodists.
The third idea is the UMC Next Plan, announced August 16, 2019. The UMC Next plan proposes that the entire Church engage a professional mediator to help with the departure of local congregations and with the allocation of church-wide resources.
The pending trial of Blaedel, and the subsequent plans for divorce, follow the attempt in March, 2019, by the Church Bishops for everyone to just get along with each other.
“The One Church Plan,” recommended by the Council of Bishops, would have left the decision to ordain and marry LGBT individuals up to local churches and regional annual conferences.
The entire Church General Conference voted down the One Church Plan, but the vote showed that the members of the Church were evenly divided, and that the differences between the two factions were irreconcilable.
The Rev. Scott Field, lead pastor of First United Methodist Church in Crystal Lake, Illinois, said the vote at the General Conference in St. Louis was “the Humpty Dumpty General Conference.”
Field told his congregation that unity within the Church was unlikely. He wrote, “We are divided. Period.”
Americans are irreconcilably divided. Period.
The bed rock religious belief of socialists is that America is an evil empire, founded on the sin of slavery. Their goal is to end the current government, and replace it with a socialist nation.
The argument of this podcast is not whether the socialist interpretation of history is right or wrong, or historically accurate. The point of the podcast is that the socialist interpretation of the founding of the nation is irreconcilable with the natural rights interpretation.
As is the case of the divisions in the Methodist Church, the divisions between socialists and individualists are so sharp, and the visions for the future of the nation, are so different that some sort of separation needs to take place for the sake of the national mission of individual liberty.
The issue of slavery for the socialists is simply a ploy to use racism as a propaganda tool to promote global socialism.
In order to promote collectivism, the socialist media outlets must revise and contort history to make citizens despise the nation so that the citizens would support the implementation of a collectivist state.
The irreconcilable conflict in America is not between blacks and whites, it is between individual liberty, in an individualist society, and collectivist tyranny, in a group identity society.
In their attempted revision of American history, the NYT noted ,
“1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”
The paper states:
“The white men who drafted those words in 1776 did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” did not apply to fully one-fifth of the country.”
The ideological division the paper is getting at is the difference between group identity collectivism versus individualism.
The NYT continually refers to black people as a collectivist entity, not individuals.
The NYT states:
“More than any other group in this country’s history, we have served, generation after generation, in an overlooked but vital role: It is we who have been the perfecters of this democracy.”
While the NYT uses rascim as a tool to condemn the Constitution, the socialists never say how they would change the Constitution.
For example, Obama said, in March 2008, the U. S. Constitution was irrevocably flawed:
“The document they produced in 1787 was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.
Obama and the Democrat socialists have never offered a better alternative.
This is my conclusion:
The purpose of the constitution is to provide rules to coordinate actions of individuals in the pursuit of jointly-held goals of society. The commonly-held goals of society create the social conditions for voluntary pro-social behavior.
There is only one constitutional configuration of constitutional rules that produce maximum rates of economic growth and technological innovation, based upon individual initiative.
The reason that the rate of economic growth in Europe is so low is that collectivism cannot produce technological innovation. When President Trump advises the Europeans to be “more like us,” he is describing a society based upon individual initiative.
That constitutional configuration of individualism is the natural rights republic.
From the natural rights perspective, the constitutional configuration that promotes maximum economic growth, based upon shared allegiance to the rule of law, creates maximum individual liberty.
The NYT 1619 project is defective because it omits what the socialists would change in the current Constitution to implement their collectivism, or how their form of socialism would promote technological innovation and economic growth.
The items that the socialists would change are to eliminate individual liberty, competitive free markets, and the rights to private property.
They would replace a civil society, based upon the pursuit of self-interest, with a centralized collectivism where self-interest was replaced with communist interests of the government, just like China.
Dale M. Coulter, a UMC minister stated,
“Schism is sometimes a tragic necessity. Since the battle lines have been drawn, the best course of action is to turn those temporary markers into permanent ones. All that is required is the institutional will to recognize what is already a fact: The two coalitions are two denominations trying to be born.”
Robert Renfroe UMC pastor of a 12,000-member church in the Woodlands, Texas, said,
“Why fight for the next 20 years? How does that honor Christ? We’re in a cage match, and we can’t escape each other, and we can’t quit fighting. We should figure out a way to bless each other and, with respect and civility, go our own way.”
Natural rights conservatives must reach the same conclusion about being in a constitutional contract with Democrat socialists. The socialists will never give up on their dream of creating a global socialist nation.
As Reverend Renfroe asks, why continue to fight with the socialists?
The plan of divorce for the nation is to allow the two factions to go their own way by the following plan:
- Promote the secession of the State of California in order for them to adopt a new socialist constitution.
- Promote the creation of a new constitution for a democratic republic to replace the representative republic.
- Allow each state legislature to vote on joining one of the two new nations, or remaining in the former United States.
- Allow the existing U. S. Congress to adopt a plan of separation of assets and military resources.
The only solution to the American schism is a civil dissolution, where the natural rights conservatives bless the socialists, and let them go their own, separate, way.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network
You can subscribe to all of the audio and text of our podcasts, for $30 per year, at our website.
You can join the political movement to create a natural rights republic and contribute our mission at CLPnewsnetwork.com
You can learn more about the Democratic Republic of America at GABBYpress.com
Thank you for joining me today and please visit our entire archive of podcasts at clpnewsnetwork.com