Thursday, November 14, 2013

This is not about sex

Let’s get this out of the way: good people within the United Methodist Church, with all the best intentions, disagree on matters of human sexuality. There’s no way around this. Whether or not the General Conference petition by Mike Slaughter and Adam Hamilton would have made for effective legislation, the fact of the matter is that their proposed legislation reflected a truth that inheres within United Methodism: we disagree with one another about homosexuality.

In fact, we disagree about many things. That is why we have a set of regulations that effectively functions as church law. These regulations are contained in the Book of Discipline.

For years, many United Methodists have defied the Book of Discipline on matters of doctrine. Denial of doctrines such as the Trinity, Incarnation, and Resurrection are violations of our doctrinal standards, which are protected in the first Restrictive Rule. We have been able to deal with this matter, though, because of the gray area created by the section of the Discipine called “Our Theological Task.” In other words, for all its faults, the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral has created enough ambiguity to allow us to avoid church trials over matters of deviation from the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith.

Ethical matters such as homosexuality, however, while certainly related to theology and doctrine, fall into a different category. These are specifically matters of behavior and practice, and, at times, the General Conference has seen fit, rightly or wrongly, to issue clear regulations on ethical matters.

This is where church law comes into play. Church law emerges specifically because of our disagreement. When there is deep disagreement and debate over important matters, the church may see fit to regulate itself internally. The resulting regulations will necessarily make some people unhappy. Yet without such internal regulations, the UMC cannot function as a denomination. We have regulations regarding our internal hierarchy, our appointment system, the ministry of the ordained, and many other such matters. Granted, the level of adherence to these regulations has at times varied, but I don’t recall a time when there has been such widespread open defiance of the Discipline as is the case now in relation to issues of human sexuality.

We can say that we are held together in our love for Christ and the unity of the Holy Spirit, and indeed we are. We are held together as Christians in this way. Denominations, however, are held together by their internal self-regulation. If we disregard our church law, we are no longer a denomination.

The ministers of the church who are openly defying the teaching in the Book of Discipline are engaging in de facto schism. The question is not, at this point, whether the church will divide. It has divided because of the open defiance of the Discipline. It has not divided de jure yet, but continued de facto division will result in a de jure division. Perhaps this is the goal of such behavior. My own opinion is that dividing the church in this way would be a huge mistake, but it wouldn’t be the first huge mistake in the history of either the UMC or the Church universal.

With all due respect to Dr. Thomas Frank, who is widely recognized as one of the foremost experts in UM polity, referring this issue back to conferences for discussion among ordained clergy seems to repeat a process that has not worked. Annual conferences have discussed this issue to the point of neglecting other business of the conferences. The General Conference has repeatedly taken up this issue. No doubt, we will continue to have discussions along these lines, though the extent to which they will be productive is questionable. Our discussions of human sexuality have been more rhetorical than reasonable, more political than persuasive. Real discussion of these matters cannot take place in settings in which caucus groups control the conversations.

Dissolving our denomination will have tragic consequences. There are huge problems facing the world today, and not all of them relate to human sexuality. My own primary concerns relate to ministry with people with disabilities. I want the church to pay attention to this matter, to take it seriously, to make more of a tangible difference in the lives of people who live with disabling conditions. And yet there are more problems: a child dies from the effects of extreme poverty every three seconds. Half the world lives without clean drinking water. Christians in many parts of the world continue to be martyred for the faith. The list could go on. As long as we are consumed to the extent we are by a single issue—the issue of human sexuality—we divert proportionate time and resources from the myriad other issues facing the church today.

Church law matters because it allows us to go about our work together. It is not always right, but it is a necessary way of organizing our corporate life.  Apart from this realization, the UMC cannot exist.

25 comments:

  1. Well-reasoned and written, David. I read Dr. Frank's plea to the Council of Bishops and came away with much the same conclusion. While I understand why the issue of homosexuality matters so much to some, I share your concern about the larger missional challenges the debate often eclipses. Thank you for this thoughtful response that captures so well my thinking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Randy. Sounds like we're on the same page here. These are difficult times....

      Delete
  2. Great blog and it really tackles the issue of division and Church law. What would be effective ways of changing Church law? I assume that other than outright civil (or in this case ecclesial) disobedience, changing Church law is the only way to make change on such issues.

    Or is there a place for "ecclesial" disobedience as there has been in the historic past of the world and the Church? Martin Luther for one actively disobeyed Church law, and to my mind, so did Wesley in both ordaining and sending clergy to the New World. Both of these examples created an actual schism in the respective Churches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, in both cases you mentioned, the ecclesial disobedience resulted in new denominations. In the first case, it resulted in the second major schism of the Church. The result of such behavior is often a new religious group of some kind. If that's what we want, we should keep doing what we're doing.

      Delete
  3. There is no conservation when the BoD is consistently broken. As one who sides with the more progressive view on this topic, I find it detestable that the BoD is treated with such contempt. While I disagree with it, I do not find just cause to ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I hear that, Joel. If we are going to ignore it, we may as well quite holding our General Conference meetings.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I thank you for your reasoned response and while I don't agree with your conclusion, I do appreciate the time and thought that went into your words. Having said that I have to say this. I see this whole issue over homosexuality as plain and simple bigotry....defined by Webster's dictionary as extreme intolerance of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from one's own. Those who wish to deny any person the same rights and privileges and responsibilities that they themselves enjoy in my mind is a bigot and the church has for ages participated in bigotry and received a free pass by the state and federal and local governments to practice such bigotry in the open.....like no other body has a right to.......I would think the church would be the first in line to stand up for and fight for equal rights for all under the law of humans and with the gospel as our guide.....I am tired of the church looking like the Pharisees of old.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, Bruce. I appreciate the spirit of dialogue you bring to the conversation. If there were more people who expressed themselves in this spirit, maybe we could make some progress on this issue.

      Delete
    2. By that definition would say that the whole of Christianity would be bigoted because it believes that not everyone will inherit everlasting life?

      Delete
    3. Yes I would say that Bradley........we as humans are not the ones that get to determine who does or does not inherit everlasting life.....that is God's work and I think I will leave that up to God.....my work as I understand it is to love and love extravagantly, as best as I can with all that I am and let the other stuff up to God. I personally have a much more unorthodox view of eternal life, but that would open a whole other can of worms...LOL

      Delete
  6. David This issue, not about sex but about our Book of Discipline, is not radical since laws on various levels have been ignored for centuries, what makes this so radical to me is that we (The United Methodist Church) have come to the place where the Authority of Scripture is ignored. If the written foundation for our Faith in Jesus Christ is ignored who are we? Are we even "Christians?" I am bothered most by the fact that for over 30 years this issue has been addressed in General Conference Sessions and those sessions have sided with Scripture and so stated the same in the BoD and we are still fighting it. The battle should be over! Why visit it over and over and over and over? At some point in time the subject needs to be defined as decided, and those who cannot abide that decision my have to join themselves with another denomination or start another church.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dr. Abbott, thank you for your contributions to this conversation. Part of the reason that this issue has not reached some resolution, I think, has to do with the fact that people on both sides of the argument believe that they are acting more consistently with scripture. My own opinion is that appeals to scripture alone will not resolve this matter. I do agree with you, though, that there has to be a point by which we resolve that the matter has been decided. To engage in one issue in such an extended way every four years diverts attention away from many other issues which are also important for the life of the church.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, I disagree. This unfortunate situation IS about sex. But it is also about more than that. It is about our failed system of church government. Our current constitution is based on the model of the US government, which I contend is NOT a suitable structure for a Christian church. This constitutional form is inherently polarizing and leads to the kind of "party spirit" that St. Paul rightly abhorred.

    Fortunately, the 2012 General Conference voted to begin work on a new GLOBAL Book of Discipline. A task force from The Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters recently met to begin their work. I was quite heartened by the tweets I read from their meeting in Budapest. They seem to be proposing a two volume BOD. Volume 1 would be designed for the entire global connection. It would be SMALL (Bishop Strieff held up a BOD from the 18th century that was small enough to fit in his pocket). This book would focus on our common theology and history as Wesleyans. It would serve to give us a common identity. It would not be a book of rules (like our current BOD). The vision then allows multiple volume 2 BOD's. I believe these would be regional and contextual books.

    My hope is that this proposal will be embraced enthusiastically and soon. I believe it is time for The United Methodist Church to move on. We need to celebrate our many successes, repent of the harm we have done, admit that we have failed to be an obedient church, and embrace God's vision for global Wesleyan Christianity. Perhaps we should hold a service of Death and Resurrection for the United Methodist Church. Let's reboot--perhaps as part of a new "Global Methodist Connection".

    I have some dreams for the American church too. I would like for our churches to recenter on Christ by adopting eucharistic worship--at least weekly. I would also like to see us return to our roots with a renewed emphasis on Wesley Class Meetings and Band meetings. I sincerely hope we will look at alternative ways to make decisions. Voting is not Biblical. Robert's Rules of Order are designed to temper combat, but they also promote partisan spirit. We can learn much from other, obviously sustainable models of church government (yes, I mean catholisism and orthodoxy). Let's take some of their best ideas and put a Wesleyan twist on them.

    As a retired United Methodist pastor, I am more interested in the future of Wesleyan Christianity than holding on to the obviously dysfunctional form of Methodism to which I vowed my loyalty. May God grant us wisdom and grace as we move forward.

    The Rev. Holly Boardman, Florida Conference, retired elder

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, Holly. That's a lot to consider. I don't really have a response at this time because I don't feel informed regarding several of the issues you've brought up. Nevertheless, thanks for your contribution to this conversation.

      Delete
    2. I was also heartened as I read the tweets from the Council on Bishops meeting. A great deal of their time was apparently spent on discussing the need to develop a Wesleyan ecclesiology. Dr. Sarah Lawrence and Bishop Streiff (who is chairing the global BOD task force) were both presentors to the council on this issue.

      Few people seem to be informed about this hopeful development, so you are not alone. I hope you will begin thinking and praying about this. It is time for us to "Rethink Church" as our slogan says.

      Delete
    3. Correction: It was Dr. Sarah Lancaster of MTSO who made the presentation on the need to develop a Wesleyan ecclesiology..Sorry about the mistake.

      Delete
  9. Dr. David, thank you for a thoughtful post. I would like to mention two points (since there are only two, maybe that means I'm not a good preacher). First, I am a member of another group, people with disabilities, who have often been excluded from the church or some of its functions based on readings of scripture that are now generally accepted as misleading (for those looking for information about this, please visit the UM Association of Ministers with Disabilities at www.umdisability.org and look up the reports of our 2013 meeting). As I consider my own stance, memories of this treatment flood my mind.
    Second, the institution where you work is ideal for this kind of reflection; when I was a student there, I read many reels of the Telescope-Messenger in the microfilm room, where I learned about how the EUB church stressed its mission and life of the Spirit as central. Even in the 1800's they understood that scripture is often vague (and often noted how both sides had used it in the slavery debate). I'd like to think that if we could get away from an American-style "winner" mentality (as mentioned above) to a true pursuit of holiness, things would be very different.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No doubt they would be different. I do hope United can be a place where we can have the kind of reflection you mention. In other words, I hope we can be a place of intellectual virtue. Thanks for weighing in on the conversation.

      Delete
    2. It's Tim V. I didn't realize that they posted my class name instead of my name.

      Delete
    3. I kind of through that was you, Tim, but I wasn't sure.

      Delete
  10. I can't disagree on the importance of standards and doctrine, however, I take an opposing argument: That by social conservatives targeting social liberal UMC clergy and denying membership to LGBTQ people and other rites of the church, the social conservatives have forced a schism: too many life-long, high histology, followers of Christ in the Wesleyan tradition have been forced to leave. These godly people are forced to choose between what they believe to be their call to ministry in the UMC and their entire God-created being.
    Further, I believe we will often find that the BoD is ignored or broken by our Confessing Movement/ Good News friends-- but it's always different when you hold the power. There's no conversation any more, social liberals are brought to trial and defrocked or slandered so bad that their ministry is destroyed if they don't leave. The biblical obedience (ecclesiastical disobedience) is a last resort, and an attempt to save the church, not to break it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. John, thank you for your contribution to this conversation. Can you provide some examples of Confessing Movement/Good News folks violating the discipline? I'm not disputing your point, I just don't know the specifics of what you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  12. John, I really dislike the labels you are using. I completely agree with our church's social principles. To many people that makes me a "liberal". I am a feminist, I believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Now, for the first time in my life, I am now being called a "social conservative" and even a fundamentalist because I agree with the United Methodist Church's statement that the practice of homosexuality is contrary to Christian teaching. I would like to point out that homosexual people are indeed welcome in the United Methodist Church. Homosexual people are welcomed into church membership, and welcome to receive Holy Communion. I have hired homosexual people to serve on my church staff. Homosexual people are also welcome to apply for ordination as long as they abide by the standard of sexual behavior that all Christians are called to maintain--celibacy in singleness, and faithfulness in Christian marriage (between a man and a woman).

    As a single, heterosexual clergywoman I am called to ministry with all of "my God-created being." That means that I will continue to be celibate until I choose to marry. I would welcome any celibate, homosexual Christian who feels so called to join me in the order of elders. The door is not closed--even to ordination. We all have a choice about our sexual behavior--even if we do not choose our orientation. The fact that we CAN choose our sexual behavior is worth taking seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Odd how commending celibacy as a positive option seems to end a conversation....rather sad too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that is extremely sad. Our culture has bought into the lie that we are defined by our sexual behaviors and that celibacy is impossible.

      Delete