Play this game with me. Read these statements: 1) God loves every human being. 2) You are a human being.
What comes next? God loves you. Correct? This is a simple deductive argument. Conclusions follow the premises.
Okay, so try this one: 1) Jesus Christ is the incarnation of God’s love. 2) No one should be shut out from God’s grace. 3) Anything that attempts to limit or control God’s love must be transformed.
What comes next? What is the obvious and necessary conclusion of these premises? You need more don’t you? There are missing premises here. You can’t get from these three statements to any specific conclusion.
I ask because these three statements, so far as I can see, are the argument by a United Methodist bishop on behalf of changing the denomination’s law and doctrine on same-sex marriage. Unless I’m missing something, I just don’t see how he makes his argument work, though.
Here’s where I came across this puzzle.
The RMNblog reprinted a letter from United Methodist Bishop Grant Hagiya expressing joy at Washington state’s adoption of a same-sex marriage law and calling United Methodists to dialogue on the issue. In the letter, he expressed his disagreement with current United Methodist law and doctrine.
I also personally grieve over our United Methodist Church polity that will not recognize same-sex marriage. I believe that it is wrong, and we should work for a more inclusive and humane response. The reason for this stance is that I believe that Jesus Christ is the incarnation of God’s divine love for the entire creation, and no one should be shut out from God’s embracing Grace. God’s Grace is so pure and encompassing that anything that attempts to limit or control this love must be transformed.
You can download a .pdf version of the bishop’s letter here.
I have read through the argument the bishop makes starting with “The reason for this.” I have tried to figure out the bishop’s reasoning. I really have. But I cannot make heads or tails of it. I can’t follow the logic from his premises to his conclusion.
The letter is fairly long, so I do not see what harm would have been done by more fully laying out his reasons. I would appreciate understanding them better. If we are going to have a dialogue, it would help to fully understand the various arguments.
I am a part-time local pastor serving 
This love we believe to be the medicine of life, the never-failing remedy for all the evils of a disordered world, for all the miseries and vices of men. Wherever this is, there are virtue and happiness going hand in hand. There is humbleness of mind, gentleness, long-suffering, the whole image of God; and at the same time a peace that passeth all understanding, and joy unspeakable and full of glory.
I don’t get it either, John. Perhaps we are just narrow-minded, controlling people who shut people out from God’s grace.
Some years ago, I prayed a simple prayer during Lent that accomplished a lot in my spiritual life. I prayed that God would make me aware of sins I was unaware of. Over the course of that season, the prayer was answered and in rather old fashioned terms, I came under conviction by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps this is something I should pray again. I am a bit afraid to do so, however. It is scary stuff to be transformed by God. Maybe you and others can join me in that prayer. I would like to move a bit closer to perfection this Lent.
I accept your invitation, Holly. This will be among my prayers each morning during these days.
John, there are plenty of reasons for Bishop Hagiya to not lay out the “reasons” behind his personal convictions, not least of which is that that is not his focus nor intent. His intention is not to lay out the rudiments a case. His repeated emphasis throughout the piece is to urge a respectful tone in the debate that awaits the delegates in 2012. His task is to urge United Methodists to engage one another with respect, courtesy, dignity, and civility. He acknowledged that in his own annual conference self-righteousness has been present in much of the debate — and I clearly state that no one faction has cornered the market on that commodity.
Personally, I think a closer reading of Bishop Hagiya’s central concerns suggests the following paragraphs as containing his thesis and goals:
“I deeply respect those who have different views on this issue, and even though I share my faith perspective here, I do not presume that this must be their truth as well. I believe that all human nature is flawed, and that God holds the only “Truth” with a capital “T”. We humans can only approximate the truth, and no person has a monopoly on it.”
“Even though we will disagree, I believe in my very bones that God is at work in the world, and in our lives. We have been shown a glimpse of God’s spiritual vision: where the wolf and lamb lie together, where water springs from the desert, and where weapons of war will be turned into instruments of life-giving peace.”
A debate will surely ensue. As I read it, what Hagiya wants is to increase the likelihood that the UMC will survive the debate intact. And his audience? His message is directed as much toward people in sympathy with his views as to those oppose them. In fact, he may be addressing his own choir more than the others.
Ron, I appreciate your reading of the letter. I can see how your reading is a good one.
As a clergy member under the authority of a bishop, I would hope that if my bishop issued such a letter he would feel it important to explain his reasons more fully. First, because the letter claims to offer his reasons. He cued me that I was about to get an argument. Second, because the bishop’s office exists in large part to defend the faith, doctrine, and discipline of the UMC. If the bishop has determined that the doctrine and discipline of the UMC is in error, I would hope he or she would in a letter to the conference explain the reasons that led to that conviction.
I am fully aware that it is naive to think that argument (in the good sense) will settle the differences in the church over this, but I am sincere in my desire to understand the reasons — to the extent that reasoning is at the heart of someone’s position — people in authority in the denomination reject its positions.
If only the US had honoured Wesley’s views and not created the position of Bishop within Methodism……
Far be it from me to put words into a Bishop’s mouth, but my guess is that the missing link would read something like this: Marriage is a wonderful way to experience and extend the love and grace that God has given us.
If God loves us so that we can love others and God extends grace to us so that we can extend it to others then we should always be looking for relationships in which to extend that grace and love. Marriage is the most intimate way of extending that love and grace.
Thus the argument is that if a couple wants to marry, the church should encourage the practice as a means of grace. Gender differences or similarities are obviously not a factor in considering whether any given marriage would be a good match. Any law or church policy that obstructs such a union should be reformed.
For me, the question is this, “Is homosexual attraction something that God has created or is it a temptation that entered the world as a result of the Fall?” If the answer to this question is the former, then the Bishop’s argument is valid. If it is the latter, then the Bishop’s argument is a call to embrace sin.
That said, I do appreciate his call to civility. When accusations of bigotry and heresy are leveled, we start to miss the fact that most people in this debate are attempting to live out their faith in as true a fashion as they know how. I don’t know how this debate will finally be resolved, but I suspect that if schism is to be avoided, we will need to start by imposing a moratorium on name calling.
Jonathan, I agree whole-heartedly with your final paragraph. Name calling has no place in Christian conversation.
I am struck by how one rarely discusses the Bible or sacred tradition in the various coments on this topic. Logic and reasoning are also missing in most of the “arguments”, something which is lamented by some but not by all, and people say that they’re just trying to live out their faith when what actually seems to be produced is an attempt to make the faith conform to an emotional tug or desire. Am I wrong about that? It doesn’t seem that people are trying to live out their faith in the best way they can, in fact, it appears to this outsider that people are trying to pervert the canons of their faith so it will be more comfortable for them. Please let me know if I’m wrong.
Frank, I think the Bible does not come up because the biblical references are well known and folks like the bishop have already settled in their own mind that the Scripture does not mean what it appears to mean.
Your comment does, however, point out the potential folly of my desire for conversation across the divide in the church. The contending parties have no common ground on which to stand. They do not share a common reading of Scripture or common reverence for tradition. So, they both use the same words but mean different things by them.
I think we (as a broad generalization among the people called Methodist) may not even agree on the basic definition of sin or expectation of who Jesus is and what he is doing. That makes agreement on other things quite difficult.
So those who are hoping to avoid a split in the church……?
Thanks for your common sense thinking, Frank. When the same words mean different things to people, it is indeed hard if not impossible to find common ground. Many times, it seems as if there are two very different religions within United Methodism.
I’d put it this way. God loves gay people. The call for the church’s transformation is for the church’s benefit, not for the benefit of gay people.
God will always love gay people. God will always love the church.
But the church’s failure to see that it is as sinful as gay people stops the church from being transformed into all it could be.
The logical problem in the three-part statement (I confess I didn’t read the link) is that there is an underlying assumption that the church’s hypocrisy will somehow stop God loving gay people as much as God would otherwise do.
I find Bishop Hagiya’s joy somewhat disturbing since he is taking pleasure at something whicvh is contrary to the doctrine of the UMC which he is sworn to uphold. His letter speaks about feelings. We need to be careful because our feelings can fool us.
Having rational discussions about this issue can be difficult. Logic and scripture are tossed out and it boils down to feelings. I see no point in having any dialogue about this since there is no middle ground. Eventually one side wins out and those who disagree disappear.
Pingback: No Shortcuts » One Pastor's Thoughts: Rev. Joey Reed, OSL
We aren’t really talking about “allowing” or “welcoming” gay people into the church. Officially, we already do that. The real issue is legalizing clergy who lied during their ordination vows and have been in violation of the Discipline every day since. Bishop Hagiya addressed a RMN meeting and talked about closeted clergy. The same was true of the DeLong case where Bishops Rader and Lee and some district superintendents were fully aware that Rev. DeLong is openly gay with a partner.