A while back the Western Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church passed a “Statement of Gospel Disobedience” calling on members of the UMC in the Western United States to act as if our denominational statement on Human Sexuality did not exist.
Recently, a few new reactions to that development have occurred.
My bishop, Mike Coyner, published his personal reactions to the statement. Here are his final paragraphs:
I believe that our United Methodist Church one day may modify its various statements on human sexuality. The Social Principles in our Book of Discipline are the result of many General Conferences, which means its various statements and paragraphs were written by committees – and they read like they were written by committees. There is little sense of consistency and theological structure. I believe that a future General Conference may indeed take action, first to affirm that Christians of good will are in disagreement on these issues, and second to adopt a more moderate and holistic approach to these issues in our Social Principles.
Changing our Social Principles or other parts of our Discipline is not the whole answer. As one of my colleagues has expressed it to me, “The question is not if our church will modify its stance; the question is when and howthat stance will be modified.” The how is the most important part of his statement. For the church to move forward, any modification should come in an atmosphere of prayer, theological reflection, humility, listening to God and listening to one another. The actions of the Western Jurisdiction, while understandable, do not provide a helpful way forward. Bringing together the best of our church to address these issues outside of the legislative processes of a General Conference could be the how that is needed. Even if such a process takes time, it would worth that time to come together as a church and to find a way forward together.
Bishop Mike’s posting generated a news story in the United Methodist News Service.
Jack Jackson, a faculty member a Claremont School of Theology, wrote a piece arguing that “civil disobedience” in the Western Jurisdiction would not solve our problems and urging a division of the denomination as the best way forward.
Nevertheless, out of missional necessity, and in the light of the denomination’s continued decline, it is time for a conversation to begin on an equitable split of the UMC.
Beginning the conversation acknowledges the true endgame of our current direction: division. Progressive and traditionalist visions of human sexuality are simply incompatible. Most of Protestantism recognizes this. We can argue all we want, but there is no solution to our theological quandary that offers unity, common visions of Christian mission and an ability to focus on the deep systemic issues which plague the UMC.
Methodist blogger Matt Horan disagrees with Jackson in a post on his own blog.
If we divide ourselves over this issue, we will have failed to remember the things we have in common, which are far more important than where we stand on the issue of homosexuality. It is clearly time for us to think of a way ahead that is different than lobbying for votes every four years and producing a large collection of embittered losers every time. Perhaps the United Methodist Church might explore becoming a confederation of churches that leave space for practices of ministry to emerge locally, while remaining committed together to share resources and continue our global Kingdom-building mission.
Some days breaking up looks a lot easier than staying together. Even so, I still keep advising married couples in my congregation: “I know it’s hard work to stick together, but keep at it. In the end you’ll see it was all worth it.”
How would it impact your ministry in Indiana if there were a homosexual United Methodist ordained elder conducting same-sex ceremonies in Vermont which the Indiana Conference didn’t allow?
I do not know. I assume this is already happening in places. Clergy cheat on their wives, perform rebaptisms, and refuse to pay apportionments, too.
But what if it was sanctioned officially and not viewed as sinful? Would you have to change denominations?
I really can’t answer that as a general hypothetical. What is the theological rooting of this doctrine? Am I persuaded it is orthodox and in keeping with the vows of ordination taken by the elders teaching this new doctrine? How does this other conference understand its relationship to the global connection? How does it honor that? What discipline does the conference exercise against pastors who agree with the UMC but disagree openly with the conference?
My first answer is that I would not leave the UMC. I have not contemplated leaving it because of the Western Jurisdiction’s vote. In any event, this really is not about me, though, as the UMC does not much depend on me for its survival.
What about you, Morgan? Are you a peaceful splitter, a loose confederationist, or a civilly disobedient revolutionary? Or something else?
None of the above. I was disappointed in the decision-making at General Conference because it is based on an un-Wesleyan surface-level proof-text approach to reading scripture and I suspect there was a lot of fear of losing half of the SEJ to the Baptists since they’re already mostly Baptist anyway theologically. My approach to this issue is to patiently educate people so that Paul the pragmatic, theologically unsystematic ascetic can be liberated from his Galatian exegetes. Even though some of my most important spiritual mentors in my journey have been gay, I’m willing to stay in the connection because I believe that ultimately God’s truth will prevail.
Morgan,
As a Methodist “from birth” in Mississippi I’m offended by your comment that Southern United Methodism is mostly baptist anyway. Can I equally disparage the East and West as mostly unitarian-universalist? By no means.
God’s truth WILL prevail, in fact it will be the only thing left standing, but disparaging brothers and sisters within our Church (and I do belief you meant that in a disparaging way, though correct me if I’m wrong) is not going to be a forward step along the way.
@John I was raised Southern Baptist and I’m still at least half Baptist, so I’m not speaking pejoratively. I’m speaking about my own people who I see all over the SEJ. I disagree with the Romans Road theology but Baptists have fire in their belly in a way that Methodists don’t.
What is the point of having a Book of Discipline if everyone feels free to publicly flaunt their disobedience to it because they have an issue of “conscience” as defined solely by themselves? Unfortunately, the real issue isn’t “acceptance” of sinners of various categories into our local churches. The issue isn’t even conducting same-sex marriage ceremonies. The real issue is that a number of clergy who are non-celibate and homosexual have been ordained despite lying during their ordination vows and being in violation of the Discipline every day since. They want to be able to serve openly. However, they are not willing to give up the temporal benefits that come from being an ordained elder in The UMC (better salary, better job security, better pension, better benefits, etc.) as opposed to being in another denomination that operates on a “call” polity. If it was truly a matter of conscience and not a matter of comfort and convenience, then those who know that they are unqualified by the standards of The UMC to be an ordained elder would transfer to another denomination or at least give up their stole.
There have been repeated votes on this issue. The results continue to be overwhelmingly in favor of retaining our current ordination standards. Even if the Social Principles were changed, the ordination standards aren’t going to be.
I shared this elsewhere, but I’ll reproduce it here:
It saddens me to read “realistic” “solutions” to our current arguments that see schism as healthy. I know many would say good riddance to seeing folks they disagree with go, but I know that every time the church is divided it grieves God. By nature of being a Protestant I agree that there can be different expressions of our Christian faith, but I cannot square my reading of the whole scripture with further splintering in the body of Christ.
While I understand the logic of splitting in my head, my heart cannot go for it. I believe that one of the things we as Christians are supposed to be working for is the unity of the Church the body of Christ. Given our disagreements, that often seems like dreaming the impossible dream. But I believe our unity is part of the gospel. I don’t think the US actually needs yet another Christian group of churches, yet another splinter off Christian the family. We already have too much competition for resources amongst denominational and local churches in areas where we really ought to be sharing buildings, resources, and ministries to be vital now without yet another division. And what gospel are we sharing with the world when we say “Good news Jesus loves you, bad news Christians can’t get along with each other well enough to be in the church together.” It would be an admission that we have failed to be the Church.
I believe that we are in danger being disobedient to the call of the gospel for one faith, one hope, and one baptism if we allow this or any issue to split us further. If we want a future as the UMC doing something that may amount to turning away from a major theme of the gospel certainly won’t lead to vitality, renewal, or peace.
Without enforcement of discipline we can have no unity. It certainly looks like we cannot trust our leadership to enforce anything. As a refugee from the Episcopal Church I am having déjà vu. Take a look at the Episcopal Church today. Membership falling off a cliff, expensive lawsuits all over the country, breakaway churches and serious financial difficulties. I am not going though that again. I thought I had found a home in the UMC but if the rules are not enforced we will lose unity and common purpose. Enforce the discipline or split. Either solution works for me. Our current path of disobedience by some will sap whatever vitality the UMC has left. Kicking the can down the road is the same as agreeing to an eventual split and it will be very painful.
I am a “traditionalist” as Jack Jackson defines it. I will leave the United Methodist Church if we sanction the marriage of gay or lesbian couples by our clergy, or if we begin ordaining people who openly state that they are practicing homosexuals.
Although I have not generally or publicly discussed my personal sexual behavior, I think I now need to say that I am a single, heterosexual, celibate clergywoman. I am sure that there have been parishoners and others who have wondered whether I was gay or abnormal somehow. And my singleness makes some people uncomfortable. But my decision to abide by our church’s standard of celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage is made and finalized. My singleness has been both a blessing and a liability in ministry; but my conscience is clear. I agree with St. Paul that followers of Jesus who are also responsible for a family are double-minded. I have been able to take risks for the sake of the kingdom because I am single.
Holiness certainly involves more than sexual purity; and I know that I fall way short. But I have been grateful to have a clear, Biblical standard to guide my behavior in this arena. It has not been a burden, rather it is a point of clarity. Morgan, I also consider our denominational standard to be VERY Pauline. Paul would not go with the flow of society’s opinion on this matter.
I am dismayed by our church’s seeming inability to deal with people who break our clergy covenant. Amy Delong’s trial was a joke. Still, we have a standard in place still, and that gives me a bit of hope.
Anyway, I won’t stick around in a church that openly celebrates sinful sexual behavior. I’ll leave and drop the name “United Methodist”. And as Jack Jackson concludes, many others will leave as well.
The first United Methodist Church I went to in Toledo, Ohio was mostly made up of lesbians. They nurtured me when I was going through a very difficult phase in my life. They are the reason I became Methodist. A key spiritual mentor for me at that time was the woman who functioned as an assistant pastor without the stole or the title on account of her sexual orientation. Another key spiritual mentor in my life was my CPE supervisor who was also a lesbian. I have known few people who exuded more of the spiritual fruits from Galatians 5:22-23 than these two women. The greatest sin that I commit regarding this issue is when I betray these two women God used to shape me with my silence, which I have done for the past two years because I was scared of retaliation in the ordination process. I’m not going to be silent anymore.
Just remember when you speak about this issue that many of you are speaking from a position of privilege as it doesn’t personally effect you. You probably have other issues that you have brought into it such as a frustration with bureaucracy, spinelessness, and a lack of commitment to the Bible; those issues are legitimate. I am absolutely committed to the Bible and also to the people God put in my life to shape me. Those of you who feel comfortable speaking sanctimoniously about these things bear witness to the truth of Jesus’ parable: only a despised Samaritan can understand mercy.
Morgan when I first read your post, I was deeply offended by your rather vague aspersion calling traditional Methodists like me “sanctimonious”. Then I remembered how we acquired the name Methodist in the first place. It was a term of derision attached to members of Wesley’s Holy Club Members. They were also called Bible Moths by those who thought they were over-the-top extremists.
One reason I am no longer in the active ministry is because of a controversy that ensued in the last church I served when I asked a volunteer youth director to step down from her position because she was openly living with a man she was not married to. All of the youth in the church knew about the live-in situation, and had been to her home for social events. I spoke with this volunteer privately; but she chose NOT to keep the matter private. It became a matter to be dealt with in the Staff Parrish Committee, and since I was fairly new in the church and the volunteer’s mother was a member of SPR, I was the one who was seen to be at fault.
The truth is, I have no problem with people who are openly living in some kind of sin participating in church, attending worship, and even joining the church. I love to preach to sinners in need of Christ’s redemption. But I believe church leaders (even volunteer leaders) should be held to a higher standard.
I am not gay, but this issue DOES effect me personally. For years, I think people have “wondered” about my sexuality since I am not married. I really have NOT flaunted my celibacy publicly, although now I think perhaps I should start doing so. Celibacy is a positive life-style choice in our hyper-sexual culture–a lifestyle that brings both freedom and derision.
So, call me sanctimonious. My sanctimonious attitude has led me out of professional ministry in the United Methodist Church. I am no longer in a position of privilege. I am called to preach but I have no pulpit–a fire continues to burn in my bones, and I long to see a passion for holy living through Christ restored in our communion and in our culture.
I think our differences may be unreconcilable.So I think it may be time for a split. You can keep the name “United” if you like. I’ll stick with the traditional sanctimonious bunch, and I will proudly adopt the name Sanctimonious Methodist.
Thank you for sharing your stories, Morgan and Holly. I hope the Sanctimonious Methodist label does not stick, though.
FWIW, I wasn’t talking about anybody in particular though the tone of some of the comments did bother me. And I’m certainly not referring to Holly whom I love dearly and whom I pray for every day. Just remember that for some people this isn’t an abstract issue. I wouldn’t be a pastor if it weren’t for two lesbian women who were my pastors whether it was official or not. So when you say they weren’t worthy to be my pastors, you’re saying I shouldn’t be a pastor either.
There was nothing about their sexual orientation that compromised their ability to teach me and prepare me for ministry. It was actually a completely private matter that they never said anything about. There is a unique form of humility and gentleness among people who have lived their whole lives with an illegitimate identity. I hope that some of you will get to know people like this as people and not simply stamp a dismissive label on them in your minds when you interact with them. They have been a huge part of my journey of sanctification.
I hope you haven’t heard people telling you that your spiritual development is illegitimate. God uses gay Christians as he uses all sorts of people.
I hesitate to respond other than to affirm that God uses people for his ultimate good, but I’ll risk saying too much:
You’ve learned how to use words very pointedly. That clearly generates discussion and blog hits and is not bad in itself. I wonder if more time in discernment before response might be wise.
In this instance I think your sentence “for some people this isn’t an abstract issue” conveys a meaning you may not hold. What I hear is you suggesting that conservatives don’t understand the complex place that is sexuality in the Kingdom of God. I hope that’s not what you mean to imply. Some conservative pastors are bigots, as are some liberal ones, but those I know aren’t alien to the same-sex attracted people in their churches and their deeper lives.
I find myself somewhere in the center, admittedly perhaps “center-right,” and I’ve known (as friends) over half a dozen folks who’ve self identified as gay. Some have found freedom (I understand this term may be offensive to you, but it is the term they use), others have chosen celibacy, some have chosen to be out and proud. One of the later chose me, knowing my theology, to contact when he was worried he’d contracted AIDS. I prayed with him and later celebrated when tests came back negative. It is not God’s will that disease destroy young bodies or rob people of joy.
Again, I hope I am misunderstanding you and am open to correction.
I think the difference between us is that you’ve had gay friends while I’ve had gay mentors. If the scary bad terrible thing that conservatives are trying to prevent with ordaining gays is what happened to me, then I am deformed and unfit for ministry. You’re right that I often speak too quickly. I am very conflicted about this issue. We have Presbyterians coming to our church because the UMC is anti-gay and they’re some of the most Christlike people who have come to us. But how can I betray those who God used to form me especially when the opposition to what they’re doing is based on an approach to hermeneutics that would infuriate Paul and Jesus both?
John I actually looked up “sanctimonious”. The first definition is “hypocrite”. Then and “obsolete” definition identifies it as “holy”. So perhaps we should stick with it and try to make the obsolete genuinely descriptive.
Opps, take the “d” off of and above. I meant to say “an ‘obsolete’ defiinition…
Thanks for your continuing prayers, Morgan. I really do appreciate them and need them. No word yet about either the online teaching job I interviewed for 2 weeks ago, or the church staff position I hope I am in contention for…