Sometimes news articles are like a choir rehearsal. Whenever an article describing acts of non-violent resistance in The United Methodist Church is released, like a conductor raising their baton, a chorus of the same argument bursts forth online: “you are schismatic.” Those who disobey the Discipline in favor of the Bible (or their other covenants) are depicted as wanting to split the church in half.
Schism is a topic this blog takes very seriously (1,2,3,4, and dozens more on this link), but non-violent resistance like the Biblical Obedience and other movements do not advocate schism. On the contrary, they are rooted in a deep love for God’s people named Methodists and a heartfelt desire for the Church to be more inclusive, not less.
Dr. Dorothee Benz offers below a clear refutation of this argument, as well as informed commentary on how General Conference can choose to respond.
A Primer on LGBTQI non-violent resistance
Dr. Dorothee Benz
Earlier this week, a group of 15 LGBTQI clergy in the New York Annual Conference came out via an “open letter to the people of the United Methodist Church.” Critics on the right responded by asserting that they were “pushing for schism,” moving the UMC “a step closer to schism,” etc. A similar reaction met the news of April 23, when Bishop Melvin Talbert and Rev. Val Rosenquist officiated at the wedding of two of Rosenquist’s parishioners, Jim Wilborne and John Romano – followed by the filing of formal complaints against Rev. Rosenquist. In March, when the NYAC Board of Ordained Ministry voted to give “equal consideration and protection in the candidacy process” to LGBTQI candidates, it was “NY Conference secedes from #umc.”
I could go on, but you get the point. (The quotes, all from Twitter, are illustrative rather than comprehensive.)
Much of this response is about the strategy of painting progressives, and particularly LGBTQI people and our allies, as the causes of strife in the church. This is a “blame the victim” tactic, and as I’ve said elsewhere, it turns the problem in the UMC on its head: the problem is homophobia, not homosexuality, and the actual cause of the strife is the church’s stubborn insistence on discrimination. We are no more to blame for this crisis than Black people were to blame for the conflict over the church’s decision to create the segregated Central Jurisdiction. It is the church that is responsible for the current crisis because of its decision to discriminate; it is not the fault of the people it is discriminating against.
But beyond its strategic value in the narrative struggle over who is responsible for strife in the church, the claim that ecclesial disobedience proponents are seeking schism fundamentally misunderstands both the purpose and the motivation behind ecclesial disobedience. And for those who are genuinely interested in understanding this movement, I want to offer some exposition.
Three Motivations of Ecclesial Disobedience
The movement of ecclesial disobedience in the UMC – “Biblical obedience,” as Bishop Talbert has named it in an effort to underscore its faithfulness to the Gospel call to radical hospitality – is first and foremost a response of conscience. “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws,” as Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us. Since we believe that discriminatory laws are unjust, we are compelled to refuse further complicity in the UMC’s systemic discrimination against LGBTQI people.
Second, ecclesial disobedience is a form of non-violent resistance and non-violent resistance is a spiritual practice as well as a strategy of resistance. It is rooted in the belief that oppression cannot be defeated with the methods of oppression but rather only with the methods of love. It understands that all systems require the cooperation of the people in them and that our cooperation can always be withdrawn; and it asserts that when we withdraw our cooperation non-violently, we make possible an alternative. “The ends are predetermined in the means,” as King put it. (This is a clumsy summary and necessarily too compressed – books and books have been written on the subject, far more persuasively. Indeed, the study of non-violent resistance is the formative force in my spiritual, moral, and political development.)
Third, it follows from this that non-violent resistance is a practice grounded also in hope, because if its practitioners did not believe that the withdrawal of their cooperation could effect change, they would not undertake it. Thus, non-violent resistance is built on the conviction that all human beings are redeemable. As a strategy, it is therefore quintessentially one of reform or transformation. It is not an exit strategy. Those of us practicing and urging ecclesial disobedience in the UMC do so precisely because we (still) (somehow) believe that the church can change and we love our church enough to invest in the only strategy that we believe can change it at this point (for my views on the impossibility of changing the UMC through prescribed institutional channels, see this for the two-minute version and read here for the 2,000-word version).
We are not “pushing for schism” and we are not “seceding.” In response to the General Conference’s profoundly tone-deaf slogan “Therefore Go,” not to mention suggestions from people like Bishop Scott Jones that if we don’t like the rules, we should just leave, we have said over and over: Hell no, we won’t go
Surfacing Hidden Tension
It is true that while our refusal to be complicit in the church’s requirement to discriminate is not designed to split the church, it is obviously surfacing tensions – and that is a good thing. Borrowing again from King:
“We who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open where it can be seen and dealt with.”
Which brings me to me final comment on the subject of ecclesial disobedience and schism: The prioritization of church unity over justice, the accusations of who is “schismatic” versus who is loyal, the desire to hold the church together at all costs – all these prioritize the institution over the people of the church. And if, instead of asking, “will this lead to schism?” we asked, “What would Jesus do?” we might yet become a church that makes disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.
Dorothee Benz is a lifelong Methodist and a delegate to the 2016 General Conference. She is a founding member of Methodists in New Directions and serves as its national representative. Follow her on Twitter @DrBenz3.
===
Thoughts?
Thank you for this simple statement of clarification. It reflects the position that many of us as individuals also take. Many of us have been at this for over 40 years. It is obvious to us that we are not the ones wanting to break apart the church as we have suffered many trials and tribulations in our effort to remain a part of the United Methodist Church and to remain faithful to the gospel. Another baptized cradle Methodist asserting it’s time.
Clothing yourselves with the words “nonviolent resistance” does not make your cause anywhere as close as MLK or Gandhi’s. The last few GCs have shown that your side has been disruptive and disrespectful. And maybe even a tad racist as when a group of activists started disrupting the African delegates while they were speaking in one GC.
I don’t ask for schism, but I also don’t want to see our denomination destroyed by the licentious license lobby. No LGBTQ affirming denomination or conference in our denomination is growing. They are all dying and quite rapidly. If that is your real goal, then woe to you and your ilk.
– Dan, another craddle methodist.
Dan, I think you really hurt your case when you bring up numerical growth. That has nothing to do with truth that I can see.
I am generally more sympathetic with the evangelical side of the UMC than with the liberal side, but I find this apparent worship of numbers to be deeply disturbing, however much it’s clothed in the language of mission.
I agree with Edwin — especially as it regards to denominational numbers in the US, we’re all going down– UM, SBC, RCC, etc, it’s cultural, not based on “orthodoxy” (however defined), if it were, then how do we explain the explosive growth in Oneness (non-Trinitarian) Christianity? Further, some of the larger connectional UM churches in the US are moderate/progressive, not conservative, as are some of the most highly vital congregations (an official metric term).
I argue Jesus was mightily disruptive to the faith he belonged to, and many of his own religious sect rejected him and his message. Further, I have no doubt the parallel movements towards women’s ordination and against racism have similar ecclesiastical disobedience (recall MLK’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail was written, in part, to Methodist bishops who urged quiet). And of course, as Protestants, protesting against ecclesiastical authorities is at the very foundation to who we are, for Luther, for Cranmer/Hooker, for Wesley.
While there were GC delegates from African who equate LGBT/Q persons to animals and worse, many African Americans and prominent Africans (Abp. Tutu) support LGBT/Q equality, as many Africans and African Americans ARE LGBT/Q (the “Black Lives Matter” movement was founded by Queer, black women) Bp. Talbert, referenced by Jeremy in the post, is African American and marched in the Civil Rights movement, Rev. Caldwell another prominent example of this intersectionality, so typified in the Love Your Neighbor Coalition. I can think of other prominent UM LGBT/Q and Allies seeking ordination who are African American as well.
Non-violence is not “passive-ism”, MLK and Gandhi did illegal and disruptive direct actions, there’s volumes written on how neither were stoic or passive as they are often portrayed in pop culture today. MLK, especially towards the end of this life, was a radical anti-war proponent who began to see intersectionality with other movements towards justice.
What on earth is “non trinitarian christianity”? That is an oxymoron. Trinitarianism is a sine qua non of christianity.
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
“Poem on a Phrase in a Faculty Meeting” by Susan Harlan
You may have heard
That this is the case,
But it is simply not the case
Because if you say that something
Is “simply not the case”
In the correct tone of voice,
Which is like a man’s tone of voice,
Then it can’t be.
Civil disobedience might be appropriate as a tool for changing unjust laws because we are all part of the same community. The UMC is composed of members who voluntsrily swear to uphold the doctrine and policies of a covenant organization. You cannot compare the two. Anyone is free to join or depart as they please. It makes no sense to join an organization and then throw tantrums because you do not like all the rules.
Again, this same thing can be said about other movements, people can go away or vote with their feet. That’s not how structural change works, especially against the dominant, oppressive, movement. You claim (I assume) ordained persons who fight for LGBT/Q equality break their vows, I claim those who do not work for justice and LGBT/Q inclusion break their baptismal and membership vows to “resist evil, injustice and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves”. Thus all ordained persons must chose: Break their membership vows or their ordination vows (although here, it should be referenced that uphold “discipline” of the church does not mean the Book of Discipline). There is no more progressive Methodist denomination in the US than the UMC, there are plenty of more conservative ones. Progressive UMs strongly believe in the work, connection, and mission of the UMC, with the exception of the homophobic, brutal, and deadly language against LGBT/Q humanity.
Sometimes circumstances and/or understandings change (evolve) based upon application of the Quadrilateral. Accordingly, an original vow must be modified or even discarded in favor of the newly understood circumstances. Our vows to uphold the BofD, etc. are not immutable like “the laws of the Meads and Persians.”
The most important section:
“We are no more to blame for this crisis than Black people were to blame for the conflict over the church’s decision to create the segregated Central Jurisdiction. It is the church that is responsible for the current crisis because of its decision to discriminate; it is not the fault of the people it is discriminating against.”
And whatever protests happen during ten days in Portland, they won’t be the cause of any negative outcomes.
Forty years of the refusal to change will be.
Dr Benz’ several references to Dr. Martin Luther King and her seeming comparison of Dr. King’s civil disobedience with the ecclesial disobedience of United Methodist progressives is completely misplaced. Martin Luther King’s civil disobedience got him thrown in jail and ultimately assassinated. Progressives engaging in ecclesial disobedience in the UMC, particularly recently, get a “just resolution” with minimal or no consequences. The comparison is almost embarrassing. And the reason they get no consequences is because progressives hold many more levers of power in the UMC than do the orthodox, their alleged oppressors.
Progressives have the Connectional Table, most of the agencies, most of the seminaries, two entire jurisdictions, several annual conferences, apparently most of the bishops, a solid foothold in the Judicial Council, a huge number of clergy including 2 of the most prominent (Slaughter and Hamilton) and at least 40% of the General Conference delegates. They also have abundant outside funding. They have almost complete institutional control, except….
What they don’t have is a majority of General Conference delegates. Still less, they have only a minority of the laity, and that percentage is getting smaller. I agree with Dr. Benz: progressives don’t want schism-they know if that happens, they will lose access to the funding provided by the mostly orthodox laity, and with its their cushy positions in pulpits, bishoprics, agencies and seminaries.
I do not rule out the possibility that General Conference will remove the prohibitions against same sex marriage and gay clergy. If that happens, though, progressives will get the schism they don’t want. Either a soft schism by members just falling away (virtually guaranteed by the precedent set but the Episcopalians, ELCA, PC-USA and others), or a hard schism by something more organized.
I would pay a lot more attention to the statements of the 15 progressive UMC clergy who came out last week if as part of their protest they would renounce the pensions that will be provided to them by the oppressive UMC. The same would go for all the retired clergy-and the Bishop-who delight in performing same sex weddings. You know what will freeze over first.
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
From our BoD para 336 we can find these questions among others;
Do you know the General Rules of our Church?
Will you keep them?
Have you studied the doctrines of The UMC?
Do you believe that our doctrines are in harmony with The Holy Scriptures?
Will you preach and maintain them?
Having answered yes to all of the above how does a person of integrity then go about deliberately undermining our discipline? If a person’s position on same sex marriage evolves then that person is presented with a moral and an ethical dilemma. If that person believes that our position is immoral but is obligated to support it then the only honorable way to resolve the inner conflict is to resign and pursue the more moral course of action.
To say that disobedience is promoting unity while those who are holding to long held beliefs are the schismatic ones is only true in opposite world. This is nothing more than a lame attempt to appropriate language in order to justify their own position and rationalize their schismatic actions. It is the unethical behavior of the oath breakers that is destroying our connectional system and is the root cause of so much anger.
Jeremy Smith’s response to this, as of Dec 16, 2016, provides many other options for affecting change and expressing disapproval. None of those include “ecclesial disobedience” (i.e. flouting “the covenant of the local church to the greater church”). He provides these better, “Methodist” options instead…
“In conclusion, there’s a ton of Methodist ways to express disapproval. We can express our disagreement through conversations, through prayer, through speaking out against individual official UMC actions, electing people to positions of power to influence policy, writing petitions to General Conference, being elected to serve those meta-church agencies, refusing a bishops’ re-appointment, writing petitions and getting signatories…hey, we are a Methodist church and there’s a method to do almost anything, including express dissent.”
Find that helpful call to obedience and affecting change using our approved methods here: https://www.hackingchristianity.net/2016/12/the-collateral-damage-of-withholding-tithes-umc.html