Exile from Methodism may be ahead for progressives–but just 10 minutes into a progressive-free zone of Methodism, a surprise is in store.
10 Minutes After…
A few years back, author Brian McLaren gave a video interview to Ministry Matters, and at around the 25 minute mark he is asked about Schism in The United Methodist Church. Here’s his response:
I would be very sad if the denomination splits. Let me tell you one reason why. The conservatives who want nothing to do with full inclusion of LGBT people. They need to know that 10 minutes after they split, the child, the son or daughter of ten of their pastors, in the next year will come out as LGBT. More and more of their children and grandchildren will say they don’t want to go to any church that is unwelcoming to LGBT people.
So if they think they are going to solve the problem by splitting in this way, they’re not. They will bring the problem with them and it’s not going to go away.
McLaren has an important point that Rev. Ben Gosden and I have made before, and that Sue Laurie made for a decade before us: a split or schism will not remove LGBT persons from any non-affirming segment of Methodism. That way is folly and an unnecessary struggle for a reward that is not attainable.
![By Andrewrabbott (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons](https://aws.hackingchristianity.net/wp-content/files/john-wesley-stainedglass-cc-wikimedia.jpg)
10 Minutes Before…
While the political forces seeking schism or exclusion of progressives and those seeking LGBTQ inclusion failed in their attempts to cut off the West at General Conference, recent attempts are perhaps at the midnight hour of making this actually happen.
Two possible endgames for the Wesleyan Covenant Association (see 1,2,3) are found in a questionnaire (sent to participants only) that one kindly forwarded it to me (No, I didn’t fill it out: Data science integrity rightly trumps immature sabotage). It outlines seven purposes, including two preparations for progressive-free zones in Methodism:
“Prepare to create a new orthodox, Wesleyan denomination in the event unity cannot be maintained with integrity in the general church, though this is not our desire”
“Create a network of churches committed to changing the world through proclamation and ministry.”
The common goal here is expulsion of progressives, either by schism into multiple denominations, or by making UM polity even more untenable for discipleship and evangelism of progressive Methodists like the CUP plan attempted.
We see that folks seeking schism or expulsion see nothing left in progressive theology or causes. Like 1 Corinthians 12 warns, the eye is saying to the hand “we have no need of you.” There’s often lip service of “I have a progressive friend” or “I get nuggets of inspiration from progressive sermons” but the speeches do not match the goals. Like surgeons cutting out cancer cells, their supported policies indicate progressives are not meant to be part of the next body of Methodism–and must be isolated from the rest.
People, not Property or Pensions
But I can’t stop thinking about people after the 10 minute mark.
- If schism or expulsion happens, 10 minutes later an African American will find resonance with black liberation theology, or a former Southern Baptist woman will find words in feminist theology that speak to her longtime concerns.
- Not to mention the LGBTQ kid who determines his orientation means he can no longer be fully part of his parent’s WCA-affiliated church…those folks would have no one left to talk to or seek out in their tradition.
They would be even more alone and isolated–and as McLaren and Laurie say, the cycle begins again.
One zinger thrown at progressives on Twitter is that we are only Methodist because of finances and property and pension–sentiments which data science has debunked before. But the above shows that actually we are in it for the people: those children and parishioners of those seeking progressive expulsion who 10 minutes later will be alone and under-resourced. Love for our neighbors who will be isolated in a progressive-free zone of Methodism drive us to remain together and that we are better together.
We see that the scorched earth practices and divisive goals lead to an untenable outcome for all sides: not only is there diminished progressive support and growth opportunities, but the purposes does not actually exile progressives and LGBTQ persons from the body either. The conflict will begin anew, and not even a rock-solid catechism will stop it.
Living with Integrity
Finally, one of the WCA’s other purposes is this one:
“Create a unified response to the bishop’s commission on the way forward, insisting upon a solution that does not require orthodox UMs to sacrifice the integrity of their beliefs“
I chuckle when I read that last line, both here and elsewhere. The reality is that Progressives have been living with violations of our integrity for decades as we chafed under LGBTQ exclusion since 1972 and are unable to pastor to our congregants equally. Talk about violating integrity to say to one couple “I can marry you” and to another “I am forbidden.” As I’ve said before in couples counseling “To like someone because, to love someone although.”
But to be fair, it’s not just progressives: conservatives have lived with an abortion statement that says abortions are sometimes necessary, and their integrity was challenged previous to the 1980s when pluralism was in our doctrinal standards.
We all live with violations of our convictions. And since no one forces Boards of Ordained Ministries to ordain candidates, and no one forces clergy to do weddings, then “required” violations of integrity would not be possible on the horizon. So it’s another red herring purpose that is meant only to divide, not to heal the body.
Stopping the Clock
Our world becomes more polarized each day, and the answer from The UMC is not to infuse the world’s values into Methodism, but to show the world the strength of how Methodism values unity in diversity.
Progressive exclusion from United Methodism doesn’t stop progressive theology. It doesn’t stop LGBTQ people from being born or become self-aware in the progressive-free zone of a WCA denomination. Because of that truth, we are better together as our various theologies that are compatible with Wesleyanism nurture and grow from one another through life together, not separate with locked doors between us.
The conservative conductors of the UMC train may yet have their way: the train is running pretty strong right now and we saw from General Conference 2016 the effects progressive exclusion has on LGBTQ people and on women. But my hope is that cooler heads prevail and live out what 1 Corinthians 12 concludes, “the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable.” That doesn’t sound like exile of the minority progressive viewpoint to me–does it to you?
Your Turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading and your shares on social media.
* portions of this blog post appeared in this 2014 post.
At one time, I think unity was more possible when persons on BOTH sides were still willing to live into their vows to obey church teaching, even when that was difficult for them. In our current era, when some teachings are ignored & church law disobeyed, unity is much harder.
The issue of sexual behavior is surely a sign of our disunity, but it’s the ignoring of covenantal faithfulness that is driving the schism bus.
It should also be noted that no one on the orthodox side (of whom I’m aware) has suggested or hoped that a schism would remove from the Church those who have chosen to engage in homosexual behaviors. It would simply put an end to covenantal unfaithfulness over the issue.
Keith, you’re kidding, right? Let me see if I heard what you said correctly… you are welcoming (or rather, not removing) those who “engage in homosexual behaviors” but calling for covenantal faithfulness of all United Methodists. According to our BOD right now, it excludes people who are gay and lesbian from being married by their pastors or married in their home churches. AND if you happen to be gay, lesbian, trans, or queer, you cannot say yes to a call from God into ministry. BUT those on the “orthodox side” are so happy you are in their churches, not getting married or responding to your call from God. Am I close?
I believe that we do not allow unrepentant sinners to be ordained, whether their sins involve sexual behaviors or any others.
And we desire covenantal faithfulness from our clergy, certainly. Folks are free to offer changes to our covenant, but we still desire faithfulness.
United Methodists welcome ALL lay people to worship & participate in our ministries, though we obviously do not & cannot condone every behavioral choice.
Conservatives love to make the claim that we progressives stay in the UMC only for finances, pension, and property. Problem is, psychologist Carl Jung would suggest that in doing that, they are revealing the fact that it is they themselves who have been staying in the UMC on account of those very concerns, and they are projecting their “shadow self” out onto those they dislike rather than acknowledging that it is part of them that they need to confess and for which they need to seek healing. Otherwise, if they cared only about the (lack of) theological integrity of staying in the UMC rather than the money and property, they would have been gone long ago. (This may be one reason many conservatives dislike psychology; i.e., it unmasks their ulterior motives rather than allowing them unchallenged to seek out some biblical justification for maintaining their unchristian attitudes and behaviors.)
I made no such claims, if that’s what you’re suggesting.
“I believe that we do not allow unrepentant sinners to be ordained, whether their sins involve sexual behaviors or any others.”
Actually, I believe we do, on any number of issues where it is “acceptable” to adopt cultural behaviors that run contrary to the way of God, as in ecological destruction, or worship of money, or theological hubris.
That’s possible, yes. But those brush strokes are pretty broad. You’d have to be a lot more specific, and I’m not sure that particular debate is the point of Jeremy’s post.
Exactly who are our vows to? God or the UM Discipline? Maybe for some that is the same.
Our clergy vows are to God and to one another. We enter into a covenant with our Annual Conference & the General Conference.
This is thanks to the fact that these internet sites are set up so that any person, irrespective of what their level of PC experience is, can use them and have some fun.
That pic at Subic is crazy! Those girls have come a long way. Gosh I love you Sunny and feel terrible for being on R&R while you are going to pack-out. Being in Manila with you was awesome and I know it will be a friendship I will cherish forever. Good thing we'll all see eachother again soon. In Europe for sure.
Good Lord, when will people stop assuming I have a “choice”
i.e. As in “those who have chosen to engage in homosexual behaviors.”
My school friends chose to engage in kissing girls, dating, getting engaged, marriage and children (except one or two who could not have children). They chose that, but it was normal/natural for them.
I on the other hand, lied to my friends, lied to my family, kept my distance from any close relationships, was criticized by teachers in my school report for being “quiet” / “shy” and “lacking spark”… I wrestled with my Christianity. In my THIRTIES I realized things were not going to change; I met someone like me. At last, someone who clicked with me and I could be myself with. Then I could tell my brother, sister, parents and friends (who all had their suspicions I was gay anyway, apparently!)
“those who have chosen to engage in homosexual behaviors” – yes… thanks for determining the choice nature of our sexual lives. Very nice, that!!!
People who don’t understand it, who insist it’s sinful and the BOD is right as it currently stands, are simply not Christians in my view. I don’t blame them, but it is a view from the past. My grandparents would have struggled with my “news” but they past away years ago and I regret we never discussed it.
I’m not gay because I was abused or mistreated in any way. This simple fact is the reason why it cannot be right to claim homosexuality is s AV choice, nor is the natural desire to have companionship and intimacy, emotionally and physically, a choice. It’s natural. In humans and many species of animals.
This article gives a great insight into the lunacy of splitting/schism. My parents, my grandparents, would never have expected me to be gay.
Who can predict a child will be gay or not? One day maybe, but not yet. Gay people are children of God, and we are born into the UMC today and we will be born into the WCA tomorrow. That’s simply how it is.
The Book of Discipline addresses only practice & behavior, not inclinations. We ALL have choices when it comes to our behavior. My choices have not always honored Jesus, so I’m happy he offers us each penitence & forgiveness. Believe me!
Nevertheless, I don’t think that is the point of Jeremy’s post. I think he shared his thoughts on the nature of & reasons for schism, with which I disagree.
But it fundamentally makes us gay people fundamentally inferior to heterosexual persons who have an Avenue to satisfy their needs and desires, whereas the United Methodist position punishes gay persons for even being in committed, responsible relationships. It is like “accepting” left handed persons but severely punishing any use of their left hand, whereas allowing right handed persons to use their right hand.
Church teaching is difficult for many in many areas of life, not only regarding sexual behavior. Yes, in this particular issue, many folks who experience homosexual attractions will have a more difficult road than those who experience heterosexual attractions. Discipleship is not an easy road. But thank God for grace & the Church, which can help us.
Again, though, I don’t think this was the point of Jeremy’s post.
Discipleship is NOT supposed to be harder for some people on the basis of a fundamental inborn characteristic than for others. This fundamentally denies that God is no respecter of persons. God is not partial to any group of persons. It is a basic denial of God’s justice or fairness.
I think the image of a doomsday clock for United Methodism is a clear analogy but an awful way to truly understand all the dynamics that insist on being heard in our system that regulates everyone’s speech to a four-year shouting match. Which is why you’re attempt here only scratches the surface.
Let me be clear and add my prediction in the process. A denominational split will be a Matthew 10:34-39 experience for all of us. There will be nothing left on either side that will be healthy. So, then, the question is whether or not we’re willing to lose our “lives” for Christ’s sake to see what Christ will do OR accept the fact that we’re supposed to be living like John 17 Christians.
Cooler heads will indeed prevail in proposals issued from the bishop’s committee where prayer and honest listening move positions toward the realization that traditionalists and progressives each have a piece of truth.
Once reported to General Conference entrenched forces uninterested in sharing truth and seeking it together will insist on their own way by simple majority.
You are correct. The WCG goal after schism to grow in making disciples is only a pipe dream. The UMC will become a diluted witness in the world. It makes me sad as a pastor and a person of faith.
My thought? I don’t care. I stopped caring several years ago. I’ve left the church — ALL churches — behind. If this is what Christianity is about, then it is not for me. Atheism makes far more sense to me as a member of the LGBT community.
If you “don’t care” and have “left the church – ALL churches -behind” why are you engaged in this conversation?
Dan – I did not mention whether or not inclinations or attractions are “inborn”. That’s an entirely separate debate. The Church only addresses the behavior, which is indeed controllable, not inclinations (whether “inborn” or not).
And, yes, for 2000 years, our own broken natures have made discipleship a challenge. There’s nothing new about that. We need grace.
A left handed person can control what they do with their left hand. However, it is not natural for them to use their right hand. Does their choice in the matter mean they should never be allowed to use their left hand? Clearly you are saying that gay people ARE considerably more broken than you are, since you say that God intended us to be heterosexual. Being gay is part of brokenness, whereas being straight is not a part of brokenness- therefore gay people are inherently inferior people. Religion is a choice, however a deeply felt one. Should someone be punished because they didn’t choose what you consider the right religion to be? People don’t choose to be black, but they can choose to sit at the front of the bus. Does their choice make it wrong for them to sit at the front instead the back of the bus? Marriage is considered to be a human right. WHY should gay people denied that right just because of the way they were born? Why was banning mixed race marriages wrong, but not banning gay marriage? IF you are going to argue, “well the Bible teaches that homosexuals are evil, but not skin color,” remember that there are over 200 passages in the Bible which justify slavery, far more texts than there are about homosexuality. There are also texts in the New Testament that blame the Jews for killing Jesus- something that Church tradition used for centuries to justify persecuting Jews. The Church was wrong to persecute BOTH Gays and Jews throughout history. Just because homophobia is part of Church tradition doesn’t automatically make it right. Being homophobic is a choice, one’s sexual orientation is not a choice. Sexual orientation is more about what someone is and only secondarily what they do.
The Church only takes a position on the chosen behavior, not on any inclinations. The position is based on centuries of Biblical exegesis by many faithful Christians. You are free to seek out avenues to change the Church’s position.
I will only add that I have never used language such as you chose to use referring to persons who choose to engage in homosexual behaviors as “inferior”. No sinner is superior or inferior to any other & the grace of God in Jesus is available to all. No one, regardless of their particular decisions, is free from brokenness, and repentance is available to all, a truth for which I am exceedingly grateful.
Homosexuals are inferior by your world view, because ANY expression of who they are is sinful, whereas that isn’t the case for Heterosexuals. Anyway, the morality you advocate is built on a “Heterosexual norm,” which extols Heterosexuals, and which makes Heterosexual Marriage THE measure of right and wrong in sexuality, rather than a morality based on “Love of Neghbor” as well as of God. which is what Jesus and which is what even Paul, James as well as what the Letters of John teach as well. It doesn’t justify centuries of prejudice by saying it is the product of centuries of Biblical exegesis by Faithful Christians. Blaming ALL Jews for killing Jesus was also a product of this same exegesis as were the crusades and the inquisition as well.
I’m sorry you disagree with the Church. Peace.
Thanks for not saying I disagree with “God,” but rather the Church – I mean it.
Dan, from a heterosexual, long time church member (born & raised child of a pastor)…Amen and Amen to you brother! The only reason I’m still a church member is that I’ve fortunately found a thriving UMC church community that truly preaches and practices LOVE — which includes practicing radical hospitality like LBGTQ inclusion! We are a member of Reconciling Ministries. I totally understand the position posted by Mike above. And he voices one of the major reasons why Christian church communities are dying out. Get a clue folks!
You are missing the point! If progressives are invited to leave, it will not be because of your beliefs, it will be because of your disobedience. If your beliefs were the problem you would have been asked to leave a long time ago; probably about the third time you petitioned General Conference to change the wording in the Discipline. As an orthodox, it is not your question re sexuality that troubles and scares me, it is your tactics. And it will be your tactics that will lead to your exile. In your disobedience, progressives have set themselves up as being first and above all others. Jesus had very clear words re those that desire to be first. Because progressives started the push re homosexuality the ball is in your court when it comes to keeping The United Methodist Church intact. So, what are you willing to do to keep the church intact? John Wesley had some pointed questions when it came to peace within the church; he asks, “What are you willing to do?”:
How dreadful and how innumerable are the contests which have arisen about religion! And not only among the children of this world, among those who knew not what true religion was; but even among the children of God, those who had experienced ‘the kingdom of God within them’, who had tasted of ‘righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost’. How many in all ages, instead of joining together against the common enemy, have turned their weapons against each other, and so not only wasted their precious time but hurt one another’s spirits, weakened each other’s hands, and so hindered the great work of their common Master! How many of the weak have hereby been offended! How many of the ‘lame turned out of the way’! How many sinners confirmed in their disregard for all religion, and their contempt of those that profess it! And how many of ‘the excellent ones upon earth’ have been constrained to ‘weep in secret places’!
What would every lover of God and his neighbor do, what would he not suffer, to remedy this sore evil? To remove contention from the children of God? To restore or preserve peace among them? What but a good conscience would he think too dear to part with in order to promote this valuable end? And suppose we cannot make ‘these wars cease to all the world’, suppose we cannot reconcile all the children of God to each other; however, let each do what he can, let him contribute if it be but two mites toward it. Happy are they who are able in any degree to promote peace and goodwill among men’! Especially among good men; among those that are all listed under the banner of ‘the Prince of Peace’; and are therefore peculiarly engaged, ‘as much as lies in them, to live peaceably with all men’. John Wesley, “The Lord Our Righteousness”