The situation at Foundry UMC has me trying to get a handle on the bounds of acceptable dissent within a body like the United Methodist Church.
For an institution to have any vitality at all, it must have diversity. A block of limestone never has to worry about schism, but neither does it do very much.
But for an institution to have integrity, it must have boundaries. Pierce the membrane of a water balloon and you have a puddle.
(Warning: I make an anatomical reference to sexual organs in the post. If you would find that offensive, please do not continue.)
I am greatly conflicted by the United Methodist position on homosexual sex. My range of reactions fall on both sides of the debate within the church.
On the one hand
- Men and women of gay and lesbian sexual orientation who I know include some who display much more Christian maturity than I do.
- I see so many of us in the church who sin in ways that we seem to easily ignore or downplay. I feel as if I’m often in a club for people with planks in their eyes pointing out the speck in our neighbor’s eye.
- I know the Bible is not a legalistic code book.
And yet
- I have yet to read an argument against the traditional Christian teaching that doesn’t verge into a rather dismissive view of Scripture as an authority in Christian faith and practice. (If you take the principles used in the narrow arguments over homosexual sex to knock down “the clobber passages” and expand them to other issues, it ends up that the Bible has little to say to us about anything. For instance, I’m told to ignore Leviticus because it says some weird things about how to grow crops. Really? Everything in Leviticus is worthless? Did someone tell Jesus that before he quoted 19:18, which is one verse before the odd thing about two kinds of crops?)
- As a Wesleyan, I strive for a high view of holiness that informs every aspect of my life.
- I am not convinced God really does view it as a holy use of a man’s body to insert his penis into another man’s rectum.
So this leaves me in an odd place. I understand why many in the United Methodist Church are passionate about changing the current language. I also understand why many feel that there are deep issues at stake if the language is changed.
The part of me that wants harmony and abhors conflict wishes this would just go away. The part of me that is pained by the hurt of hateful language wishes everyone would tone down the rhetoric. The part of me that has found great power in Scripture and the Wesleyan understanding of holiness of heart and life wishes there was a both/and solution to this problem that holds a high view of Scripture and holiness.
As the song goes, “You can’t always get what you want.”
As a result of all this, the folks at Foundry and elsewhere feel compelled by their convictions to take a stance in open defiance of the United Methodist Church of which they are a part.
At some point down the road, if the language is changed at a future General Conference, many Christians who now stand with the church may find themselves in opposition to it.
So, I find myself asking again, what is the acceptable range for dissent? Where are the boundaries? If a church or pastor teaches doctrine in direct contradiction to United Methodist positions, that is a chargeable offense. But should we seek charges? Are there really important violations that we have to eject someone over and less important ones that we can ignore as long as it doesn’t draw too much media attention.
I suppose the answer to all my questions is that we are finding that out right now. The church is going to work through these questions right now. We will learn what we will tolerate and what we will not.
I find myself in grief over this, which likely makes me a poor participant in the conversation. I want to get down in the ashes and read Lamentations rather than celebrate or condemn.
I am a part-time local pastor serving 
The doctrine of original sin is surely more humbling to man than the opposite: And I know not what honour we can pay to God, if we think man came out of His hands in the condition wherein he is now.
The fat is now in the fire. Article 4 is the Article in play, and we will see what happens. The Bishop’s Letter does not really address the issue. And the Quadrilateral is useless. We will see if our doctrine and canon law prevail. Perhaps the bishop can make things interesting by telling them to sell their building and property. Regardless, I wonder about “theological unilaterialism” here, all couched within the language of and inclusivism, the true orthodoxy of United Methodism.
Andy, I wonder about your comment that “inclusivism” is the true orthodoxy of United Methodism (actually the sentence was a little confusing, but I think that’s what you are saying). I’m really surprised to hear you say that. My experience of the denomination over the last 30 years is that we have increasingly taken steps to become less inclusive (even in language). For example, as regards homosexuality – the language of the Discipline has become a lot more restrictive than it was in 1980 or 1984 or even 1988. I’m curious about where you think this “true orthodoxy” resides. In fact, the actions of Foundry UMC appear to me to be in response to the more restrictive orthodoxy that it looks like to me is in play. Also, it looks like to me, both in Indiana and around the United States that United Methodism has become less “inclusive” (or at least less “diverse”). We have closed more congregations in our most diverse communities while continuing to build new congregations in less diverse communities (again, I think you know of the ones in Indiana). So if there is an “inclusivism” that is the true orthodoxy – I sure don’t see it hardly anywhere (which would make it hardly orthodox). How’s the diversity down in Franklin?
One more thing. As to the “uselessness of the Quadrilateral.” I think you are right about that. But I sat there at Annual Conference, near you, at one point, and heard a lot of stuff that to me was pointing to the “uselessness of the Quadrilateral” – I think it would be helpful to have you, as the Wesley Scholar for the Annual Conference, point that out. Of course you could be following a different strategy, which is alright – I just thought with so many folks all gathered together at one time it might be a helpful teaching moment.
John, without getting into the details of the current situation at Foundry, I do want to say that your post is well written and competently articulated.
Thank you, Allan. I strive for competence.
@ Andrew and Mike – From where I sit, I see both your points. Andrew’s reminds me a great deal of William Abraham’s point about our theological inclusivism over-running every other sort of imaginable doctrinal concern. That does strike me as a bad thing. Wesley said “think and let think” but he also actually did believe there were some essential truths that you could not abandon and still be a follower of Christ.
Mike’s point about our ever-shrinking diversity, however, seems spot on as well. As a practical matter – no matter what we say we believe – we are more homogeneous than we once were or could be.
Let me ask you John, what I asked Andy – where oh where do you see our “theological inclusivism over-running every other sort of imaginable doctrinal concern.”? It hasn’t seemed to happen at the General Conference level – the Eucharist study for example could certainly be argued hasn’t become victim to theological inclusivism. Neither can the General Church’s statements on homosexuality. I can cite other arenas too… It feels like crying out against bogeymen or straw men. There has always been a diversity of opinion on the ground since the founding of the denomination. The arguments over slavery point that out. The arguments over ordination of women make that clear as well. It looks like to me a sense of victimhood that I can’t figure out. Where is the “oppression” (my word not yours) of this inclusivism happening (at the large scale that these posts seem to point to)?
I can’t speak for John, but I believe the disciplinary (thus General Conference) language that did exist until the “new” statement on our Theological Task was approved in 1988 outright endorsed the virtues of “pluralism.” While the language was changed, I am not convinced that perspectives have changed. Were it not for our global nature, and the accompanying traditional perspectives from Africans at GC, I would think our Discipline would read rather differently today. So if looking at the UMC from the midwest and primarily only considering its American manifestation, I think it is fair say to that theological inclusivism over-running other doctrinal concerns does happen at the congregational level, and perhaps at the general agency level. Foundry is but one example; the lack of accountability of the Women’s Division for some of its stances and endorsements is another over the last 20 years.
Of course, your question on diversity is limited to the US as well. If we changed to a global POV, would we say the church is becoming less diverse over the last 20 years? POV determines alot of in our answers. The same phenomena – growth in Africa – is keeping the church both less inclusive theologically and more inclusive globally.
Boy, y’all must be in different congregations than I am ever in (and I grew up in this annual conference and have served churches – and visited churches – from Evansville to South Bend and everyplace in between).
My sense of this comes from much less experience than yours, Mike. But it comes in the general “you can believe anything and be a Methodist” ethos that I’ve encountered from fellow laity and clergy.
It is mirrored in the notion that it would be wrong to ever remove anyone from church membership even if they have long since abandoned their membership vows.
I see this kind of implicit and explicit sense of “anything goes” throughout the church. It seems counter to Scripture, Methodist tradition, reason, and experience that such an ethos matches up to Christian discipleship.
As such, I don’t see the debate over homosexual sex as the cause or leading edge of this, but as one more symptom. (The symptom being the often unstated assumption that any restriction of membership is on its face an evil to be avoided.)
As for the General Conference statement on communion, I’ve had interesting discussions about that. On Sunday, the church I serve – under my leadership – will practice open communion in the “anything goes” Methodist way rather than in the way the General Conference document teaches. I don’t check baptismal records before administering the sacrament. (While we are on it, there are many who think I should not even be allowed to preside at the table, and I think they have good arguments.)
So, as I mention in the original post, I am as much a part of the problem here. I mean to cast no stones, only share my understanding as best I can express it.
John,
Thanks for sharing your experience. I guess I’ve had a lot more positive experience of the local church than you have had. The laity that I grew up with and that I have been blessed to serve with, while not perfect, have overwhelmingly been people who have been thoughtful about their faith commitments, people who have not entered into the church lightly (perhaps I’ve just been fortunate to serve among people who others don’t often seem to want or welcome), people who take seriously their baptismal vows, people who take seriously Jesus, people who take seriously the call and claim of God upon their lives. You and I “spoke” the other day about the ways in which congregants are often spoken of disparagingly. This is one of those times when I think a broad brush is being provided when the reality is not nearly so broad, not nearly so broad. I have (routinely) had members of congregations I’ve been a part of (both as laity and as clergy) quiver with emotion when reading a passage from scripture before the congregation and with me in their homes, as they are shaken by the power of the unity of The Story and their story. I have seen and heard the prayers of people at meals and spontaneous gatherings, and in worship on Sunday morning, that have contained the truth and beauty of the Gospel in ways that have opened my eyes. I have sat with people in their workplaces and homes and talked about things as varied (in the last few weeks) as taxes, and annunciation, and where we see the deaf hearing and the dead being raised, and race, and sexuality, and sanctification, and autism, and the ways in which their work or their home life challenges them to see the Good News of Jesus and act on it (live as if this Gospel were true). I cannot help but think that the feeling of victimization that I see in the complaints offered here is a saw toothed tool of the devil that keeps us from recognizing the power and presence of God’s kingdom at work in the world. When our eyes are turned toward something that, while perhaps true, is minuscule, compared to the amazing grandeur and wonder of God’s grace I can’t help but think “Really, really – this is what is occupying our time – for crying out loud, no wonder we are dying!” (Or as Stanley Hauerwas once said in a visit to our congregation in South Bend “let me say it positively – God is killing the Church.”)
Mike,
I’m a bit troubled that you use words like “victimization” and “oppression” to describe what I’m saying, since I’m not conscious of feeling either emotion.
I suspect I would find being a member of your church a grace-filled experience, and I, too, know many Methodists and other Christians who do live and show me wonderful things about faith and grace. I never meant to suggest that such folks do not exist.
But I think Hauerwas would come in on my side of this discussion as well. My recollection of his writings is that he is quite concerned that the church gets too caught up in reflecting the values of the society and rushes too fast to drop any notion that being a part of the people of Christ entails taking on a new identity and becoming a part of a new community that does not share or reflect the values of the culture.
All of this – to my reading – suggests boundaries, flexible and adaptive ones for sure, but boundaries, still.
I’m quite conscious in our exchanges that my great danger is on seeing only the negative, so I appreciate your push back. But I don’t think the concerns of much wiser men and women than me is based entirely on straw men and bogey men.
“I am not convinced God really does view it as a holy use of a man’s body to insert his penis into another man’s rectum.”
I have to say, I find this pretty confusing as a compelling reason to fall on one side or the other of the ‘debate’ – I realize it is a reaction you are stating you have, but to me, frankly, I don’t see how a man inserting his penis into a woman’s vagina, or any other sexual act between a man and a woman, is any more ‘holy’ than same-gendered sex. Would sex between two women then be less bothersome somehow, if they didn’t practice anal sex? Or is male/female sex holy because of potential child-bearing? What makes a sex act a holy use of the body? I certainly believe it can be a holy use, but I’m wondering what, to you, makes some acts holy body uses and others not?
For me, the scriptures on sexuality in general always will present a struggle. The way women’s sexuality is viewed throughout the whole text is problematic. Women’s sexuality and sexual desires were hardly relevant. I always think of Wesley’s words about the “whole scope and tenor” of scripture as a guide to help us understand particular passages. It is also important for me to learn all I can about the words used in the original text, and to understand what I can about the cultural context. I don’t believe there was a concept of homosexual identity in biblical times. So when we simply take verses, poorly translated, and try to match them up with 21st century practices, it is no wonder we’re in a mess.
Beth,
These are difficult and important questions – ones that I do not see us engage in very much during this conversation. We offer platitudes about sex being a gift from God and then move on.
Wesley – to bring him into the discussion – started from the point that everything we have and are comes from God and the only proper use of anything that is given us by God – our time, talents, bodies, wealth – is to use as God wills or in a way that gives glory to God.
What is a holy use our our sex organs, then? I’m not theologian enough to have a full answer to that, but Scripture, tradition, and biological function suggest certain uses. Are those the only uses? Are those the only sacred forms of sexuality?
Well, that is a debate that I don’t see us having very much.
One use that I don’t think Wesley would endorse – and maybe this is one of the ways he is wrong – is for physical gratification of bodily desires. Hence casual and recreational sex of any kind would be no more holy in his book than drunkeness or gluttony.
Does all non-reproductive sexual gratification fall into this category? I have to say I don’t know where to draw that line, but I believe there is a line somewhere.
I do know that both Scripture and tradition have healthy respect for the power of sexuality and do not often exult in it as an unconditional good thing. Other than the Song of Songs – which appears to be between a king and concubine or wife – most Scripture contains cautions, hedges, and warnings about the dangerous power of sex. I’d say our culture bears out that caution.
Maybe this is one way where we part company with Wesley – as we do on matters of the use of money, proper dress, use of time, and as a practical matter most of his teachings on holy living.
But – as I say – I’m not convinced.