I offer a brief statement concerning the General Conference
that met in St. Louis on February 23-26.
I supported the traditionalist plan. Chris Ritter has done
some amazing work. Rather late in the process, he seemed to gravitate toward
the Connectional Conference Plan. I did not study it enough, but I am sure that
if he supported it, it must have been a good plan. The traditional plan largely
kept the language regarding sexuality the same as it has been in the United
Methodist Book of Discipline. Its affirmation of love toward all persons due to
the sacred worth and dignity of all persons is a good place to begin. Its recognition
that marriage is between a man and a woman is part of a proper understanding of
scripture and the traditions of the church. The plan did strengthen
accountability for bishops and Boards of Ordained Ministry to abide by the
covenant represented by that book. Sadly, former bishop Willimon has led the
way in calling it draconian. I reject that. I do not think the way to handle
differences within the Body of Christ is by breaking the covenant or using
deceit to wiggle your around clear statements. You are no longer a faithful
dialogue partner when you demonize the other as hateful, bigoted, and an
oppressor. I find it a sad commentary on our life together that we even need a
plan that strengthens accountability. It shows that division has already occurred.
We as a denomination, through our leadership, refuse to acknowledge that division.
A truly courageous Council of Bishops would have led the way in prayerfully
acknowledging this reality and presented some kind of two church plan, or even
a possible affiliation on matters the two groups hold in common but completely
separate in other ways. They would have separate episcopacy and discipleship
agencies. In any case, the bishops did not have the courage or vision. They do
not now have the courage and vision of a global, Methodist, protestant,
orthodox movement that could bring healing and renewal. The American churches
need to listen to what the global community is saying to us. Instead, the
American church, represented by most of the bishops, general agencies, and
famously by Adam Hamilton and Michael Slaughter, has adopted a superior and
almost colonial attitude toward many of the global church. It has continued its
arrogance toward the evangelical community.
Most of the bishops as well as general boards and agencies
long for acceptance within the progressive ideological tribe in American
politics. It embarrasses them that the UMC has stood firm in human sexuality. Its
abortion stance is also too conservative for some. These leaders of the UMC
look down upon the many persons who are conservative and/or evangelical. The
positions of the UMC regarding sexuality are an embarrassment to these leaders,
especially when they are in meetings with their progressive friends. The progressive
tribe demands conformity, and the UMC is not yet in full compliance with the
progressive agenda. The failure of American leadership to drag the denomination
into the progressive orbit is notable. The responsibility for their failure is
largely due to organizing efforts of conservatives, evangelicals, as well as
the growth of the denomination in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. As a
political conservative, I have been glad that at least a few provisions in the
Book of Discipline reflected something from the conservative-traditional side
of the spectrum, at least in its official documents. I knew the hierarchy
devoted itself to the Left of the political spectrum, but at least its official
statements were moderate to some degree. They tried to find a middle way. The statements
on human sexuality and abortion represent that middle way.
The One Church plan represented the first step toward
uniting the UMC with the progressive political cause. It would eventually lead
the UMC to adopt the full agenda of the LGBTQ caucus. This caucus promotes a
culture of sexual confusion. In American and western European culture, due to the
influence of the caucus, authorities are making decisions that affect female
sports based upon the “T” part of the caucus. These decisions will make it
increasingly difficult for women to compete successfully. Making gender a
matter of personal decision is the ultimate in perspectivism in philosophy and
the ultimate in the denial of biological fact. Beyond this specific caucus, I do
have a concern that the logic will lead toward a demand to accept polyamorous
relationships as well.
The biblical argument is clear. In the following brief
discussion, I will be alluding to well-worn biblical material. I do so because
opponents of the traditional plan have a polemical approach that seeks to lock
those who hold traditional views on human sexuality into a wooden, literal
approach to the Bible. One could make a strong case that such an approach is
impossible for anyone holding to orthodox positions, the doctrine of the
Trinity being the supreme example. I will assume the reader has some
familiarity with the biblical discussions. In the Old Testament, the
prohibitions against sexual expression outside of marriage between a man and a
woman are well known. The prophetic argument that the Lord and Israel have a
marriage relationship based upon the relationship between bride and groom is an
important one. The New Testament uses the image as well in the relationship
between Christ and the Church. Mark
10:2-16 makes it clear that Jesus understood marriage between a man and a
woman. Paul in Romans 1:24-27 makes it clear that human beings who do not have
the Torah are still accountable for how they handle truth and goodness. As human
beings turn away from truth, they also turn away from purity, engaging in acts
degrading of the body and unnatural intercourse. Ben Witherington III has offered
a good defense of the position that both Jesus and Paul knew of loving
homosexual relationships. They rejected them as acceptable practice among the
people of God. Their argument derived from a consideration of what God intended
for human sexuality in Genesis 2. I might add the Song of Solomon as well. Now,
if I heard a conversation within the Bible that some loving relationships
outside that of committed and faithful male-female relationships were possibly
acceptable Christian behavior, then I would be more open to that conversation
today. The only conversation within the biblical tradition in this matter is
whether men can have more than one wife and can add concubines. The interpretation
of the church has been on the side of a negative answer, limiting men to one
wife. Now, the fact that we find no consideration of marriage relationships
outside that of male and female suggests its difference with other practical
matters that require thoughtful consideration. I mention just a few due to
their influence on the discussion of human sexuality. These subjects have made
their way into General Conference legislation as a way to attack upon the
traditional view of human sexuality. For example, some of the statements of
Jesus suggest divorce is an absolute no, some suggest no except in case of
adultery, and Paul (I Corinthians 7) even suggests other possibilities. Another
example is women preachers. Paul seems to have a conversation with himself
about this, suggesting that women should be silent in church, but when they
prophecy (!), they should respectfully wear a covering over their heads. Paul addresses
females as heads of his house churches. Further, Luke makes it clear that the
Holy Spirit fell upon sons and daughters in order to prophecy (Acts 2). A third
example is slavery, which both testaments seem to assume as legal and a
possible practice in which the people of God can engage. Yet, the humanitarian
concerns in the both testaments are clear. Further, the household rules of Paul
make it clear that master and slave have the same Lord. The little letter of
Philemon moves us in the direction of rejecting slavery. Famously, Paul can say
that in Christ, we are neither slave nor free. In these cases, the Bible has a
conversation in process that we have a responsibility to continue, even when it
means correcting the tradition. If I were to give a full account of the good
life, I would go to the Ten Commandments, Matthew 5-7, Love of God and
neighbor, the theological virtues (faith, hope, and love), the household rules
in the New Testament, I Corinthians 13, and the list of virtues and vices (such
as in Galatians 5-6) in the New Testament. We do not need the concept of
buckets that Adam Hamilton suggested in order to treat the Bible and tradition
with respect, even while we allow the Bible to correct tradition. We simply
need a responsible and canonical approach to biblical material. Let us be
clear. The good life is a matter of obedience because we are sinners. We struggle
in different areas due to wrong desire. With sexuality, many people deal with
the allure of another sexual partner. Many people struggle with a strong
tendency toward deception and lying. Others struggle with coveting the
possessions of others and giving in to envy. Many people wrestle with their
pride and arrogance. Many people must fight against their slothful approach to
life in general and to Christian discipleship in particular. Many people
succumb to the misuse of their speech, descending into empty and harmful
chatter and gossip. Some people struggle with a tendency toward physical
violence. Obedience is difficult for us all. It requires prayer and spiritual
friendship to fight some of our deepest battles.
Here is the difficulty we face. If we say the Bible is not
our guide regarding the good life (holiness, sanctification), then it will not
be long before we also start setting aside the Bible regarding its witness to
the revelation of truth. If I were to give an exposition of that truth, I would
turn to John 1:1-18, Romans 1-11, Galatians 3-4, II Corinthians 5-6, and I
Corinthians 15. I would also turn to the creeds of the church. For many Christian
leaders today, the allure of following a different lord than the Lord Jesus
Christ is strong. For many persons in the West, progressive political and
economic ideology has become the god and the progressive elite in academia,
media, and entertainment have become the community or tribe to which they want
to belong.
If the United Methodist Church, and in particular, its
pastors, Bishops and their superintendents, and general boards and agencies, could
seize upon the opportunity this General Conference has given it, it could lead
to genuine renewal. We could separate ourselves from the narrow fundamentalism
of some groups and invite people into thoughtful, biblical reflection. We could
separate ourselves from the narrow progressive ideology that pervades the
academic, entertainment, and media worlds. We could be an agent of healing in
the midst of the divisive American political climate in the way we encourage
respectful conversation within the bounds of our covenant as represented in the
Book of Discipline. We could refuse to march in lock step with neither the
progressive movement or with the political right. We do not have to continue
the colonial spirit toward our brothers and sisters in Christ in other lands. We
have the opportunity of engaging fellow believers in thoughtful biblical and
theological discussion. We could discuss matters of truth. We could discuss what
constitutes good, holy and sanctified lives. If we truly want a way forward,
the possibility is present to do so. We could do so in way that unites with the
concerns of Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions, recognizing that a conciliar
approach to our practice of theology is the wisest course when considering
major changes. John Wesley provides an example of drawing from the Catholic,
Orthodox, and Protestant traditions in forming his view of Christian
perfection. We could engage the matter of human sexuality in a similar way. In particular,
we need to exercise great care that our theology does not follow the whims of
the current cultural and intellectual climate. In other words, rather than alienating
itself from so much of historic Christianity around the globe, the UMC could
open the door to deeper conversation.
However, the allure the leadership experiences as it seeks
to conform the UMC to the progressive ideology is strong. I do not expect the
United Methodist Church as constituted to travel the path outlined in the
previous paragraph. In fact, what I have written would no doubt receive the
label of hate-filled rhetoric. I hope a reasonable person reading this would
notice no hate. All persons are of sacred worth and dignity. The truth can be a
hard truth to share with people you love and respect. I do have a love for
truth and goodness. We need a two church plan for the sake of the mission of
the church. We need to acknowledge that division has already happened. We need
leaders bold enough to see it and act upon this acknowledgment.
