This tempest in the teapot has been brewing for over twenty years. Yet it's a tempest that I observe somewhat outside the teapot, since I am an associate member to our local United Methodist congregation, and not a baptized member. So what follows are my reactions to the kerfuffle as a somewhat-detached observer who happens to love real people in that congregation.
First, some general context. The United Methodist Church's Special General Conference on Human Sexuality has gathered in St Louis. The denomination has come to an impasse and they're trying to carve a new path forward. And, because The UMC is a global denomination, they're doing so through parliamentary procedures and democratic voting. As it stands currently, The UMC believes the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are prohibited from becoming ordained clergy, and clergy are prohibited from presiding over same-sex unions. There have been a variety of plans proposed that would move the denomination forward in handling these issues.
Now, for a general outline of those plans. There's the "Traditional Plan" (which seems to have garnered the most support in voting from the floor). This plan maintains the status quo -- with the current prohibitions against self-avowed practicing gay clergy and same-gender weddings. It also broadens the definition of "self-avowed practicing homosexual" to include person living in same-sex marriage or civil union or persons who publicly state they are homosexuals. It mandates penalties for disobedience to the Book of Discipline (The UMC's book of church law) with a suspension of one year without pay for the first violation and a relinquishing of clergy credentials for the second violation.
"The Simple Plan" -- which would have removed the incompatibility clause and eliminated all prohibitions that limit the role of homosexual people in the church -- was voted down from the floor. This plan would have allowed, but not required, United Methodist clergy to perform gay marriage.
And there's the "One Church Plan", removing "incompatible with Christian teaching" from paragraphs in the Book of Discipline, and removing prohibitions against same-gender weddings and ordination of self-avowed practicing homosexuals. It also adds protections so that no clergy person, nor bishop, will be forced to preside over a wedding, or ordain someone, if they theologically disagree with the change in the Book of Discipline. Bishops would take into consideration the theological positions of clergy and churches when making new appointments. (For my money, this is the plan I would support if I were at the General Conference -- more on this in a moment.)
There are a variety of other plans -- things like "disassociation" plans, which allow clergy and congregations to leave The UMC without penalty. Those plans have been approved from the floor, but I can't imagine anyone taking them seriously.
Now, for what I think.
For some years I've maintained -- rather publicly -- that the matters The UMC is voting on here are the wrong conversation to have. It punts the serious theological matters like the nature of theological thinking and feeling in and by the Church for the appearance of theology without the substance thereof. Some years ago, I participated in a panel discussion at one of the United Methodist colleges about human sexuality. At that time, I said it was a theological mistake to make homosexuality (or even heterosexuality, for that matter), the peg on which to hang discussions about being human and God's redemptive activity in the world.
Christians, to be quite honest, really don't have much to say about sexuality. It's rather boring to try to be Freudians. Instead, we talk about baptism as the marker for who and what we are. And we proceed from there. To take something so narrow as human sexuality as use those categories as definitive -- well, it's just stupid from a Christian perspective. There's so much more that we are. Sinners, children of God, lambs of Christ's flock. That kind of thing.
Hell, I'd even be willing to bet that of the categories in Scripture that might be used of Christians, we'd be hard-pressed to find much about human sexuality at all. Other than maybe all those connections between sexuality and idolatry. We're a fairly idolatrous lot, so we don't seem to have much that keeps us from expressing our idolatry sexually. Why not start there? Why not say we'll abandon all the false gods at whose altar we sometimes worship?
That is, after all, the tact I was going to take when I was invited some years ago to participate in another panel discussion at our local United Methodist congregation with the youth. But that panel discussion was cancelled because the congregation didn't want to give voice to something as evil as the support of "gay people". The event was cancelled, and our youth were left without the ability to think theologically about such matters.
That said, I wonder why The UMC feels the need to mark off this topic -- particularly homosexuality -- when there are so many other topics that might be brought up. Non-violence, for example. Jesus had a lot to say about loving one's enemies and not perpetuating the cycles of violence. In fact, he made it one of the hallmarks of being his followers. But I don't see anything in the Book of Discipline that makes non-violence a mark of membership or of ordination. Instead, we're simply adopting the language of the culture around homosexuality.
I know enough about human culture and human history to know that we're not steadily getting more enlightened and well-adjusted. Progress is simply another word of human hubris and sin. So this isn't a matter of it "being the time" to make this decision. Let the Spirit tell us when it's time to do something. Follow the pattern in Acts 15. But The UMC stopped doing that -- years ago. It stopped having the evangelical and apostolic conversations of discernment the minute the language of "homosexuality" was adopted into the Book of Discipline. Once the issue was codified, The UMC fought over laws. And those fights necessarily left no room for apostolic discernment.
Which brings me to my biggest criticism of what's happening in St Louis. I think the reason The UMC is struggling today is that The UMC has crafted a religion of its own. Religion is that mindset that so long as we follow the right rules and rituals, life will properly fall into the right order. Do what God tells us to do -- as we conceive "God" -- and that God will bless us. This is obvious in that the debates and votes taking place in St Louis involve a "church" determined to get it right so that they will save their future.
And this mindset -- as Karl Barth so eloquently put it in a variety of places -- denies the grace of God known in Jesus Christ. The UMC is acting as if God will only meet them if they get these rules right. God will only save the church is they believe the right things and act in the right ways around human sexuality.
Religion is about making plans. Religion is about voting for this or that measure. Religion is about control.
Which is why Christianity is not a religion. God is God, and we are not. That's the Christian faith. That's the message of the Gospel. To say anything else -- such as The UMC is attempting to do today -- is a denial of that message. It's preaching a different, and false, gospel.
The UMC's Book of Discipline has more than doubled in my lifetime. The more a Church draws lines in the sand and defines its life and work around rules, the less that Church lives in the grace of Jesus Christ. It produces a vision of "Church" as that body of folks that has to get everything right. Where salvation becomes believing a list of rules that simply aren't there.
The UMC began losing members and the power of the Gospel the moment the Church adopted this view that the Church had to get all these rules right. Homosexuality is one of the last issues that segments of power have to argue over, in order to get control over the rules. It's the last gasp of psychological anxiety that attempts to deal with the loss of cultural influence.
Theological issues really aren't meant to be addressed in this way.
Bishops need to be empowered to help the Church think and feel faithfully about these matters, constantly pointing to Jesus Christ. The Church can't center itself around human sexuality -- which is what the General Conference is now doing. And it's up to Bishops to remind us of that.
The older I get, the more congregational I become. But the more congregational I become, paradoxically, the more need I find in the Church having an office of unity and teaching that The UMC has in its bishops. This is why I think the "One Church Plan" is the best way forward for The UMC.
But I also think it's quite likely to be the one plan that doesn't pass. I predict (and I hope I'm wrong here) that the "Traditionalist" plan is the one that will win the day. The best way forward is for the larger Church to allow local churches to continue to muddle their way through this issue. Because this issue doesn't have a simple solution. We're dealing with particular human lives in the context of communal connections. If the "Traditionalist" plan passes, certain folks will find themselves unwelcome. And to preclude ordination on the grounds of human sexuality is akin to saying you can't be ordained because you're a liar. That's a heresy for good reason.
The great danger of this General Conference is that it mistakes the things that matter for the things that don't. In the process, it redefines what it means to be a Church.
In the end, there will be folks who think they've won and other who've lost. In reality, we all loose. Because what's happening is a redefinition of following Jesus Christ. If you can choose to leave your congregation on the basis of human sexuality, we've already given over "following Jesus" to "following our conclusions". I don't trust myself enough to decide what's right and what's wrong. My thoughts and my desires are too untrustworthy.
My whole point here is that this UMC General Conference shouldn't have happened, and is proceeding along lines that are entirely unfaithful and ungrateful to the God who meets us even in our sin. It's perpetuating the wrong conversation and ignoring the right one. And in the end, we all loose.
First, some general context. The United Methodist Church's Special General Conference on Human Sexuality has gathered in St Louis. The denomination has come to an impasse and they're trying to carve a new path forward. And, because The UMC is a global denomination, they're doing so through parliamentary procedures and democratic voting. As it stands currently, The UMC believes the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are prohibited from becoming ordained clergy, and clergy are prohibited from presiding over same-sex unions. There have been a variety of plans proposed that would move the denomination forward in handling these issues.
Now, for a general outline of those plans. There's the "Traditional Plan" (which seems to have garnered the most support in voting from the floor). This plan maintains the status quo -- with the current prohibitions against self-avowed practicing gay clergy and same-gender weddings. It also broadens the definition of "self-avowed practicing homosexual" to include person living in same-sex marriage or civil union or persons who publicly state they are homosexuals. It mandates penalties for disobedience to the Book of Discipline (The UMC's book of church law) with a suspension of one year without pay for the first violation and a relinquishing of clergy credentials for the second violation.
"The Simple Plan" -- which would have removed the incompatibility clause and eliminated all prohibitions that limit the role of homosexual people in the church -- was voted down from the floor. This plan would have allowed, but not required, United Methodist clergy to perform gay marriage.
And there's the "One Church Plan", removing "incompatible with Christian teaching" from paragraphs in the Book of Discipline, and removing prohibitions against same-gender weddings and ordination of self-avowed practicing homosexuals. It also adds protections so that no clergy person, nor bishop, will be forced to preside over a wedding, or ordain someone, if they theologically disagree with the change in the Book of Discipline. Bishops would take into consideration the theological positions of clergy and churches when making new appointments. (For my money, this is the plan I would support if I were at the General Conference -- more on this in a moment.)
There are a variety of other plans -- things like "disassociation" plans, which allow clergy and congregations to leave The UMC without penalty. Those plans have been approved from the floor, but I can't imagine anyone taking them seriously.
Now, for what I think.
For some years I've maintained -- rather publicly -- that the matters The UMC is voting on here are the wrong conversation to have. It punts the serious theological matters like the nature of theological thinking and feeling in and by the Church for the appearance of theology without the substance thereof. Some years ago, I participated in a panel discussion at one of the United Methodist colleges about human sexuality. At that time, I said it was a theological mistake to make homosexuality (or even heterosexuality, for that matter), the peg on which to hang discussions about being human and God's redemptive activity in the world.
Christians, to be quite honest, really don't have much to say about sexuality. It's rather boring to try to be Freudians. Instead, we talk about baptism as the marker for who and what we are. And we proceed from there. To take something so narrow as human sexuality as use those categories as definitive -- well, it's just stupid from a Christian perspective. There's so much more that we are. Sinners, children of God, lambs of Christ's flock. That kind of thing.
Hell, I'd even be willing to bet that of the categories in Scripture that might be used of Christians, we'd be hard-pressed to find much about human sexuality at all. Other than maybe all those connections between sexuality and idolatry. We're a fairly idolatrous lot, so we don't seem to have much that keeps us from expressing our idolatry sexually. Why not start there? Why not say we'll abandon all the false gods at whose altar we sometimes worship?
That is, after all, the tact I was going to take when I was invited some years ago to participate in another panel discussion at our local United Methodist congregation with the youth. But that panel discussion was cancelled because the congregation didn't want to give voice to something as evil as the support of "gay people". The event was cancelled, and our youth were left without the ability to think theologically about such matters.
That said, I wonder why The UMC feels the need to mark off this topic -- particularly homosexuality -- when there are so many other topics that might be brought up. Non-violence, for example. Jesus had a lot to say about loving one's enemies and not perpetuating the cycles of violence. In fact, he made it one of the hallmarks of being his followers. But I don't see anything in the Book of Discipline that makes non-violence a mark of membership or of ordination. Instead, we're simply adopting the language of the culture around homosexuality.
I know enough about human culture and human history to know that we're not steadily getting more enlightened and well-adjusted. Progress is simply another word of human hubris and sin. So this isn't a matter of it "being the time" to make this decision. Let the Spirit tell us when it's time to do something. Follow the pattern in Acts 15. But The UMC stopped doing that -- years ago. It stopped having the evangelical and apostolic conversations of discernment the minute the language of "homosexuality" was adopted into the Book of Discipline. Once the issue was codified, The UMC fought over laws. And those fights necessarily left no room for apostolic discernment.
Which brings me to my biggest criticism of what's happening in St Louis. I think the reason The UMC is struggling today is that The UMC has crafted a religion of its own. Religion is that mindset that so long as we follow the right rules and rituals, life will properly fall into the right order. Do what God tells us to do -- as we conceive "God" -- and that God will bless us. This is obvious in that the debates and votes taking place in St Louis involve a "church" determined to get it right so that they will save their future.
And this mindset -- as Karl Barth so eloquently put it in a variety of places -- denies the grace of God known in Jesus Christ. The UMC is acting as if God will only meet them if they get these rules right. God will only save the church is they believe the right things and act in the right ways around human sexuality.
Religion is about making plans. Religion is about voting for this or that measure. Religion is about control.
Which is why Christianity is not a religion. God is God, and we are not. That's the Christian faith. That's the message of the Gospel. To say anything else -- such as The UMC is attempting to do today -- is a denial of that message. It's preaching a different, and false, gospel.
The UMC's Book of Discipline has more than doubled in my lifetime. The more a Church draws lines in the sand and defines its life and work around rules, the less that Church lives in the grace of Jesus Christ. It produces a vision of "Church" as that body of folks that has to get everything right. Where salvation becomes believing a list of rules that simply aren't there.
The UMC began losing members and the power of the Gospel the moment the Church adopted this view that the Church had to get all these rules right. Homosexuality is one of the last issues that segments of power have to argue over, in order to get control over the rules. It's the last gasp of psychological anxiety that attempts to deal with the loss of cultural influence.
Theological issues really aren't meant to be addressed in this way.
Bishops need to be empowered to help the Church think and feel faithfully about these matters, constantly pointing to Jesus Christ. The Church can't center itself around human sexuality -- which is what the General Conference is now doing. And it's up to Bishops to remind us of that.
The older I get, the more congregational I become. But the more congregational I become, paradoxically, the more need I find in the Church having an office of unity and teaching that The UMC has in its bishops. This is why I think the "One Church Plan" is the best way forward for The UMC.
But I also think it's quite likely to be the one plan that doesn't pass. I predict (and I hope I'm wrong here) that the "Traditionalist" plan is the one that will win the day. The best way forward is for the larger Church to allow local churches to continue to muddle their way through this issue. Because this issue doesn't have a simple solution. We're dealing with particular human lives in the context of communal connections. If the "Traditionalist" plan passes, certain folks will find themselves unwelcome. And to preclude ordination on the grounds of human sexuality is akin to saying you can't be ordained because you're a liar. That's a heresy for good reason.
The great danger of this General Conference is that it mistakes the things that matter for the things that don't. In the process, it redefines what it means to be a Church.
In the end, there will be folks who think they've won and other who've lost. In reality, we all loose. Because what's happening is a redefinition of following Jesus Christ. If you can choose to leave your congregation on the basis of human sexuality, we've already given over "following Jesus" to "following our conclusions". I don't trust myself enough to decide what's right and what's wrong. My thoughts and my desires are too untrustworthy.
My whole point here is that this UMC General Conference shouldn't have happened, and is proceeding along lines that are entirely unfaithful and ungrateful to the God who meets us even in our sin. It's perpetuating the wrong conversation and ignoring the right one. And in the end, we all loose.