by Chris Ritter
Did you feel that? The conversation about sexuality in the United Methodist Church just shifted. Phrases like “openness”, “inclusion”, “diversity”, and “staying at the table together” are quickly giving way, in one sector of our church, to a stance of no-compromise with those who read the scriptures differently than their accepted fundamental view. And this shift is happening on the left. Those who will feel the squeeze, however, are those in the center. Simply put, the middle ground in our denomination is eroding before our eyes.
Two examples over the weekend illustrate this.
One was the public abandonment of the moderate position by Dr. Steve Harper, professor emeritus of Asbury Seminary. Harper was recently welcomed to the middle with great fanfare as Abingdon published For the Sake of the Bride. The book argued for the church staying at the same table, maintaining unity, being non-judgmental, and creating more room for clergy to follow their individual conscience on matters related to homosexuality. Harper opened the door to the possibility that, despite the traditional reading of the scriptures, new paradigms might be opening that would take time and much conversation to fully understand. Here was a figure associated with the traditionalist side of our denomination that moved to the middle in order to call the church to greater unity.
That didn’t last long.
On Saturday Harper was a featured speaker at Reconciling Ministry Network’s “Draw the Circle Wider” event in Orlando. During his 45-minute speech, he outlined his process of full conversion on homosexual practice in the church and threw down a gauntlet to those he might have agreed with only a couple years earlier. He strongly endorsed gay marriage in the church and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. He framed those of contrary opinion as on the wrong side of righteousness and promised to not be silent until the whole church changes.
Not only are people like Harper finding the middle ground untenable, but Progressives are actively seeking to expedite the centrist collapse. On Friday Jeremy Smith of Hacking Christianity likened those with a traditional view of scripture to those who deny the reality of climate change. They are no longer entitled to their opinions because they are negatively affecting the whole church and hurting others. They are “church betrayers.” Judases, if you will. The shift in language from Common Table to Crusade is hard to miss. Jeremy and those like him don’t want to be in a church with diverse opinions on the matters of homosexuality. They want to root out the Judases, enforce uniformity of thought, and heal the perceived damage caused by traditionalists.
Once it is allowed that there might be a legitimate reading of the Christian scriptures that somehow permits homosexual practices in the life of the church, there is tremendous pressure exerted by our culture and its chaplains to accept only that reading. Never mind that the hermeneutical gymnastics needed for such an interpretation require multiple contorted leaps from the starting point of an established agenda (the very definition of eisegesis). Never mind the two thousand years of unanimous Christian thought about those texts. The exotic reading of the text must become the exclusive reading and all else abandoned in light of the new orthodoxy. I sometimes think that the most stressed person in our denomination right now must be Adam Hamilton. He has opened a door for a reading of scripture that allows for legitimacy of homosexual practice while not yet stating whether he would perform a same-sex wedding if allowed to do so. He will only feel the tightrope narrow under his feet. The victim of absolutism is moderation.
You will perhaps forgive those of traditionalist leanings for seriously questioning their place in a denomination with such dynamics running rampant. If they feel targeted now while upholding the official positions of our denomination, what might happen if those standards collapse? It is not delusional to foresee a program of ecclesial cleansing where traditionalists are viewed as the contaminant. Features of our connectional covenant like the appointive system and open itineracy could be uniquely destructive if weaponized.
The landscape is indeed bleak for those of us who continue to champion an institutionally united church. We must start by honestly acknowledging that two incompatible worldviews are at work within our denomination. Progressives assume that a church that is not welcoming to all has no future in an ever-diversifying world. Conservatives assume that a church that has lost its grasp on the plain teaching of scripture can only further lose its distinctive message and dissolve into the wider culture. Remaining Moderates realize that this debate is poisoning the atmosphere with distrust and preventing us from working together meaningfully on weightier issues of mission and ministry.
The structural solutions I have authored are aimed at creating space for divergent visions of the UMC to move forward under a compartmentalized tent. By re-imagining our jurisdictional system, we can create space in our church for experimentation instead of wasting precious time on fruitless crusades to convert ourselves to a single way of thinking. This will not satisfy the extremes at either end of our denomination but could create new and compelling laboratories for ministry. If, a decade or so hence, it becomes apparent that one side was misguided, they can shift to the other side of the tent and I am sure their repentance would be accepted. We are United Methodists, after all.
Although we are only fourteen months away from General Conference 2016, The Jurisdictional Solution remains the only major proposal for church unity that has released legislative language. It is time to either get serious about the Jurisdictional Solution or publish legislation for a better idea. The no-compromise approach increasingly espoused by the left will only lead us to an irreparable break.
People Need Jesus 
Perhaps I didn’t give this a fair reading, but it seems like what you are not quite saying is that the progressives are becoming as unwilling to compromise as the traditionalists?
Thanks for the comment and the gentle and respectful way you made your point. I am a traditionalist on this issue but feel like it is time to admit we are not in agreement and probably will never be. I am not in favor, however, of making “we don’t agree” as our official denominational position for the very reasons articulated in my post. The UMC would become the Old West and domination by the strongest would become the rule conference by conference. The jurisdictional solution puts everyone under a covenant with which they can live. Thanks for taking time to read the post and comment.
The rhetorical histrionics are only being ramped up because the far left knows that their only hope (outside of a Judicial Council trump card) is to shame and chase away everyone who disagrees with (or even raises questions about) their agenda. The middle needs to hold its ground and realize the idiocy for what it is.
I fully agree about Harper, though. His middle/centrist/alternative perspective credentials are shot.
Christopher,
Adding to the squeeze this weekend is yet another week passes as we wait for one of the conservative cacuases to publicly signal they are willing to seriously engage the compromise conversation. Good News flirted at the end of last year with the idea of coming to the table seeking to change the conversation but now seem to have retreated back to entrenchment.
Thanks, Doug. I would like to see Good News make a joint statement with a Progressive Group on the viability of a Jurisdictional Solution. I hope we can all strike a more hopeful tone soon.
Good News is ready to consider making such a statement. We are waiting on a Progressive Group that is willing to join us in backing a jurisdictional plan. Without the backing of both sides, it is doubtful that a jurisdictional plan could pass.
I think we have the news story of the day. Thank you, Tom Lambrecht, for making this offer. Let’s see in anyone from Reconciling Ministry Network will join in a joint endorsement. That would indeed be a very hopeful sign for the future of the UMC!
Thanks Tom for your reply. The United Methodist Centrist Movement will present a petition asking for a theologically balanced task force coming out of Portland to consider all the compromise plans, choose one, perfect, and present to the 2020 GC. If there is no shared consensus on the JP going into Portland would Good News back a task force coming out of Portland to lead and refine this work of choosing a plan to further perfect or craft a third way plan not yet on the table to present to the GC 2020? Praying with you for the unity of our church.
We are willing to consider any option, Doug. Having said that, we believe 2016 is a pivotal year. Four more years of the current reality could put the church into a death spiral from which it could not recover. I am not sure that we could hold our constituency in place for another four years of the same disobedience. But we will consider your idea.
Tom is right. 2016 in the deciding year. Another 4 years of the same disobedience is unGodly and unacceptable.
Chris – I’m afraid your post today misses the forest (the Methodist middle) and the misidentifies the trees (Harper and Smith) even while you do make some good points.
The “forest” you’re missing is where is the Methodist Middle today. It’s not shrinking or under unfair attack from the left. Rather, the moderate base of our membership is evolving: (1) increasingly to support same sex marriage, (2) increasingly concerned about unity in the face of ecclesial disobedience and threats of schism, and (3) increasingly becoming more vocal and public about both issues. That seems strange to write given where we were just 10 years ago as a church. But it is true for the church in America. Many things have changed over 40 years, but one key change is civil marriage equality so that we can hold the same Christian ethic of both gay and straight members — chastity in singleness and faithfulness in marriage. And with this change, no one would force pastors to marry or not-to-marry anyone. There are plenty of theological conservatives and evangelicals who can get on-board along with many progressives and the moderates.
As for trees… You seem to equate Steve Harper’s full support for same sex marriage in the church as negating his book which “argued for the church staying at the same table, maintaining unity, being non-judgmental, and creating more room for clergy to follow their individual conscience on matters related to homosexuality.” How are these incompatible? I gather he’d like the Book of Discipline to be changed in places where it prevents many of today’s clergy from officiating same sex marriage ceremonies. He hasn’t said all pastors must agree with him nor that all pastors must be forced to officiate at same sex marriages. Your thesis is that space for moderates is shrinking and you cite Harper as a guy who moved to the middle on this issue and then found it untenable and was forced to move further left. Seems to me that he is still in the middle and the nudging that got him to the middle was by the Holy Spirit.
You have a stronger case for Jeremy Smith’s blog as evidence of some pressure on moderates, but then you take your criticism too far. Indeed he is “calling out” moderates who believe its okay for some of us to affirm same sex marriage but who are unwilling to vocalize that support due to fear. This is analogized to to politicians who believe climate change is happening but cannot bring themselves to publicly say so due to fear. That’s the “betrayal” that was central to his analogy — not about people who disagree sincerely but rather about people who won’t speak up. That is a valid point, even I would have preferred a different tone. But then, Chris, I think you go too far in suggesting that means that progressives-as-a-group are intent on running traditionalists-as-a-group out of the church. Jeremy did not say that, and if you look at his broader body of writing, he’s written a lot — and thoughtfully too — about unity and in opposition to schism.
While some few traditionalists and very few progressives might wish each other gone, we learned last year that 90% of surveyed UMCers want unity and eschew schism. Regardless of who “from the wings” might speak the loudest, the moderates will not let anyone get pushed out. That’s my assessment of the likely reality, and it is very much my hope.
I appreciate you Chris for both your good intentions — and hard work — articulating a possible structural solution to help us live together and avoid schism. I pray God’s blessings on you and the others likewise seeking solutions whether they back Adam Hamilton or the Connectional Table or something yet to be identified. Let’s stay at it together for good of the Kingdom work before us. Peace.
Dave,
I appreciate how you laid out your points. We’re not quite on the same page but I certainly agree that many voices have not been heard and should be. As the rhetoric ramps up it gets increasingly difficult to muster the courage to speak, to be heard and to be taken seriously. I’ve seen many congregations deal lovingly and faithfully with this issue in their own context, showing grace and wisdom without a wit of consideration to what the activists of the moment are shouting. I think a proper resolution involves a quieting of the extremes while people of faith work out a Spirit-led transformation that does no violence to our historic faith or the people that identify with it. What I’m saying is that the most vociferous debaters could learn something from being quiet and watching how some in the middle have actually made it work. One opinion, for what it’s worth.
Dave,
Thank you for your thoughtful response and fair representation of the different voices.
In my opinion, “The sky is falling” approach of extreme viewpoints and marshaling “our side” against them is not moving us forward.
Chris, just a clarification: the quotation about “Christ/Sophia” was quoted by Jeremy, not spoken by him. You may want to clarify that.
Thanks for the help. I will make that change.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, Dave. Your words are always respectful and thought provoking. For the purpose of this post I define the middle as those who desire a UMC with more than one acceptable approach to homosexuality.
Here is my best attempt at a transcription of Harper’s final comments in his speech Saturday:
“I am seeing Christian faith in ways that resemble my own experience as a teenager in the Civil Rights era in the ‘60’s in West Texas where cliché’s like “separate but equal” were actually used to cover over… racism. I lived through those horrible times and other times, so I can see through the “I love you, but” rhetoric which hides unchristian [audio lapse]-ism in our both our society and church. I also see the same kind of prophetic courage coming from leaders who, for Christ’s same, who cannot remain silent or passive about any of God’s children, any of God’s children being misjudged or mistreated anywhere. I can tell you today that I have changed my mind about human sexuality. But I cannot do this without being also sure to make clear to you that I believe that I believe it is possible to be gay and Christian (even if Michael Brown puts a question mark after those phrases in his book) I believe it is possible for two people of the same gender to be married in society, and in the church. I believe that there is a way, with privilege and accountability, to ordain men and women into the clergy of our denomination (and why not because we have gay clergy serving right now) But I cannot tell you that I have changed my mind about human sexuality without also telling you today that I am not here simply as an ally, I am here today as your brother. I am here to join the growing number of people who are saying, in the spirit of Isaiah, “For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent, for Jerusalem’s sake I won’t sit still, until her righteousness shines out like a light and her salvation blazes like a torch.”
As I read these comments I see someone who has shifted to a position of converting the church to a single, Progressive position on this issue.
How do you feel about either of the Jurisdictional Solutions as a possible way forward?
I did chase down two internet copies of the Harper speech. The first one was scratchy and I’m guessing the same one you had as well. Try this second for a more clear recording: http://youtu.be/2ayOkX7oRm0?list=PLirW3GlVHv-OO1aMcX_nf7W6srb6Pz2ES While that fills in the minor gaps in your transcription, I’d say you got that text right. But what you missed was the gist of his spirit. He has not converted to the progressive camp theologically. To play back his entire speech is to hear a very evangelical, Bible-based and Spirit-led message. Yes, he clearly is in favor of our denomination affirming same sex marriage. But, no, I did not hear him dictating that his single position to push on every clergy person regardless of individual conscience. He didn’t say how to make that change (which I’m guessing is going back to pre-1972 BoD). I did not hear anything that contradicted his book either (remembering that book was about unity and ways of holy conversation by which we can preserve it in spite of our differences on this question … whereas this talk was specifically about “how did I change my mind”).
Now, in response to your request for feedback on jurisdictional solution(s), Chris, let me say the following:
I appreciate your good intentions and hard work to make any proposal at all. I’ve commented elsewhere that I’d really like to see a summary of all the plans listing ONLY the positives of each plan. So far what we tend to see are summaries criticizing each plan or blog posts criticizing one at a time. I take it that you are looking for balanced feedback, so I’ll try, but please hear the praise louder than the constructive criticism. 🙂
I have flirted with various proposals (A Way Forward, yours, and others) and find some things to like and dislike in each one. As I plan for Portland in my lowly role as 1st alternate lay delegate, I will keep my mind open and see how the Holy Spirit moves us. I appreciate plan sponsors who bring forward ideas and yet remain open to refinement. I’ve not yet seen the perfect balance of “best steps forward” and “politically viable.” My principles support full inclusion of LGBTQ persons in membership, mission, marriage and leadership of UMC. But I’m a practical individual myself and not an absolutist. And I care a lot about the future of our denomination and the health and growth of our local churches. At this point, I do not endorse any of the plans.
I agree completely with your goal of keeping our big tent UMC intact and avoiding schism. I agree that doing so means continuing to respect and retain clergy and members with a diversity of views on scripture and LGBTQ inclusion. This agreement is what makes you and me both “moderates together” even though we hold opposite views on same sex marriage. I appreciate that your jurisdictional solution(s) were crafted to address both these shared goals, but I’m still hopeful for even better way(s). I hope we can trust our clergy more and also allow for their on-going discernment/evolution (in either direction) with respect to marriage equality.
I also appreciate how your analysis recognizes the downsides of forcing lots of congregational votes (i.e., hard on a congregation if not healthy to begin with) and/or tricky super majorities (n.b., imagine going against a 51% or 60% vote if when 66% was needed!). I hope other proposals “still in refinement” will take heed of that.
My biggest worries about your proposal are (1) its segregating LGBTQ and allies away from the general church (i.e., too reminescent of the 1939 Jim Crow approach … this would be the effect even though not your intent), (2) its potential instability as a temporary fix to a fluid situation (assuming years of votes and later revotes to switch sides), and (3) my fear that this could morph into a trial separation that morphs into divorce.
Also let me gently suggest that your proposal does a disservice to the Methodist Middle. (1) The two sides you offer seem crafted to suit the left or the right, but neither is truly comfortable for the middle. (2) The choice is to “pick a side soon” when the reality is that opinions held by the Methodist Middle are still significantly evolving. The “middle of 2016” will look very different from 2012 and unrecognizable by the middles of 1972 or 1996. What of the middle of 2020 or 2024?
Similarly, I’m troubled by any plan that equates support for same sex marriage with only progressive theology and hermeneutics. There are evangelical LGBTQ persons who want to worship in evangelical UMC churches. There are evangelical UMC ministers who want officiate at same gender weddings on a non-discriminatory basis. That was not evident in the 1972 – 2012 debates. But following the conversation in 2014, it is very clear that significant numbers of American evangelicals – and especially evangelical youth – are growing in support for full inclusion and marriage equality.
Let conclude back on a positive note: I appreciate your analysis, creative ideas and diligence in fleshing out your proposals. Inspiring really that one guy has done so much alone. It can’t be easy and surely the cynic’s adage “no good deed goes unpunished” has cross your mind reading comments. So please hear my “thank you”, Chris, and please continue to advocate for unity. Peace.
PS: My wife would have me say that the baby picture at top of this post is very cute too. 🙂
Excellent analysis, Chris. I was there Saturday, and surprised by the difference in tone from Steve Harper’s book. Upping the ante is an old tactic that is being overused to try to draw conservatives to abandon the plain sense of Scripture.
“Theological liberalism is an indicator if institutional decline not only because it tries to minimize the necessary tension between gospel and culture by eliminating the offending bits, but because basically it is a parasitical ideology. Theological liberalism always comes later in the history of a movement, and it is normally associated with its decline.” Alan Hirsh, The Forgotten Ways
And at the same time did you know that the local pastor and congregation that led the http://www.backtohisword.org campaign was stripped of his license and the congregation has since left the UMC and joined with the Wesleyan Church? Regardless of what you think about Rev. Campbell and the “Back to His Word” effort, it is telling that this pastor was stripped of his license when Bishop Talbert and other like those in the RMN or Jeremy Smith can say whatever they want about the UMC and find no retribution. It seems to be alright to be a fundamentalist on the left, even encouraged, but those on the right will get punished (even in places like Indiana).
Perhaps the time has come to no longer be UNITED Methodist! Jesus himself set the precedent for cleaning the Temple. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Social and cultural change is just that. People change!
https://peopleneedjesus.net/2014/12/04/how-big-names-in-evangelical-united-methodism-came-to-support-a-jurisdictional-solution/
I hope it doesn’t come to that. Below is a link to another post that includes some information you might find worth reading. Thanks for taking time to read and post.
I urge anyone who has questions regarding Saturday’s RMN speech by Dr. Harper to talk with him directly. If you read “For the Sake of the Bride,” you will recall that holy conversation is what he is urging everyone to engage in. Just a thought….
Chris, you have really presented, again, a factual and reasonable assessment.
It’s time for some straight talk. Despite their rhetoric, it is clear that liberal fundamentalists are not accepting of a church which is “not of one mind” on homosexual practice. Orthodox believers–who have Scripture, reason, natural law and 2000 years of Christian understandings on THEIR side–are no more rigid than sexual liberationists, who are peacemaking compromisers only insofar as they can placate the major funders of the church (who are mostly conservative).
If one drops back and looks at the situation in purely objective terms the scene becomes surreal. The inmates have taken over the asylum and are now dictating the terms of release. The thief has stolen and is now determining what–if anything–he will return.
No, the best solution is to formalize the separation which has already occurred. We are not of one mind, and may no longer be of one faith. A spouse cannot live with a serial adulterer. As Scott Peck stated some years ago, sometimes a divorce is what God reluctantly calls us to.
I agree wholeheartedly with you, cleareyedtruthmeister. I am not so devoted to “unity” (at any price, apparently) that I am willing to “compromise” on the Truth of scripture as it relates to homosexual practice, and I am tired, after 40-plus years of this unending “dialogue,” of sexual libertines trying to take over the United Methodist Church. If they have a problem with the UMC’s charitable and reasonable policy regarding homosexual practice (which faithfully reflects God’s clear design for human sexuality as ordained at Creation), then let THEM leave the church and form their own new faith community. I realize that’s much easier said than done, but how much longer can this “house divided” that we call United Methodism, stand?
Enough of the wishy-washy talk; many of us as laity are sick of it, crying out for SOMEONE to take a stand for biblical morality and then to ENFORCE it within the church when renegade pastors flout church law, not to mention scripture, by endorsing gay “marriage” and performing same-sex ceremonies. Please, formalize the separation that has, in effect, already taken place. Stop being lukewarm, Laodicean Methodists: cut the apostates loose (as the Missouri-Synod Lutherans did in the Seminex uprising of the 70’s) and as seems to be Paul’s recommendation in Romans 5 regarding the man who was, er— “involved” with his mother/stepmother. Until lawbreakers repent and seek to return to the fold, we must separate ourselves from them.
As you know, Jesus sometimes calls us to be divided, son from father, etc., particularly when it comes to matters of disagreement concerning the Truth. “Unity” at any and all costs is no virtue.
Charles A. Hake
Nashville, IL (Grace UMC)
P.S. I am almost afraid to ask this, as I sense a lukewarm compromise (of Truth) in the making, but exactly just what is “the Jurisdictional Solution” that’s been proposed?
I hear your frustration, Charles. I am going to share some links that will offer an explanation of the Jurisdictional Solution.
https://peopleneedjesus.net/2014/12/04/how-big-names-in-evangelical-united-methodism-came-to-support-a-jurisdictional-solution/
https://peopleneedjesus.net/2015/01/31/should-the-umc-have-two-jurisdictions-or-six/
You can also visit http://www.jurisdictionalsolution.org
Charles, I could not agree more strongly.
It seems totally illogical that liberals would want to stay in a church that they seem to find so repressive; but there is an old saying: follow the money. When I am confused about what is going on it often helps to illuminate the way.
Here is what I think is happening: Bishops and many pastors don’t want to rock the boat because they are concerned about their retirement benefits. Liberals cry for unity–while continuously agitating for changing Scripture and the BOD to their liking–because they know they do not fund the church. Moderates and conservatives give far more, per capita, than liberals do.
So heres the game liberals play: have others continue to fund the church while they attain positions of leadership in order to push their agenda. Nice work if you can get it.
Hello and thank you for your article.
I was wondering about the Jurisdictional Solution and Annual Conferences overseas. I am an elder in the UMC Norway church. We have an annual conference and belong to a central conference. What would the J.S. mean for us? Would we vote on which American non-geographic Jurisdiction?
Thanks,
Andreas Kjernald
A great question. Greetings from the USA! This is a U.S. only plan at this stage. I suppose the plan could be configured to allow Central Conferences the same liberties, but, honestly, I don’t know enough about your situation to make suggestions on your behalf. Are the same debates happening in the UMC in Europe? I imagine they would even be more acute. Or are you, like the Western Jurisdiction, in consensus that the BOD is wrong? I would love to hear from you on this because I have never spoken with a European UM about the plan.
Hello,
Yes, it is happening here too. The majority is for changing the language but here in Norway it is about 50-50 or 60-40 for keeping it. I agree with the BoD…which makes things interesting. I wonder about the whole US vs. the world thing I often see. I have spent over 10 years living in the States. My wife’s grandfather was a dean at Asbury Seminary. I got my M.Div from Wesley Biblical Seminary in MS. I love the States…but sometimes you forget about the world. No offense.
I believe that the J.S. plan sounds a little like “schism-lite”. To be honest, I would prefer a clean split than having to live in a “jurisdiction” within a “church”. That just sounds like a practical way of solving important practical matters (pensions, properties, etc.). It doesn’t do anything about the more important spiritual unity. I mean, all elders vow to preach and teach the Church’s faith and not their own. How would that work if there is one church with two jurisdictions…and how would that solution be any different from two actual churches?
I know J.S. is an attempt to avoid a schism but would it be that much worse? There are already loads of Methodist churches around. I really like the Free Methodist church, for example.
I don’t know how we can stay one Church (never mind jurisdictions) and not look like two churches for all intents and purposes. Technically, this is happening already as we have bishops all over the map and we have entire districts and conferences doing whatever they want without consequences. To be honest, the UMC is more and more looking like a laughing stock or a yawn and I don’t like either one. At all.
How can darkness live with light?
How can a divided kingdom stand?
No, I think you are right in that the progressive side will never leave on their own no matter what. Thus, why don’t those of us who are orthodox in our beliefs leave and form a new church? Practically speaking it would be a nightmare but I’m positive the practical details about pensions and churches and boards could be split along the lines and done well. Imagine if the progressives were to “win” and keep the Methodist name and the rest of us just got around to doing God’s work without their influence. They can keep the old church. We would start over with a brand new church…or better yet, continue on as if God was with us and just do the stuff we love.
No offense taken to the truth! Thanks for the perspective.
I am so thankful for our brothers and sisters who just tell it like it is. Everyone in USA UMC gets so caught up in the culture of PC that they rarely every say what they feel. I’m a student pastor who has been serving for about seven years now and I have to agree that the statement that the UMC is “either a laughing stock or a yawn” is succinct but oh so true. And I also don’t understand why we want to be one church but two jurisdictions. I know that the Chris Ritter only wants to find some kind of way out of this mess while sticking together in some way – and I commend him for that. But the very first impression that I got when I read the jurisdictional plan was it was in some way saying that it would be perfectly alright for the progressives to start their own church and promote homosexual behavior as perfectly alright in God’s eyes. But that goes against my own conscience. If some kind of plan is agreed upon, I will just have to move on somewhere else. And if that was the first impression that it gave me (and also our brother from Norway), then what kind of impression will our laity have? From what I have heard and read online, people are having a very negative reaction to it. And it’s not just one side – it’s both sides.
I also want to say that our brother in Norway is right about saying, “Just let them have it.” This system is broken. We have not grown in the U.S. since the merger in 1968. How is that acceptable? UM culture has just come to accept mediocrity. Their is no passion for the lost – heck, you’re liable to get ridiculed for referring to people as “lost.” I came back to the UMC (grew up in but left) because of reading how Wesley preached the gospel and effectively made disciples through classes, bands, and other modes of spiritual formation. Did I find that actually being practiced in the UMC. No – I found lame old Sunday School classes that few attended and everyone seemed to be burnt out on. I found unwritten rules that said that “if you use the word prevenient grace over and over, you’re really a UMC’er” or “kiss the DS’s butt if you want to stay in your appointment or get a better one.” I found a church that is beyond out of touch. There is some great people here. I love Aldersgate Renewal ministries and Asbury and there are a few pastors who have not succumbed to the fog – but the rest is sad and it’s going to be gone in the next few years. Some areas have went way beyond saving.
Go look at the ACNA. They took their stand, they lost their buildings, and they went through all sorts of pain. But they are also baptizing new converts, creating new worship materials, planting new churches . . . good stuff. They are not sitting around tables with people they don’t even like arguing about things that are not going to be agreed upon. What’s the point of sticking together? How is that going to help preach the gospel, make disciples, or plant churches? It takes an act of congress right now to plant a church . . . and don’t even get me started on how clueless our leadership is when it comes to planting churches.
Sorry to write a book here but it feels good to get some of my thoughts in writing. I’m going to be graduating right around 2016-2017 and I am sure that what happens at GC will direct my future. If it’s the same ol’, same ol’ – I just don’t want any part of it.
“Once it is allowed that there might be a legitimate reading of the Christian scriptures that somehow permits homosexual practices in the life of the church, there is tremendous pressure exerted by our culture and its chaplains to accept only that reading. ”
A question from the pew–and I might easily be missing something–but how is the jurisdictional plan NOT allowing “that there might be a legitimate reading of the scriptures that somehow permit homosexual practices in the life of the church?”
You are creating space for both views to co-exist. So if somebody was standing on the outside looking at the denomination trying to discern who we are, couldn’t we be perceived as a “mushy middle”, not believing one way or the other?
A valid question, for sure. The JS attempts to put everyone under a covenant they can live with so that other views will not be forced upon them. It creates compartments because we read an apply scripture in incompatible ways and seeks to avoid violations of conscience. The two sides don’t have to see each other’s approach as legitimate, just intractable. Thanks for your thoughtful question.
Do we make such an allowance for any other sin? Is their any other sin that we so trouble ourselves to redefine as a non-sin or something for which we must permit a double-standard? What is so unclear about the plain meaning of scripture regarding this one issue? Why does homosexuality cause us to go out of our way to do things like create a “jurisdictional solution”?
Charles, I really encourage you to read the following post and I would love to hear your further thoughts. We are at a place where we can’t enforce, can’t discipline, can’t exit, and can’t force anyone else to exit. It is truly a unique situation.
https://peopleneedjesus.net/2014/12/04/how-big-names-in-evangelical-united-methodism-came-to-support-a-jurisdictional-solution/
Amen, betsypc, that’s essentially just what I was saying in my post above.
Charles A. Hake
Absolutely, betsypc, amen! That’s essentially what I was saying in my post above.
Charles A. Hake
If our only concern is saving the Methodist Denomination, then we have lost our focus and given up the soul of our church. I’m far less concerned about unity, and more concerned about belonging to a church that preaches the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Thanks for the comment, Gary. I believe the solution I have proposed will provide greater freedom to both sides to pursue their vision of ministry. I agree that the Gospel is a much greater concern than the preservation of the institution. We need a practical way to move forward from the place we find ourselves.
Isn’t the current practice of identifying one’s church as a “reconciling congregation” or a “confessing church” already a de facto split?
Thanks for your question, cbbyrd. I think that you are right that there is a split theologically in the church already. The question is whether we will be able to cover up the split with a jurisdictional plan, or whether we will openly acknowledge the split through some form of separation.
For the record, “Confessing” United Methodists do not identify their congregations that way, since the Judicial Council ruled that it is divisive and not allowed. Only “Reconciling Congregations” continue to (in yet another way) defy the church’s order by openly identifying themselves as such.
After reading this blog post, and many of the comments responding to it, I am curious. How many of you that have posted, including the author,have purposefully asked a gay or lesbian Methodist how they feel about the issue, and more specifically, how have they been treated by their Methodist brothers and sisters? We seem to like to talk A LOT about people without really inviting them into the discussion.
As a former UMC Youth Director, I spent many, many hours talking with youth and parents about what they were dealing with in their lives (including any issues they had with their church/leadership, etc.), and on a couple of occasions that meant listening to a youth come out of the closet to me. Why would they intrust something so important, terrifying, and central to their being to me, when they barely knew me and had numerous family and friends who knew them much better and they could confide in? Simple; I didn’t judge them. I just listened and loved them, and reserved expressing any personal feelings or judgement about homosexuality that I may have. And isn’t it ironic that after numerous youth have left the church (usually when going off to college or because they are no longer forced to go by their parents), that they still keep in contact with their former Youth Director, and typically bring up the topics of faith, Christ, Christianity, church, etc. when we talk, yet they usually don’t talk about the same subjects with former church leadership or even their own parents?
I think that we as Methodists need to remember what the greater goal is when have discussions about this topic, about these people, about our brothers and sisters.
Thank you for the comments and questions, Phillip. I am in conversation with both openly gay UMC folks as well as same-sex-attracted UM’s who do not believe that homosexual practice is compatible with the moral vision of the New Testament. One point that I wish to make loud and clear is that no jurisdiction, under my plan, would be a “gay free” zone. The different would be the approach to ministry with folks who are gay or same sex attracted. You point to our pastoral response to people which is am important facet of the discussion.
Thank you for the response Chris. I can understand why the parishioners you speak of would feel that way. My follow-up questions would be; So as Methodists, are we saying that being a homosexual is ok, or that being a homosexual who does not “practice” is ok? Or neither? Many times I am confused by what people mean when they “practicing”. I think we all can agree that it is possible to be a homosexual and not practice, just as it is possible to be a heterosexual and not practice, correct?
Correct, Phillip. The issue is not attraction; it is what we do with that attraction. The current UMC stance is that marriage is a union between one man and one woman and that faithfulness is expected within marriage and celibacy is expected outside of marriage.
Let me suggest that the “issue” is neither the orientation (attraction) nor the practice. The issue is the differential in approved choice(s) offered for practice. We offer straight Christians the choice of celibacy or marriage. We offer gay Christians only celibacy. Increasingly society – including our kids in confirmation – rejects the unfairness of that.
I am only speculating here, but it seems like, throughout history, same sex attracted people have tended to choose heterosexual marriage as an attractive option. Putting people into two categories of “gay” and “straight” oversimplifies human sexuality. We either have to expand the definition of marriage to encompass all the various expressions of human sexuality (which seems impossible), or ask people to conform their sexual expressions to the established definition of marriage. The latter seems much more in line with the moral vision of the New Testament to me. Even though we disagree on some topics, Dave, I so appreciate your voice in this discussion. You always manage to elevate the conversation and challenge opposing ideas in a constructive and respectful way.