One of the issues confronting the United Methodist Church is
how it deals with the matter of human sexuality. Among the many problems here
is that these are matters best dealt with in the context of family and friends.
The process of living a human life is not easy. People struggle with their
identity, and for some that includes their sexual identity. One may have a
sexual desire that most people find difficult to understand, and may be born
with this desire. One may have difficult gender identity issues (man trapped in
female body or the reverse) that may have their cause in biology. Such issues
that are outside the norm of human behavior require love, understanding, and
compassion on a personal level. Of course, within the norm of sexual desire, we
have a wide range of practice, much of which reflects deceitfulness and
unfaithfulness. In other words, such intimate matters require much courage,
empathy, and love. They also require guidance. The church seeks to provide that
guidance in its view that marriage is between a man and a woman. The advice
goes back to Jesus, so the church that seeks to follow Jesus needs to take this
seriously.
Among the difficulties of
transferring such an intimate matter into the political realm, whether within
the church or in the society, is that people wrap up the matter into broader
political agendas. The culture is at a point of becoming increasingly secular,
and in the process, wants to liberate itself from the values and norms of the
Christian heritage of the country. The churches wrestle with the extent to
which it will resist or embrace the direction in which culture will go. Sadly,
what gets lost is what the persons involved most need – compassion and
understanding from those about whom they care.
Most people who attend General
Conference have made up their minds on the matter as a political issue before
they attend. The issue is whether the denomination should change the statement
in the social principles regarding the practice of homosexuality is
incompatible with Christian teaching. The divide in the denomination has led to
conversations that reveal differences regarding the role of church law, the
role of Scripture, and even the role of Jesus. The result has been several
plans that clearly have the desire to deal relatively rationally with the
differences. One plan wants to divide intentionally the denomination between a
classic or traditional Christianity and a progressive Christianity. Another
plan wants to keep the present UMC as is, but allow pastors who disagree with
the church rule regarding homosexuality to leave with pension intact and allows
congregations to leave peacefully with their buildings and endowments. A couple
of other plans seek a new structure for the denomination that would allow
pastors and congregations to differ on this matter, while bishops would simply
factor in these explicit statements from pastors and churches into their
appointment considerations. Yet another plan would change the discipline to
embrace fully the practice of homosexuality for membership and clergy.
I am in a
book reading group that is presently working through Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology. I have read this
theologian ever since the mid 1970s. I keep returning to him in a variety of
ways, including preparations for sermons. In the opening segments of Chapter 1,
he refers to a couple of things about “dogmatic statements” that I think apply
to this discussion.
First, even
for those outside of the denomination, the assumption is that the formulation
of a church teaching is binding on its members in some way. I was reminded of
this when discussing the UMC with my sons. They have long since left the church
behind them. At one time, they referred to how conservative the UMC was due to
its position on homosexuality. The statement in the social principles, taken
alone, simply invites us to pray and reflect on these matters. However, when
combined with other parts of the discipline, it has the force of what
historians would refer to as church law. It has a binding or covenantal element
to it. Among the many difficulties with the UMC today is that bishops and
pastors no longer feel bound. They can practice what they consider peaceful
disobedience with the objective of changing the rule. What they do not consider
seriously is that the church offers any church rule regarding human sexuality
with love and concern for others as we seek to follow Jesus. I am not sure how,
but it seems to me that we need to find a way back to respect for the authority
of church law. I can hear my opponent offer the objection that I (probably) do
not obey all the social principles. True, but I would also argue that the
discipline has elevated this particular social principle to a unique status
through its reiteration in other parts of the discipline.
At this
point, it seems like Panneberg comes down on the side of plan one. Settle upon
a position regarding a controversial point, let it be binding to those who
assent, and let others depart and bind themselves to another community with
which they can live in agreement. Our denominational age allows for this
freedom.
Second,
Pannenberg looks upon every confession of faith or article of religion, and
especially its affirmations, as by no means final. In this, he is in agreement
with Karl Barth (CD, 1.1 (7.1), who referred to all such statements as eschatological,
meaning that only God can verify the extent to which any formulation of church
teaching is true. He is arguing for continuing exposition and interpretation of
scripture and dialogue within the church as we continue on the way toward the
truth that God will make clear. Part of the point here is humility regarding
any of our personal conclusions regarding church teaching. An extension of this
humility is on the part of any official church teaching. The church must always
be open to further clarification to which the Holy Spirit and the
interpretation of scripture may give. To state it a slightly different way, any
statements regarding church teaching are not final. If they were, we would be
at the end of human history.
At this
point, Pannenberg seems to come down on the side of staying in conversation
regarding our exposition of scripture and our understanding of its truth.
Diversity in matters of Christian teaching is not a bad thing. It may stimulate
all persons to closer examination of Scripture and lead to greater adherence to
Scripture.
All of this
leads me to another statement of Pannenberg. He discusses the historical nature
of any statement of church teaching. He stresses that consensus is not the
foundation of either the content or truth of Christian teaching. One can
imagine many occasions when the consensus was wrong. Yet, he also says that
knowledge of the subject matter of scripture produces consensus. Now, this
would be true if we were equally committed to understanding scripture and applying
its insights into our lives. I have no doubt that some of my colleagues have
made changes in their values due to study of scripture. However, most of the
arguments that I hear derive from personal experience.
If I read
him right, by staying in binding and covenantal fellowship with each other, and
at the same engaging in serious exposition of scripture, we will come to
consensus regarding this matter of church teaching and law that so deeply
divides us. My experience has been that this is incredibly optimistic
statement. If I understand the argument of many of my colleagues, however,
their claim is openness to new experiences that biblical authors did not have.
I would refer to James F. McGrath, professor at Butler and the manager of the
Progressive Christianity portion of
www.patheos.com.
He specifically notes that “progressive Christians” are open to the revision of
beliefs and values based on new evidence, by which he clearly means new
philosophy, science, or experience.
The matter
of consensus is an interesting one. It cannot be the basis of truth. Yet, when
it comes to discussion of church teaching, confessional statements,
affirmations of faith, articles of religion, and social principles, an element
of consensus and rational discussion is present. To respect the role of
consensus would require humility on the part of all parties. For example, would
consensus include an ecumenical look, rather than simply a UMC look? True, some
small denominations have gone the direction of including homosexual practice as
a Christian practice rather than contrary to Christian teaching. Yet, most of
global Christianity is not at that point biblically, theologically, or
culturally. From the perspective of humility, it might be the better part of
wisdom to be in patient conversation on these matters. It would require those
who are on the side of changes in the Book of Discipline not to accuse their
opponents of being evil people, that is, haters and deniers of social justice.
It would require looking at your opponent with love and recognizing that your
opponent may well adopt their position out of love.
In 1952,
Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann had engaged in much writing of letters. They had
been friends. However, as Barth continued down the path of his Church Dogmatics, Bultmann continued the
path of the early Heidegger, existentialism, and demythologizing. The result
was the use of an image by Karl Barth. He said they were like the whale and the
elephant meeting on the shore. They shouted sounds at each other, but neither
understood the other.
I feel a
bit like that when I hear a colleague or friend say that they have taken Jesus
and the Bible seriously, and have concluded that the historic position of the
UMC, of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, and many of the churches of
Africa, Latin America, and Asia, have gotten such an important matter so wrong.
We are making sounds toward each other, but not truly hearing. I am not sure it
will improve.
Out of a
conversation with a colleague, I would share one more thing. The UMC is not
dealing with any of this in a way that will attract people to Jesus. If the UMC
could discuss these matters in a way that would be a model to others, if it had
found a way to elevate Jesus through this discussion, it would make sense to
find a middle way. However, we have not found that way. I often suggest to
people that if they are struggling with discerning whether something is in the
will of God, we ought to ask if we are growing in faith, hope, and love. We
ought to ask of we are nurturing the fruit of the Spirit or the works of the
flesh. It seems obvious to me that discussion has led to lack of faith,
lessening of love, and diminishing of hope. It does not take long to see the
works of the flesh in the way the UMC is handling this issue, such as hatred,
dissension, selfish ambition, faction, and envy. If we appeal to the seven
deadly sins, we might think of pride, greed, wrath, and maybe sloth (in the
sense of not fulfilling the mission of the church). Groups are fighting each
other, but for what reason? I assume everyone thinks they are fighting for
something “true.” Yet, it looks like we fight to gain the upper hand so that we
can impose (coerce) obedience. My problem here is that coercion is never a good
way to gain unity of the fellowship or the engage in the quest for truth.
Therefore,
I still find myself on the side of division. Why not do it now? If we did, we
should be able to get the people on both sides who say that they are following
Jesus and Scripture to lead us in a faithful division of this denomination and
the creation of at least two new denominations. These new denominations could
pursue their mission free of this debate. We might be able to do so in a way
that actually elevates Jesus Christ in our minds and hearts as well as in the
culture. In a statement that would lead to another article, I want to be clear
that the culture is getting beyond simply ignoring the church. The culture is
quickly moving to a place where it will be acceptable to declare classic
Christianity as hate speech. In other words, even though most of the citizens
view themselves as Christian, the challenge will be on from those who shape the
culture and the political life to conform to the culture. The church has large
“fish to fry,” no matter which side one comes down in this matter. Our time is
now to focus on the big issues, whether traditional or classic Christian. Rather
than unravel wither, why not divide and grow?
