Saying goodbye is not easy, so I feel the pain of those congregations and pastors who are leaving the United Methodist Church. My situation as a retired pastor of the United Methodist Church, one who has moved away from his home conference in Indiana, and one who has not immediately re-engaged after retirement, means an existential crisis does not face me in the split of the UMC. I choose to remain in a denomination that is changing into something different from that which I joined in 1982. I am not sure the forming Global United Methodist Church would accept me. However, I have been in favor of such a split for a decade or more, but now that it is on the immediate horizon, I offer a few words.
For the United Methodist Church, I wish nothing but the best. I have agreed with your Wesleyan-Arminian theology. I have appreciated the spiritual roots of John Wesley in the protestant and catholic devotional tradition. I have appreciated the evangelical tradition of Wesley, Edwards, and Whitefield, and the rich heritage of the revivalist tradition. I have preached and taught the grace of God as prevenient, justifying, and sanctifying in its transforming power. I have preached and taught the priority of scripture, the value of tradition in guiding our reflections upon scripture, the use of our rationality to understand it all properly, and the application of what we believe to hearts and lives. That tradition has had a keen sense of uniting the gospel with care for the social stresses of each generation. I appreciate the classical liberal tradition of openness to contemporary thought and to social involvement. I love the United Methodist Church. Nothing has changed my love for the UMC. If it remains true to its mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, then our hearts unite, and we are friends of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Having an honest conversation is difficult. Our post-modern differentiation into various groups creates an environment that looks suspiciously and condescendingly toward those with whom our group disagrees and embeds us further into the group with which we identify. Respect for our commonality in our creation as the image of God and in our goal of the Holy Spirit conforming us into the image of the Son seems lost amid our differentiation. The most heart-wrenching issue of all, however, is that the world needs Jesus, now more than ever. As the world dissolves into increasing differentiating into groups that justify anger and violence toward others, the responsibility of the church to point the way to Jesus becomes harder to fulfill. The external pressure would be difficult enough. The church has increased the pressure on itself as it experiences multiple cultures.
I do have concerns regarding the emerging expression of United Methodism.
One concern is the abuse of power by the bishops. The UMC has established a tradition that if bishops disagree with the decisions of General Conference, they have the right to view themselves as being prophetic and heeding the next progressive calling as a word from God. Their pledge to govern by the discipline no longer means what it used to mean. Gone are the days when one could say that they disagree with the Book of Discipline but will govern by what it says. I view this as a danger to the denomination.
Two is the concern that while the denomination has made the embrace of a non-traditional approach to sexuality a dividing-line between the good and righteous position versus the bad and evil position of the traditional approach, the risk is a new form of fundamentalism and self-righteousness. Leaders of the denomination seem willing to sit in judgment of not only two millennia of Christian tradition, but well over three-fourths of the Christians in the world today. Leadership sits in judgment of those who hold to the traditional view of human sexuality within the UMC.
Regarding sexuality, we can all agree that sexual desire is strong for most human beings. We can also agree that few Christians have adhered to the highest ideals of Christian teaching in this area. We can agree that we need to have much grace toward each other in this critical area of our lives. I hope we can agree that there are some forms of sexual expression that are beyond the approval of the church. I may disagree with the leadership of the UMC as to where that line might be but assume we can agree that there are proper lines to draw. I am sure you do not think that our love for our neighbors means we must embrace what they believe or what they do. In the area of human sexuality, you make it sound as if it is impossible for me to love people who do not embrace traditional Christian expressions of our sexuality. I strongly disagree.
When I give myself time to reflect upon my four decades with the United Methodist Church, I question two oft-quoted but rarely practiced values today. One is that United Methodism is a big tent. Such a notion may be impossible in our post-modern age of differentiation. As one who has come to accept conservative political beliefs and as one who values the traditional beliefs of the church, the United Methodist Church does not feel like it has a large enough tent to include me. Thus, my concern is that as it gravitates toward beliefs and values embraced by the current expression of progressive thinking, it will subordinate any theological positions it takes to a progressive political ideology. The UMC claims it is a global church. Yet, the agenda of many American church leaders is to distance the American church from the African and Asian churches, which are in the process of becoming the home of more United Methodists than does American Methodism.
I think the United Methodist Church lost a fantastic opportunity. It could have separated itself from the narrow fundamentalism of some groups and invite people into thoughtful, biblical reflection. It could separate Itself from the narrow progressive ideology that pervades the academic, entertainment, and media worlds. It could have been an agent of healing during the divisive American political climate in the way it encouraged respectful conversation within the bounds of the covenant as represented in the Book of Discipline. It could refuse to march in lock step with neither the progressive movement nor with the political right. It did not have to continue the colonial spirit toward brothers and sisters in Christ in other lands. It could have had the opportunity of engaging fellow believers in thoughtful biblical and theological discussion. It could discuss matters of truth. It could discuss what constitutes good, holy, and sanctified lives. If it genuinely wanted a way forward, the possibility was present to do so. It could do so in way that unites with the concerns of Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions, recognizing that a conciliar approach to the 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. It could engage the matter of human sexuality in a comparable way. It needed to exercise great care that 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.
Most of the bishops as well as general boards and agencies long for acceptance within the progressive ideology in American politics. It embarrasses them that the UMC has stood firm on a traditional view of 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. Given the nature of post-modern differentiation, the progressive culture 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 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 progressive cause, but at least its official statements it had moderate elements. They tried to find a middle way. The statements on human sexuality and abortion represent that middle way.
Here is the difficulty the UMC faces. If it says the Bible is not the guide regarding the good life (holiness, sanctification), then it will not be long before it also starts 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 to which they want to belong.
The UMC is on its way to adopt the full agenda of the LGBTQ caucus. I stress that we are to love our neighbors, regardless of lifestyle. In my view, 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.
This leads me to say a word to the moderates and conservatives who choose to stay within the United Methodist Church. You will make peace with the idea that some United Methodist pastors and congregations will embrace teachings and behaviors that you cannot. If your Annual Conference forms a covenant with you that says it will respect your views and send you pastors to accepting congregations and send conservative congregations agreeable pastors, I wish you the best. I mean that sincerely. However, my concern is that with what I have seen from progressive bishops, the covenant cannot last long. You see, they view you as bigoted and unjust because of your position in upholding traditional Christian sexual ethics. If you are a conservative pastor, I predict your bishop will eventually compel you to endorse beliefs and behaviors you presently find objectionable. If your congregation is conservative, I predict your bishop will eventually force you to receive a pastor who does not respect your beliefs or values. I want to be wrong about this.
I have been part of the Confessing movement in Indiana. I have attended Wesleyan Covenant Association worship gatherings. The spirituality and fellowship I found in such gatherings have touched me. I have appreciated the love I have felt there for the United Methodist Church and for the desire to be faithful to the spirituality and theological stance of John Wesley. I appreciate the global sense of the faith, especially the growth of Methodism in Africa. It has reminded me that Christianity as Americans experience it is in the minority when we consider the two millennia of church history.
I am unclear what the Global Methodist Church will look like, but I trust those whom I know will be leaders to form the church well to fulfill its mission. I like the idea of term limits for Bishops. I first came across this in the Free Methodist Church and it feels right to me that bishops will have to live as pastors with their rulings. I get why the guaranteed appointment are set aside, given its potential for abuse. The smaller legislative overhead gives the new denomination flexibility to adjust to our rapidly changing environment.
I do have a concern.
Legalism is not a good look for the Church that belongs to Jesus Christ. Jesus fought against it. Paul did as well. Faithfulness to what we understand to be classic Christianity is something we must maintain with humility. There are many schools of thought within the Christian tradition. Beyond that, we need to remember that the teaching itself points us to a mystery of the divine that is beyond our full comprehension. Further, the simple command to love God and our neighbor, the thought that love fulfills the law, the affirmation that faith, hope, and love abide, but the greatest of these is love, and the reminder that God is love, must always be before us. The effect of this is that no matter how weakly we do it, we welcome others and love them, regardless of how much we might differ from them in what we think or the values we hold.
I am thinking of specific colleagues and laity with whom I disagree. I continue to love them and hold them in esteem. I wish them the best. Obviously, I am not one who thinks that unity is something that we should seek at all costs. We live in a denominational age. It has its challenge at the point of respecting those who have differing theological traditions, systems of governance, and values. Christianity has lived with that challenge and thrived. If the United Methodist Church can divide in a respectful way, it will be a witness to the world that our oneness in Christ is far more important to us than any institutional brand we may possess.
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 compelling 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. Robert Mulholland 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 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 to attack 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 has a conversation with himself about this, suggesting in I Corinthians 11 and 14 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 to prophecy (Acts 2). All this opens the way for a conversation, when the time was right, for female clergy. For many evangelical movements, that time was in the 1800s, while many traditional denominations, including the UMC, took much longer. A third example is slavery, which both testaments assume as legal and a practice in which the people of God can engage. Yet, the humanitarian concerns in 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. When the time was right, thoughtful biblical and theological reflection led many faithful persons to oppose slavery. 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 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. 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.
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, and I have fallen short in both. I am not sure the emerging Global Methodist Church would appreciate my approach to the Bible or the tradition that I expressed in the previous paragraph. I conclude abruptly in saying that I have some difficulty feeling like I belong anywhere in the differentiating, presently deconstructing UMC.
No comments:
Post a Comment