Book Review: A Thorn in the Flesh

Episcopal priest the Rev. Caroline J. Addington Hall has written a book that should be of interest to United Methodists embroiled in debates over human sexuality and the church. In her book, A Thorn in the Flesh: How Gay Sexuality Is Changing the Episcopal Church, she tells the recent history of the Episcopal Church from the birth of the sexual liberation movement in the 1960s to the current situation of schism and division.

The story is told in detail and with a sensitivity to the nuance and complexity of the debates and politics that play out on a national and global scale. A married lesbian, Hall is an advocate in the battles and her framing of the debate, tone, and language do not hide this. What she describes in the book is a splintering of two churches that started coming apart at the beginning of the 19th century. In her words:

In this period of reformation, the interpretation/authority of scripture has been challenged many times: the abolition of slavery as an acceptable way of life, the acceptance of divorce, the ordination of women, and now full inclusion of gay and lesbian people. This latter is perhaps the bitterest fight because it incorporates the question of gender as well as the question of marriage, and it is also the most difficult to argue because the Bible says nothing positive about homosexuality. The battle for gay inclusion of exclusion seems to mark the development of two different religions, both called Christianity, but it may have served as the final point of bifurcation for two strands that began to unravel as early as the late nineteenth century.

The book is fascinating because of its depth as it traces the story of the Episcopal Church in recent decades. It is fascinating for this United Methodist as we appear to be walking over much of the same ground.

This brief review cannot do justice to the book, but reading it did raise two other thoughts that may or may not be worthy of further discussion.

First, Hall connects the ongoing battles over sexuality in the church to the Baby Boomer (my word, not hers) generation’s coming of age in the 1960s. The left-right divide of that decade set the terms for the debate and the issues going forward. I wonder, in part, if this is why the rising Millennial generation is so weary of this conversation. It is their parents’ fight, not their own. This is my question, not Hall’s, but her book stirred the thought.

Second, Hall connects the debate over sexuality to broader questions in the church. For instance, she offers this observation about the various responses within the Anglican Communion to Islam.

In the Anglican debate, the second question about coexisting religions becomes: Is Jesus Christ the only way to God, or is it limiting God to think that he cannot also work in other ways? Archbishop Akinola, who sees Jesus as the only way, aimed to grow the Church of Nigeria as big as possible in order to vanquish Islam nonviolently — though he has never ruled out the possibility of violent response. Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, on the other hand, sees the valuable contribution of Islam and has joined in faith conversations with Muslim leaders.

I find Hall’s engagement with the broader set of issues and the broader context of Anglican Christianity most helpful. It sees issues as inter-related rather than isolated, which strikes me as more reflective of real life.

Hall does not hide her bias in the book. Conservative motives are often cast in a negative light and liberals are the heroes. She ends the book with an appendix that argues that the Bible does not really teach what traditional Christians have said it does. But the book is fascinating reading and an in-depth look at the melange of issues that the United Methodist Church has been wrestling with for 45 years. As our church becomes more “global,” the fault lines Hall describes will only deepen.

An experiment at nonviolent communication

Asbury seminary president Timothy Tennent writes about why evangelicals spend so much time and energy talking about homosexual sex.

In one sense, you won’t read anything new here. But I do find the post and the comments thread an interesting case study in the way we talk past each other. For all the times we use terms like “Christian conferencing” and take classes on nonviolent communication and speak of hearing the other person before speaking, we do not practice that very well, at least not on the Internet. This is probably due as much to the nature of the medium as it is to our intentions. The Internet is not nearly as interactive or “social” as we claim it is.

What we tend to do in “conversations” about hard issues is lob arguments at each other. Often, these arguments include all manner of statements about the thoughts, motivations, and emotions of other people. Almost always as they go back and forth they lose all contact with the point the other person was trying to express or discuss. We seek to get our point across rather than listen to the other side. We don’t want to let anything with which we disagree go unchallenged. Or at least I know that is what I do when in a difficult conversation.

So, I want to try an exercise in listening on my blog. I’m going to try to write what I hear Tennent writing in his post. My goal here is not to offer my reactions or analysis, but to say accurately, without using a lot of direct quotation, what he would recognize as the point he is trying to make. I invite you to help me listen better by pointing out where and how my summary might miss important things.

Here is what I hear him writing:

Evangelical Christians feel the need to spend so much time and energy talking about and organizing actions with regard to homosexuality because they feel that harm is done to the church when something sinful is treated as if it were holy.

I’m not sure this is a fair statement of what he wrote. In a real conversation, I could ask him. (I have posted a version of this on his blog to try to do just that.) Before I react or respond, I would want to be certain I am hearing him as he intends to be heard.

What do you think? Is this close to what he is trying to say?

A complex and nuanced post on sex

William Birch is a Calvinist turned Arminian, a strong believer in biblical inerrancy, and man who, in his own words, struggles with same-sex attraction.

He has written a post on the last issue, but reflecting all three. I will return to it and read it again many times, I predict. Since I do not at the moment have a well-formed reaction to it, I simply link here for your reading.

Disobedience, disunion, and difficult choices

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.”

Disciple Dojo dialogue on homosexuality

JM Smith has been having a dialogue with one of his readers on the debate of homosexual sex. It is an in-depth conversation worth time for those who still feel there is value on trying to talk to each other about this.

Sam starts with his three-point push back against Smith’s defense of traditional Christian teaching.

Smith responds to each of Sam’s points. His first two posts are up. The third will be soon.

Our broad common ground on matters of sex

One of the reasons I posted Bishop Schol’s defense of homosexual relationships is because I want to sketch out what I see as a broad agreement that is obscured by our denominational infighting.

Bishop Schol writes in defense of homosexual sexual relations in the context of committed and loving relationships. These words “committed” and “loving” are key elements of his qualification.

So,  it appears to me that we all more or less agree that forms of sex that are engaged for pure selfish physical gratification (not loving) or in casual or anonymous relationships (not committed) are not holy. We agree that polygamy is not in keeping with God’s will. We agree that the culture norms about pornography, hooking up, and various kinds of sex for money are anti-Christian.

Where we disagree is between those who see the gender of the two loving and committed partners as crucial and those who do not.

I’m not saying that is a small difference or even one that the denomination can ignore.

But let’s take a look for a moment on the broad agreement that the bishop’s talk represents — if I am reading him properly. Assuming homosexuals in committed relationship account for no more than 5% of the sexual activity in the human population, then we can say there is a shared understanding of human sexuality in the United Methodist Church for 95% of the cases. Maybe it is even more than 95%.

I’m not saying the remaining 5% is unimportant. I’m not saying enforcing our Book of Discipline is unimportant. I don’t expect to persuade those who see this as the only issue that matters in the UMC.

But, could we at least acknowledge that when we look at the full range of human sexuality and the Christian response to it that our denomination actually agrees on about 95% of the issue?

That strikes me as much more hopeful than the way we generally talk about this issue.

Bishop Schol affirms loving, committed same-sex relationships

In the wake of General Conference, some United Methodist bishops are making their own declarations in opposition to the General Conference on matters of sexuality.

Baltimore-Washington area Bishop John Schol made these remarks in his episcopal address to the annual conference:

Today I also want to share with you some thoughts and feelings about the Scriptures and homosexuality. I do this in light of my recent experience at General Conference, the fact that this continues to be a sensitive and difficult issue for our denomination, and also from what I am hearing from non- and nominally religious young people.

The Bible has passages that speak clearly about homosexuality. General Conference has been consistent for the past 40 years in saying that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching and there is no indication that General Conference will change its position in the future. Some wonder if continual conversation about homosexuality just makes things worse for us.

I also understand those who are frustrated because the General Conference votes to keep the same policies and you refuse to accept the General Conference’s decision. I understand that there are those of you who are hurt by the policies of the church and that your humanity is turned into an issue rather than seeing you as a child of God.

I am convicted, however, by what I am hearing from non- and nominally religious people. They, by in large, do not understand our preoccupation with human sexuality. They even believe we “hate gays and lesbians.” They believe we hate people.

Our inability as a church to hold civil conversations and the reality that our debates communicate more hatred than love is a big problem. To us on the inside, our conversations appear important and clarifying. But to those we seek to reach, to those we want to welcome into a loving relationship with Jesus Christ, it appears that we are preoccupied with one group of people. We appear to be single-minded, and maybe even narrow-minded.

Frankly, I was disappointed that General Conference could not even agree to disagree. I think there is a Christ-like path that we, as The United Methodist Church, have failed to find. I feel that, as a denomination, we have not been Christ-like in our discussions about homosexuality.

Here in the Baltimore-Washington Conference we have done a lot better than the rest of the denomination. Our engagement on this issue as a conference two years ago, which provided open conversation that was not condemning but mutually respectful, was one the most Christ-like things we have done.

As our denomination has debated policy on homosexuality, I have not participated in the debate. Rather, I have worked to create space for healthy conversation. Because of our denomination’s inability to admit we disagree and because we are alienating those we seek to reach, I’ve decided to share with you my personal beliefs and how I intend to lead in light of our differences. I do this in the spirit that faithful Christians and good United Methodists will disagree on this and a number of people will disagree with my understanding. I am not trying to change anybody’s opinions or beliefs. I just want to let you know my personal thoughts and feelings, my own struggles and how I will lead when we disagree.

I am not a biblical literalist. I do not believe the earth is only 7,000 years old. I think some of the Bible’s teachings about the place and role of women, cultural and racial practices, polygamy, concubines, slavery, marriage and divorce reflect the context and thinking of the time in which Scripture was written and not the timeless truth of God.

Historically, and in some denominations still today, a literal interpretation of Scripture has prevented women from being ordained, people of different races from marrying each other, and divorced people from remarrying or serving in ministry. A strict reading of Scripture might cause some to suppose that women should not wear jewelry or cut their hair short and men should not wear long hair or have tattoos.

The Scriptures are the inspired Word of God for my salvation. Exegesis and hermeneutics, or in other words, knowing what Scripture meant in its original context and then interpreting it for today, is the work of every Christian.

Contrary to a literal biblical interpretation, I believe that sometimes couples become estranged beyond reconciliation, divorce happens and the divorced people can find Christ-like love with another partner. I believe that women and men are fully equal. I believe that menstruation is part of the normal cycle of a healthy body and that women are not unclean.

I also personally believe that gay and lesbian people are children of God, loved by God and saved through the love of Jesus Christ. I believe that gays and lesbians can live in loving committed relationships that reflect God’s grace-filled love.

I love the Bible. My entire life is centered in studying the Bible and living in faithful obedience to the God revealed in the Bible. It was Scripture that led me to a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Scripture brought me to my knees as a sinner, humbled me through repentance, lifted me in the utter conviction that I have been saved through the life, death and resurrection of Christ, and convicted me to join a long and continual discipleship adventure that continues to sanctify my heart.

I do not understand all of the mysteries of human sexuality. I believe that our sexuality is a gift from the Creator to be shared in loving committed relationships. I believe this is true whether we are heterosexual or homosexual.

Good people, faithful Christians, good United Methodists will disagree on this. I want you to know what I think and feel. I want to be open and honest with you rather than to appear not to have an opinion.

I want us not to condemn each other when we disagree. I want us to be able to be open and honest with one another and be willing to listen respectfully to one another. So let it begin with me.

As a bishop of the church, I recognize that I have a responsibility to uphold our Book of Discipline. I will fulfill my responsibilities as a bishop to uphold the Book of Discipline.

I also want our pastors to be pastoral to the needs of the people in their communities they serve. I recognize that this may create a conflict. We all need to do the best we can.

I am not asking anybody to change their beliefs or opinions. I want us to listen to each other and respect each other. And I want us to continue to study and learn.

Today I pledge to you that I will continue to study and discern and make corrections as the Holy Spirit and my study lead me. I also pledge to you that I will treat all people, every individual, as a child of God and as a gift from God. I pledge to be a bishop of the whole church and to lead by respecting all people.

One GC delegate states her case

The other day I lamented the fact that a bishop did not explain his reasoning in rejecting the official doctrine of the church.

Today, I want to point to a blog post by United Methodist elder Becca Clark, who agrees with the bishop’s position and takes the time and space to explain why she takes the stand she does.

I need to pray, think, and find time to write carefully before I respond. In the meantime, I’d be interested in your thoughts and responses as Christians and United Methodists. (Others are welcome to comment, too, but I think most of my readers fall into one or both of those categories.)

Repenting for not talking about sex

Erin Hawkins of the United Methodist Commission on Religion and Race regrets what she left unsaid at the Leadership Summit on April 6. At the summit she was asked a question about healing racial divisions that led her to speak more broadly about inclusion.

What she thought about saying, but did not, is this:

“We must continue to have open and honest discussions about sexual orientation in the church — conversations that lead to peace and unity, not contempt and division.”

She feels bad about not saying that. In her piece at the UMC web site, Hawkins says she has been challenged for not broaching that subject. This post at the Reconciling Ministries Network Blog may be one such challenge.

I wonder what kind of conversation Hawkins wants to have.

‘How lonely sits the city’

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.) Continue reading