The “Unity until a Commission Report” by the Council of Bishops move benefits all sides and allows the middle of Methodism to guide the conversation.
Lead Up to the Play
Yesterday, the General Conference gave authority to the Bishops to present a proposal for General Conference to consider, as the Bishops do not usually propose legislation. The Bishops gathered throughout the afternoon and night, and came forward with a proposal.
Today, here’s the proposal. Here’s the essential part of it:
We recommend that the General Conference defer all votes on human sexuality and refer this entire subject to a special Commission, named by the Council of Bishops, to develop a complete examination and possible revision of every paragraph in ourBook of Discipline regarding human sexuality. We continue to hear from many people on the debate over sexuality that our current Discipline contains language which is contradictory, unnecessarily hurtful, and inadequate for the variety of local, regional and global contexts. We will name such a Commission to include persons from every region of our UMC, and will include representation from differing perspectives on the debate. We commit to maintain an on-going dialogue with this Commission as they do their work, including clear objectives and outcomes. Should they complete their work in time for a called General Conference, then we will call a two- to three-day gathering before the 2020 General Conference. (We will consult with GCFA regarding cost-effective ways to hold that gathering.)
GC will consider this soon, so here’s some initial thoughts.
Both Ends…
For folks who were expecting a proposal for schism, understand who benefits from a schism. In an amicable separation or schism, the people who benefit the most are the ends of the spectrum: the left and right wings of the church. While “extreme” is not meant as derogatory towards their views, their positions would both be at the polar opposite points of the spectrum within The United Methodist Church.
We reward the extremes in The United Methodist Church. We give news coverage to outrageous acts or statements. We elect as delegates those who best represent the dominant caucus groups. And so the people who most call for schism are those from the two ends that are most unable to reconcile their convictions or their ability to do ministry with the current situation.
In a schism situation, the ones who are the loudest voices are the ones who benefit the most because they are able to form a new denomination in their own image, which may or may not be the best plan that God has for The United Methodist Church.
Against the Middle
What the Bishops are instead proposing is a tenuous unity for a set period of time, which benefits the majority of Methodism: the middle, ie. the “centrists” who hold neither extreme beliefs and are comfortable in the middle. That is not to say these are people without conviction or without restrictions on ministry–they certainly are. But they do not gravitate to either end. In a unity situation, the middle keeps happy because they find fulfillment from being together, not from holding one view over the other, as incompatible as they may be with each other.
We see then that the two extremes are against the middle: they both pull the middle towards their side or the other. But the desired ends of the extremes do not always have the values of the middle at their heart: a unity in diversity.
It seems to me, as someone who has opposed schism and yet resides often at the end of progressive conviction, that this motion does not satisfy my convictions, but neither does it violate them in unacceptable ways.
A Proposal Resisting Culture
“Anxious organizations have difficulty affording the space to anyone or to listen to the leading of the Holy Spirit.” Bishop Ough
It is unfortunate that General Conference falls on American election years, with the partisan conflict at record highs as The United Methodist Church deliberates as a body while Donald Trump leads the headlines.
I think this proposal removes the anxiety of General Conference and gives time and space to a special commission in a way that will be helpful. While General Conference has voted down every single official study of homosexuality, this is a different time and a group which may have more buy-in than the previous commissions and studies.
However, it also removes any “tightening of the noose” that passed in legislative committees this past week. So that’s a helpful way to allow a patchwork of ministry to continue in The UMC without it becoming even more retributive.
Finally, the same delegates to General Conference 2016 would be part of the special called Conference. That’s the rules. So the people who had an experience of this conference would, for the first time in our history, be in charge of deciding this 2-3 year discernment process. That’s a long time for hearts and minds to come together, and one that helps the Middle find a path together.
Happy 50 year anniversary?
The United Methodist Church came into being at the vote for merger at the 1968. If this proposal passes, it will be around the 50 year anniversary of United Methodism in 2018. I hope as we enter the second half of the century of United Methodism that we find a new way forward for a more just United Methodist Church.
Thoughts?
http://www.amazon.com/Church-Studies-Homosexuality-Methodist-Committee/dp/0687783798?ie=UTF8&psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00
I’ve not read the above mentioned book but it occurs to me that it would be wise to find something published a little more recently than twenty-two years ago.
He could have articulate the purpose of the link better, which is that in 1994 the Methodist church did the same thing- kicked the can down the road with a study – and now look where we are. “What is different now?”, goes the point.
However, I think we can do better to be a reconciled church. Large institutions like ours take time to change, but they can be quite effective at change when they do. We are a leader in the theology of peace, immigrant rights, economic justice, and global action on climate change. Imagine what would transpire if we could hold together through the difficult change of adding LGBTQ reconciliation to our long tradition of being a progressive religious voice in so many social issues. I know we’re not there yet, but one look at the young people, and what they thing, in our church, tells me that we will be.
This church has been hurtful to so many of my gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender friends – my heart breaks that we’re not there yet. It’s way past time, in my heart, for us to be on the right side of history. However, we must be patient a little longer to reach the bigger prize, which is to stay relevant to as many people as possible as we continue to evolve as a church. There’s a gay or transgender person, alone and afraid in a place like Brazil, or Africa, or Arkansas, or just down the street from whatever church we all go to, praying for us to show up for them. If we divide into convenient ideological geographies, a lot of really important people will be left out of what happens next.
I really believe that we need to try to bring as many people along with us as possible on this one.
The problem for everyone besides LYN is that there is no mechanism to actually enforce the Discipline against those who simply disobey it and are enabled by those bishops who are unwilling to perform the responsibilities of their office while retaining their benefits and privileges.
Good analysis, Jeremy.
I find several hopeful signs in this action. First, after years of increasing distrust in our institutions and our bishops, when we found ourselves paralyzed as an institution we turned to our bishops – and they responded. Second, I was encouraged that the subcommittee in Faith and Order that dealt with hurtful language in the Social Principles, including several Africans,after spending time in personal conversations, voted to remove the “incompatible” language. The power of story. May this be a model for us as we work to move forward as the living body of Christ.
Jeremy, you make the statement that the same 2016 GC delegates would be the ones at a called 2020 GC. I’ve read the proposal from the Bishops but I didn’t get that from my reading. What did I miss?
The same delegates from the 2016 GC would be at a special 2018 GC, if the commission were done with their work by that time and it was called. If it took until 2020 – then it would be a new GC (as best I understand it).
We just spent 14 million dollars for a General Conference that accomplished nothing, except a new hymnal. That better be a darn good hymnal!
how much do all these church trials and inquisitions cost- much more than a waste of dollars, a waste of ministry and gifts, time, and life!
I frankly don’t see much turning back the clock to a prior discipline. I really wonder what unity in diversity or actual middle ground is. If it is to agree to disagree, to think and let think, then wouldn’t you have to, at least, suspend the punishment of LBGTQI clergy and marriages, and weddings? You are not letting anyone think if you are throwing them out of ministry.
You are right. This is the exact thought I have!
I have been struggling with how I will present the deliberations of UMC-GC2016 to my churches this Sunday. You have summarized my hopes and prayers for our church in this article. With your permission I will quote your article next Sunday in church. I am a member of what our Bishop calls “The Extreme Middle”. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit may we move forward in love.
The GLBT community is here to stay. It isn’t going anyplace and is getting larger. Meanwhile the general church going population of all denominations world wide, is shrinking.I won’t go into the Biblical contradictions as most of those for and against the community are already well versed in the arguments pro and con. I believe that if the UMC is going to remain a viable entity, change must come. The only question in my mind is how long it will take and who or what will be left when it finally happens.
Since I am not United Methodist, I usually ignore your posts on General Conference. However, this one caught my attention because it is the first one in a long time where the (to me, at least) more progressive views you espouse don’t get in the way of what you are trying to say. I have often said that if you are uncomfortable with paradox, don’t be Christian. I am hopeful that this attempt to hold the paradox (and the tension within) will work for the UMC. It (the UMC) was the church of my early childhood, and I do hate to see it convulse so. I would also encourage the expenditure of any monies necessary to have a called conference…if you really do love the church, it is money well-spent.
Thanks Be To God as The Holy Spirit has revealed itself in this monumental action taken by our Council Of Bishops.
The “Both — And”. Middle Way appears to be prevailing.
Fr. John would be proud of us.
There is hope for the/a future UNITED Methodist Church!
The real issue behind all the noise, smoke and ballyho coming out of GC is power – who gets to claim to be king of the mountain. Those people who are not caught up in the egoistic issue of control know there are always many facets to any issue. Wisdom and truth are lost when the world becomes one-sided. Lord, save us from childishness.
in this time of “cease fire,” will extreme progressives wait patiently for this study to form ceasing ecclesial disobedience and thus the need for trial?
the vote to accept the Bishop’s proposal was a very slim one, based in part because many wanted to tighten legislation related to breaking covenant.
The desire to move away from church trial should not be seen as a license to break covenant or this special session will likely be much more contentious than what we just experienced.
I would expect any signs of disregard for the current BoD to harden the rhetoric and resolve of delegates from the South US and global church. (And moderates who would like a little peace might likely be put off as well.)
It’s been a long wait, but now is a time for grace and healing, not a time to test the boundaries of the CoB’s statement or the conservative delegates resolve.
More moderate progressives would do well to encourage their activist friends to “tone it down” if there is to be any hope for a way forward.