UMC General Conference 2019

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.