Much hoopla has been made of what the Connectional Table’s recent proposal does regarding LGBT inclusion in the United Methodist Church. The CT, the highest body tasked with visioning the future of the United Methodist Church, voted to submit legislation that would do three things to United Methodist doctrine if they pass at General Conference 2016:
- Allow United Methodist clergy to officiate same-gender weddings if they choose.
- Allow Annual Conferences to ordain and support LGBT pastors and those who officiate same-gender weddings.
- Remove the active language of opposition while retaining the historical objection to homosexuality.
For individual pastors and entire regions of United Methodism, the legislation changes nothing. But for the rest of Methodism, it can lead to incremental movements towards full inclusion of LGBT persons in the life of the church.
No Forced Changes in Marriage…
The local pastor already has and will continue to have sole authority–no accountability whatsoever–to deny weddings to anyone. They can be too young, black, interracial, hippies, Republicans, ugly, or whatever reason. The pastor decides, regardless of what the Connectional Table or the local board states. While there might be appointment repercussions for open hostility to a people group, absolutely nothing forces a pastor to perform a wedding or allow a wedding in their church. (See ¶340.2a/3a)
What this Proposal does is affirm the reality and give another freedom: pastors now can deny and affirm any marriage to anyone. If you don’t want this freedom, you don’t have to practice it.
No Forced Changes in Ordination…
The annual conference already has and will continue to have sole authority to approve ordination of clergy. This names the current reality: openly LGBT persons are ordained in some annual conferences, and rejected without a hearing in others. Charges are pursued in some conferences and dismissed in others. We do not have a standard understanding and each individual conference has an individual clergy covenant. When one is ordained in one conference, they cannot participate in the elected leadership of another conference, so annual conferences can continue to exclude clergy who they do not like. (See ¶33)
What this Proposal does is affirm the reality and give another freedom: annual conferences can now deny and affirm the ordination of anyone without fear they will be persecuted from outside the region. If annual conferences don’t want this freedom, they don’t have to practice it.
No Forced Changes in Doctrine…
The Social Principles already have and will continue to have language of exclusion to LGBT persons. Much like people who are pro-choice or pro-life can both look at our language about abortion and see their perspective affirmed, by striking the active opposition while retaining the historical position, both perspectives will be able to see themselves in it. Also: the likelihood of all the negative language being removed is highly unlikely in 2016, so Methodists will continue to see themselves in the language regardless of their beliefs.
People who like the church the way it is and live in a region that likes the church the way it is will experience no changes to their church. If people want to continue to think their church doesn’t affirm homosexuality, then they can continue to practice that belief.
…And Yet This Changes Everything
Make no mistake: like the many structural solutions in the past, the Connectional Table proposal is a structural way to affirm freedom to some while denying freedom to others. This is keeping in line with historic movements in the UMC whenever we gave freedom to particular people groups:
- The debate over women’s ordination led to a structural solution to license women to serve an agreeable local congregation, while denying connectional authority to them. This was the case from 1924 until full clergy rights in 1956.
- The debate over African-American clergy led to a structural solution to have African-Americans serve only in the Central Jurisdiction, a non-regional jurisdiction consisting of only African-American churches and pastors. This was the case from unification in 1939 until the merger with the Evangelical United Brethren denomination in 1968.
Today’s debate over LGBT inclusion has led to this structural solution (amongst others) that re-structures the UMC to limit creeping LGBT inclusion in some areas while affirming it in others. It is what we expect from institutional Methodism, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong…just typical!
Unlike the tired “we are not of one mind” approach that has failed many times before, this is “we make up our own mind” that, as Dr. Steve Harper of Asbury has shown, has been part of United Methodism from the beginning.
What will it take to pass?
This proposal comes from the highest levels of the UMC and with strong evangelical pastor support. But what will it take to pass and become church law?
It will take Pragmatic Conservatives seeing this is the best option to allow their anti-gay policies to live the longest in their regions. Conservatives lose very little. Conservative pastors would not be forced to do weddings, and conservative churches would be highly unlikely to get openly gay clergy. The only loss they have is the ability to throw charges at the pastor/church down the street or the next conference to the west or north that is doing something they don’t like. They might lose their view of the Church as a uniform entity, but that doesn’t affect the majority of pew-sitters who know the reality is that unity in diversity is already the Methodist way.
It will take Pragmatic Progressives seeing that incremental justice is better than the present doctrinal reality. While to many “justice deferred is justice denied,” (which is valid), are we not also denying justice to the ones who could make their churches more just now rather than waiting for 51% of the body to come around later? This proposal seeks an incremental way towards a more just church that may be more attainable than an overall just church.
It will take Pragmatic Central Conferences seeing this is the best option to move this debate away from General Conference. This bothers me because I want the global church to have this conversation so our LGBT brothers and sisters in Zimbabwe are supported when they are being killed or imprisoned. But to the growing majority of the church, the constant refrain is asking “why do we talk so much about LGBT inclusion?” Moving the conversation to the pastor and annual conference level allows for more time to be given to other world issues. I don’t agree with this sentiment, but I can see how it would be appealing.
Finally, if nothing else, it will take Pragmatic Church polity nerds seeing this is the best option forward and with the most viability to be passed so that something is done in 2016.
The only question is whether this unlikely coalition of pragmatic people will have a majority or if “no change at all costs” will have the majority. We’ll find out in May 2016.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Yes! As a LGBT candidate for ordination in the Southern US, I see this as a great compromise, leaving folks on the far-left (Love Prevails) and far-right (Good News/Confessing) both upset. The Connectional Table proposal seems to be similar to A Way Forward (Adam Hamilton), and far better than the “we’ve done nothing but hurt LGBT persons for 40 years, so lets do nothing for 4 more and suspend trials which violates the Restrictive Rules” so-called “Centrist” proposal.
However, I recognize that in the end, this is really about affirming the full humanity of LGBT persons, recognizing the suffering of LGBT persons — in Africa, as you pointed out, and here in the US. LGBT persons face higher unemployment, violations of civil rights, are an unprotected class, lack adequate health care, are more likely to be homeless (30-40% of homeless youth), and face high rates of suicidal ideation and hate crimes all due to oppression and minority stress. The UMC’s complicity in the sin of homophobia, by silence and by the current homophobic language in The Book of Discipline greatly disturbs my conscience– and I’m not sure that will go away unless all of the homophobic language is removed… but if this proposal is adopted, I believe I can live in the tension.
I appreciate so much your comment that you can “live in the tension”. I think that is what Jesus calls us to. When we are connected to others and extending love then we allow that we can’t force them to do what we believe is right. But we maintain relationship and “live in the tension”. Really beautifully said.
While it won’t be seen as a perfect solution for everyone it is a step forward.
I support the policy we have now. I hope this does not pass.
I literally just posted a comment on a patheos post, just a few moments before I read this, that said pretty much what you just wrote here.
Thank you for writing this.
What page? I’d like to see a more concise version! 🙂
One issue that is not addressed is: At present any ordained UM Elder can preside at a wedding outside of his/or her conference. Will this change the picture so that certain Clergy credentials will not be recognized if that Clergy Person goes to a Conference which would not have allowed him/her to be ordained? I realize that question probably hasn’t been resolved yet; but we need to keep it on the table.
I think this a good question, but part of a larger question for two reasons: already while The UMC allows it, some states (for the legal portion of the civil marriage) require officiants to be registered in the state where they are officiating (while not all ACs correspond to states, many do), and secondly, should an elder or deacon serving outside their AC be required to (“shall”, not “may”) affiliate with the AC they are resident in? Should our current policy be so open, as it stands, allowing ordained persons to officiate funerals, weddings, the sacraments, and even be appointed in another state without any knowledge of the area bishop and DS? Other episcopally ordered/connectional denominations have various answers to these questions and it may be a good time to review our own policies.
Great questions. I don’t know at this point. We’ll likely see a patchwork of responses and situations to be clarified by 2020 GC.
I have a similar question considering bishops. Bishops must be able to be itinerant across ACs as well as Jurisdictions. What will happen when the first lgbt bishop is elected? Overall, you’re right, this just acknowledges what is already happening in some areas of the US (and in Central Conferences), but it’s still tough for me to look at it and not see an attempt at “separate but equal”.
There already have been at least one gay bishop (Crutchfield). Bishops can’t itinerary across jurisdictions, so if the West or Northeast elect an LGBT Bishop they won’t serve in the South.
I agree with your sentiment of “separate but equal” and that just seems to be the Methodist way of treating minority groups for a time. I hope to break the pattern, but if not, some movement is better than none.
Jeremy, I just want to ask for a little clarification. You use doctrine in two places and it seems to me that it may be contradictory (not in a deep sense, just a usage sense).
Your first paragraph states that there the legislation “would do three things to United Methodist doctrine”. Then you use the header later in the piece that states, “No Forced Changes in Doctrine…”. Could you clear this up for me?
Hey Todd, thanks! The key word is “forced” as no clergy would be forced to officiate a wedding they don’t want to do (which is how it currently is) and no annual conference would be forced to change their ordination standards. So it does make changes to the doctrine, but they are not changes forced upon Methodist pastors and entire annual conference Boards of Ordained Ministries.
The actual legislative does not include any language affirming LGBT inclusion and merely removes references to it.
Okay. The difference is the issue of an enforceable action.
But now I have a question on how you are using “doctrine”? This may just be a difference in a working definition of doctrine between you and I.
A more accurate word is polity. But I think some of the changes to the Social Principles would be considered changes to doctrine, not polity.
Is Doctrine what we believe and Polity is how we live out those beliefs? That’s close to my thinking but I could not be thinking clearly.
I can agree with that distinction. I envision doctrine to the be the system of beliefs that shapes our polity. It is the foundational tenets. Polity is the structure of the system that is built upon that foundation.
I don’t believe there is a difference between doctrine and “how we will live out those beliefs”. Doctrine is our faith. And then, by extension, faith is not a system of ideas or a codified systematic theology. Faith is what we hold to be true and right and good as revealed to us AND living a consistent, daily practice of that truth revealed.
You and I may not agree on what that truth is, or what revelation entails, but you and I are accountable for the consistency of our faith. If we say we believe one thing but we conduct ourselves in contrary fashion, then we are not living a true life of faith/doctrine. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy, for the $5-word folks.
Polity is the attempt to systemize faith/doctrine within an institutional structure. Polity has the weight of enforcement. Polity carries with it the burden of insider/outsider.
And this isn’t an argument against anything you were saying. Thank you for helping me clarify the terms for the sake of reading.
Thank you Jeremy for again recapping an issue with clarity. I can see now what the proposal is.
I would love to see the issue firmly decided with full inclusion/acceptance and affirmation. But I also know that when we are in relationship we are most loving when we allow others to move at their own pace. This proposal keeps the conversation moving forward and stops us from increased conflict. Healthy dialog and conversation supports us all to listen to, and learn from each other while getting into “fight mode” closes everything down.
May we move forward in respect for each other and hold each other in love.
My question is how do we continue to facilitate positive conversations about the issues?
Pragmatism over truth. A facade of unity over Biblical conviction.
I wonder why Paul didn’t propose such an approach to the Corinthians who were not of the same mind when it came to sexual ethics or the committed consensual relationship of the couple in 1Corinthians 5?
It is LONG past time for Methodists to stop pretending they are “united” and to go their separate ways. http://jmsmith.org/blog/talbert
I believe both traditionalists and progressives are convicted by the Bible and find truth in their perspective. Just as truth and biblical convictions were upheld by both sides regarding women’s ordination and African-American inclusion, so also this debate will be seen from a historical lens.
This is a very disappointing proposal and I am saddened that so many have swarmed to it as something new and positive. It leaves the horrible language that has scarred so many of our lives, even if it moves it to a somewhat different “the historical view of the church has been.” It also makes very clear that GLBT people and their lives really don’t matter to anyone in the church – pragmatic conservatives, progressives, or institutional folks – and that the real importance is to preserve the institution. Are there things here that make life a little easier for a gay person in New York? Sure. But what would make life REALLY easy for that person is to head next door to the UCC, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc., church where change really has occurred and language is not simply window dressing for the underlying bigotry. I don’t think I have ever quoted Sarah Palin, but this truly is putting lipstick on a pig.
I am disturbed by the ‘less than all the way inclusive’ tone of the proposal, too, but agree that this may be the only proposal that has even a small chance of majority support.
I do not hate the homosexual person but I abhor the deed. The Bible is clear about how God feels about this. Soddom and Gomorah were destroyed due to their homosexual perversions. How can the Bible’s word get twisted so badly??
The Bible warns of Pastors leading His Flock astray. I am in shock that these men and women are so staunch in changing the Bible’s interpretation. If I were on that Board, I would be afraid of God’s wrath!!
I have been in the Methodist Faith all my years. My parents and Grandparents preceded me. I was once proud to proclaim I was a Methodist, but now my head is hung in shame!!
I don’t care that my conference can practice as we please and others as they please. In subsequent meetings, these rules will become stronger and MY Conference will be required to adhere to homosexual practices. I feel this is the start of the downfall of the United Methodist Church!!
May God guide your leadership…they need it!!
According to the Pew Report, we are already in a downfall motion, so I doubt LGBT inclusion will instigate it.
Instigate no. Accelerate, absolutely.
See the Presbyterian and Episcopal Church for reference.
Neither of those examples have a authentic Wesleyan voice. I can’t wait to see what will happen to Christianity when a progressive Wesleyan voice fully realized.
What exactly is the “progressive Wesleyan voice” you are speaking of?
The term ‘Wesleyan progressive’ seems to make no sense to me, as much of the core doctrines I see from progressives are in no way Wesleyan. I have been writing much over at umc.org (I write as Coltsfan254 there). and basic doctrines of Original Sin, Adam and Eve as real persons, the Creation, all are spoken of as not being believed in by professing progressives, while they are in disagreement with Wesley himself. I have been accused of being a Calvinist even, while quoting the Methodist Articles of Religion!
The history is a fact, that once mainline denominations in the US accept or celebrate the sin of homosexuality their demise is quickened, not slowed.
This proposal would divide the UMC.
I’m just wondering how Johnny Grimsley defines interpretation. Interpretation itself indicates that we are including our own thoughts and feelings in how we “read” the words of Scripture. Johnny-have you examined the original transcripts, and do you understand the original language of the Bible? How can we be so sure that we are “interpreting” it correctly in the first place? I think many people have used their “interpretation” of God’s word to generate exclusion and fear. Did Jesus exclude people? Did Jesus say anything about homosexual acts? I’m not trying to instigate an argument, but I am sincerely interested in how one can take such a “sure” stance on an “interpretation” of scripture. None of us will truly know God’s intent (we are human) until we meet Him face to face. I think I’m going to err on the side of love. I’m pretty sure God does not condemn love.
I can answer a few of those questions. I am by means no great scholar but I studied Koine Greek for 2 years at The University of Texas at Austin, which has a tops Classics Department in the US (was 2nd to Yale when I was there). I also then did further Greek work at seminary for 2 more semesters. Then I took 2 semesters and 1 quarter of Hebrew (I changed seminaries so moved from semesters to quarters). So I do know a bit about Hebrew and Greek languages and use them occasionally to research today. Although, again, not lifting myself up as an expert, but just as someone who does have some background in the languages.
Yes, Jesus does exclude people. Jesus speaks openly and honestly about people who don’t believe in Him, and the fact that they will go to hell. Jesus speaks of hell more times than he does of heaven. Now, I am not a brimstone and fire preacher by any stretch. Those passages make me VERY uncomfortable, but they are Biblical and I do not deny them, or try to explain them away.
Jesus makes a positive definition of marriage in Matthew 19. He is asked about divorce, and instead of really answering in a narrow way, he goes back and talks about ‘at the Creation’ and how God made humanity male and female and that the man and woman, Adam and Eve, is God’s intention for marriage, before the Fall and Sin (and original sin) entering into the human experience. A positive definition excludes everything outside of the definition. Therefore, Jesus doesn’t address a man having 3 wives, or a woman 2 husbands, but they both lie outside Jesus’ definition of marriage, as does 2 men or 2 women.
Also, I don’t think any one person can know all about God’s mind and purposes, which is why we interpret the Bible within community. The community of the Church as it has existed around the world and for over 2,000 years, has universally interpreted the Bible to speak of marriage as between one man and one woman. But, I don’t think interpretation of the Bible is the crux of our disagreement. I believe the very nature of what the Bible is and what is accomplishes is our main point of disagreement. Conservative/Traditionalists (trying to use descriptive words here) see the Bible as the Word of God, penned through humans with their hands and with the fingerprints of their intellect, but inspired so as to be perfect and authouritative. Liberal/Progressives (again descriptive) see the Bible as a human writing expressing the authours understanding and experience of God. These are vastly different understandings, and generate issues beyond matters of human sexuality.
Thanks for your analysis Jeremy. You mention language in point #3. You write: “Remove the active language of opposition while retaining the historical objection to homosexuality.” You don’t really address the issue of retaining the “historical objection to homosexuality.” That language is hurtful and harmful and needs to go. Maybe it could be in an historical footnote, but it should not remain in the BOD.
Need to remove all of that hateful stuff in the Old and New Testaments, too. It makes it sound as if God disapproves. Jesus didn’t tell the adulterous woman to go ahead and do her thing – he told her to go and SIN NO MORE.
And I think the same thing applies here: if the Bible doesn’t say what we want it to say, we’ll retranslate it or, failing that, dismiss the parts we don’t agree with as nothing more than “historical footnotes” to Scripture.
Wow Jermey!
Way to take a fair and balanced approach.
I guess you blog, we decide?
Your post shows the problem with the legislation. It pushed the issue off the GC table and creates the same arguing, sniping and name calling just at a localized level. Guess those “anti-gay” conservative policies will eventually go away and everyone will eventually see the glorious liberal light. The problem is deeply held convictions are just that, deeply held. Their depth goes much further than your agreement. Pushing this debate to a localized level takes out connectionalism and pits brother against brother and sister against sister, but not in the way Jesus had in mind.
My fear us that everyone is so deeply committed to winning that we will have a Pyrrhic victory at the end. The devastation from winning will leave nothing for those who won but ruins. If that is the case, maybe it is better to go our separate ways, as opposed to destroying the church we all love over a singular issue.
The other answer would be to have a real dialogue. One where both sides try to come out of their echo chambers and really listen to each other. To do that we have to change our language, our approach and be willing to do what is best no matter who wins.
Now is a time for statesmen not ideologues.
Well said. I think this could be a step forward.
Jeremy, your summary is pretty good, but you omitted what some will see as the key feature of the proposal, which is that it proposes the discontinuance of Church trials over either being a self avowed practicing homosexual or performing a same sex union ceremony. Those trials have been the most volatile and divisive features of the debate over this whole issue.
I am of two minds. I’ve been reading a lot of civil war history lately and in some ways, this feels like Lincoln’s willingness to deal slavery any which way just so he could maintain the union.
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
Are we maintaining the union for the sake of the union? Is that the right thing? If we are fully connectional, can I live with the possibility that my conference is/will be supportive and abandon my LGBTQIA* UMCers that live in conferences where it is unforgiving? Are we dealing away full inclusion in some conferences (save it by freeing some and leaving others alone)? Is a baby step forward okay?
I want to support this new language. But it makes my heart hurt still. I noticed it took a bit over 30 years for women’s ordination into the full connection. We are at 40 years and counting for LGBTQIA*.
It’s tough.
My 23-year-old son — baptized and confirmed at Scioto Ridge UMC in Hilliard Ohio — has already left the church. Not just the UMC, but the church. My opinion: if the UMC does not remove the offensive language it will die – yes, perhaps slow, agonizing death that will allow many clergy to enjoy their retirement benefits. But it is already irrelevant and will only continue to become more so. Jesus weeps and so do I.
Did you son leave only because of the UMC’s stance on homosexuality? If the UMC were to change that stance would he return?
I ask, because it seems that is our stance on homosexuality is his only issue, then he could find a home in the PCUSA, ELCA, UCC, or Episcopal church, but has chosen not to. I am sure this is a very painful situation for you, but just curious about how we address our youth leaving.
Whenever I see this argument, I’m quick to remind people that there’s no progressive Wesleyan denomination beyond the UMC. So even if they go to another denomination with LGBT inclusion, they lose the Wesleyan perspective. So we stay because both have tremendous value.
How is Progressivism Wesleyan? I guess I don’t understand as Wesley’s theology, and much of core UMC doctrines don’t fit with what I know of Wesley. So I guess I am asking what are the core distinctives of progressive Wesleyanism?
I sometimes wonder about those that created the Central Jurisdiction. With our current lens, we wonder how could they have supported something so obviously hurtful and racist. But they were people of their time, and knowing what they knew, and in the culture and society of that age, it was (presumably) the best they could do. Maybe they thought it was perfect, maybe they thought it was a poor but achievable compromise (Historians, feel free to weigh in).
Now we are at a similar place with another choice, and another discriminated group. And history will judge us, just as we judge those who created the Central Conferences.
When I look at potential outcomes of GC 2016, I see either a baby step like this forward or nothing at all. I suspect there may be enough traditionalists who would tolerate no compromise whatsoever that even this solution won’t pass. If the analogy of women’s ordination, etc. that Jeremy uses above will prove to be accurate in this regard at some point in the future, how long would it have taken to get to full inclusion if the only options from either side are all or nothing?
I would rather lament how the legislation doesn’t go far enough, but vote for it. A step forward is better than nothing.
My observation on this issue is that almost no one really talks to the other side with any intent of wanting to understand where the other side is coming from. Honestly, progressives have no idea just how stupid most of their arguments sound to traditionalists, and the reverse is just as true, if not more so! To progressives it boils down to the oppression of a people group. I would agree. But to many, if not most, traditionalists there is no people group being oppressed in the first place. Sounds ridiculous, I know, but that is what is going on in the minds of many traditionalists.
My point? Until progressives figure out how to communicate their inclusive message in a manner that is understandable to those with a traditionalist worldview, they are going to make very little headway toward their goal of full inclusion. There are simply too many traditionalists remaining as such to get the votes needed for full inclusion across the UMC, and progressives are almost completely ineffectual at convincing them otherwise.
If progressives aren’t willing to do the hard work of sympathetically speaking to a traditionalist worldview, they really ought to vote for this legislation, because it will be a long time before the numbers will get to where there can be a truly open and affirming UMC.
I sincerely doubt that there are enough votes to make any changes in this area. In 2012 we couldn’t even get delegates to pass a resolution saying we disagree on the matter. Only 57% of the delegates are from the US, and very few of those are from the NE, or Western Jurisdictions. The North Central is fairly progressive, but the South Central and then of course the South Eastern is more conservative and have vastly more delegates.
This proposal will lose some of the most ardent on the left, and I don’t see any evangelical delegates voting for any change, other than perhaps more accountability for Bishops who refuse to uphold the current language in the BOD.
The Connectional Table (CT) is not representative of our church, and neither is this proposal. The CT has 59 members. The 2 most liberal parts of our church, The Western Jurisdiction and Europe, have 3% of our worldwide membership but at least 10 (17%) of CT members. Conservative Africa, with 40% of our worldwide membership, has only 3 CT representatives (about 5%). Moreover, CT is stacked with leadership. It includes 15 Bishops and 12 leaders/paid staff of commissions and agencies. There are only 16 lay persons.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that this proposal is the work of and overwhelmingly liberal and institutional group.
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
Progressives do such a great job of twisting history and now twisting scripture. These are the same liberal strategies that have removed prayer from school, the Ten Commandments from public buildings, and any hint of faith values from our nation’s history. The secular socialism of the ’60’s & ’70’s creeped into the church with only little things like removing Amen from the endings in the hymnal. Progressives have taken over the upper bureaucratic boards and agencies claiming to be speaking for the grassroot local Methodist. They promote abortion, gender word change of scripture, anti-Israel pro-Palestinian policy which shames the true life long Wesley Methodist. The core scripture that has been twisted now comes to this: The UMC is not only IN this world but definitely OF this world.
Since it is claimed that this diversity promotes unity, do we now all join hands, sing songs and pretend that foundational scripture, doctrine and sacred covenant oaths of ordination have not been broken?
Hacking Christanity is a very appropriate name for this site.
Here’s another view point about why “progressives” strike so hard with their liberal bias at those who stand on scripture.
http://blog.precept.org/at-the-core-of-the-gay-marriage-debate/