Faithless Electors are a good argument, but a poor parallel to what is going on in The United Methodist Church.
Faithless Electors
Recently, the Electoral College in the United States voted to award sufficient votes for the Presidency of the USA to Donald Trump. In the run-up to the vote, there was much discussion about so-called “faithless electors,” meaning electors who would choose out of conviction to not vote for the winner of the state. Such was the case with the final vote: seven electors opted to not vote for the winner of their state’s allotment.
- The criticism of those electors was that they were charged with following the will of the majority of the people in their state, and they were chosen by their party to be their faithful representatives in the room. They have an obligation to follow the will of the party and state, not their own convictions.
- The defense was that they were delegates–not representatives–and, in their Hamilton-conceived structure, they were delegated the authority to allow their own decisions. They were chosen because they were party loyalists–yes–but also statesmen and stateswomen who put the country first. If there was reason enough to vote against the popular vote of one’s state, then they have the authority to do it.
Ultimately, it was all for talk. Faithless electors didn’t happen in enough numbers–Trump received enough votes to become President-Elect. But the conversation has other interesting reverberations, even to The United Methodist Church.
UMC Parallel
In the days leading up to the vote, one Texas elector resigned rather than violate their conscience or break the law. One United Methodist colleague online sent me a private message referencing this event and said:
This is what progressive Methodists should do: choose Integrity over Insurrection.
The insinuation is that progressive Methodists who practice Biblical Obedience, the term which best describes the movement for LGBTQ inclusion in The United Methodist Church, should stop being Methodists because of their convictions. Like an elector faced with violating their conscience or violating the law, they should resign and get out of the system entirely.
It’s not even an insinuation. This is essentially the position of the conservative majority in United Methodism: clergy who disagree with the Discipline on LGBTQ inclusion should follow it anyway (violate their conscience) or turn in their clergy orders (leave), but they should not violate the Discipline (violate the law). The sentiment above parallels both the Discipline and the current rhetoric.
One and Done or Daily?
The problem with the comparison is that Electors have a one-time decision: do they violate their conscience once and live with it? Or do they suffer the consequences from this one action?
Progressive, Moderate, and Conservative Methodists seeking the full inclusion of LGBTQ people in The United Methodist Church make daily decisions whether to follow the Discipline to the letter, to the spirit, or follow their interpretation of the Bible over the Discipline. It’s not a one-off decision, but one that we struggle with daily or at least weekly as we struggle to pastor our LGBTQ members with the Church Law hovering over our shoulder.
Echoes of Jim Crow
Two years back, we discussed a perhaps more apt comparison: Back in the days of Jim Crow, white poll workers and restaurant owners, folks who were not racist and did not see other races as inferior, were forced to discriminate.
It was the law to have separate rooms for races, to install separate water fountains, and for poll workers to ask license questions. Regardless of their personal convictions, people had to follow an unjust law and treat people as inferior because of the color of their skin. Far from a once-every-four-years event, racially-supportive persons in the Jim Crow era who were forced to discriminate or face retributions themselves…every day.
I would imagine that late 19th century poll workers and restaurant owners who did not see other races as inferior had to make choices that sound awfully familiar to progressive clergy who offer marriage services to all their congregants:
- Do they revolt against the unjust law, open their doors or voting booths to all people and risk being punished?
- Do they move away and go to a new state and abandon their positions to people who take full advantage of the way how the system is stacked up for their benefit?
- Do they use their position and work within the system to provide havens of help or muddled legalities to help people even if true systemic justice is decades away (and then only through the courts)?
It’s important to note that I am not calling United Methodists hateful or violent, as the term “Jim Crow” conjures up an era of lynchings and violence to African Americans (though violence against other races and LGBT persons alike happens daily). I am pointing out the predicament that people of faith who support full inclusion find themselves in in an institution that does not value people the same way by its actions.
Daily Decisions
The daily decision to violate one’s conscience is front and center of every Christian’s ethical life, which oddly enough is being named in popular culture as well. The latest Star Wars movie even has an ethical conundrum of what to do when you are part of a regime that has objectionable tendencies.
In the United Methodist Church, we affirm that “LGBT persons are of sacred worth” and are not to be discriminated against…except when it comes to ordination and marriage. For non-LGBT persons who support full inclusion, being unable to offer or support persons is an unconscionable position to be in, leading them to decide what to do when the Church is wrong.
- I believe the church is wrong when I’m forced to tell a ministry candidate they have to divorce their same-gender partner to pursue ordination in The UMC.
- I believe the church is wrong when I tell the parents at a baptism that the church will nurture and care for their child and encourage their discipleship…unless they turn out to be gay, in which case discipleship cannot include following a call to ordained ministry, as that’s what straight babies do.
Having these convictions is not a problem in United Methodism…at least right now (elements of the conservative majority are seeking to eradicate the ability to even think differently). The question is what do we do with these convictions as far as actions. Some folks choose to practice Biblical Obedience and violate the Discipline by marrying parishioners or coming out as LGBTQ. Others choose not to violate the Discipline to stay in the echelons of power in United Methodism.
Regardless, it is a daily choice, and one that shouldn’t be denigrated as “integrity over insurrection” when integrity sometimes includes objection, non-conformity, carving out creative minorities. Because when LGBTQ-affirming progressive, conservatives, and moderates see sin, even in our own polity, we are called at our Baptismal Covenant to resist it.
Your turn
Thoughts? Thanks for reading, commenting, and your shares on social media.
I have always thought that “Do you accept the freedom and power God gives you
to resist evil, injustice, and oppression
in whatever forms they present themselves?” should be a bigger problem for United Methodists.
This article begs the question. If you disagree with one policy or even one word should you consider leaving the church? The answer, of course, is no. Where there are so many things that you agree on, leaving the church over one policy or even one word should not be your only option. I do not like a speed limit of 70 mph. I want it to at least 75 mph. But I do like traveling on the Interstate a whole lot more than back country roads. So I abide; mostly. And, if I get a chance I tell my State legislator: “Hey buddy, up the speed.” But alas he has bigger things to consider like who can use the public restrooms or sign a marriage license. I guess I’ll have to make my issue bigger in his eyes. What I am getting at is that we, Methodists, got along just fine by agreeing to disagree on many issues that weren’t central to our faith. Now someone has tied one of these peripheral issues directly to “believe or disbelieve in God.” That is unfortunate because it is a false belief. Being LBTG? has nothing to do with a personal relationship to God nor to the ability to serve the Lord in a mighty way. It’s alright with me if you want to consider sexual identity that is different from yours to be a sin. That’s your choice. But neither you nor I are the ultimate arbiters of sin. And, I’m alright with accepting you as another Christian, just so long as you behave like one. Not the words of my mouth, nor the deeds of my hands but rather the meditations of my heart and the love I demonstrate toward my fellow Christian will be the judgement call in the Final Hours. If we, Methodists, as Christians, can focus our love and energies on becoming more Christlike and less on being good Pharisees we will be judged “Righteous” in the end. The Book of Discipline is the regulatory code of the church. It is not the law of God. In our minds we are convinced that we are right on every issue. In truth we can be only right on one thing: Belief and trust in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is our only salvation. Everything else is peripheral. Agree on what you can, work for what you believe needs to be changed, for everything else “Liberty.”
Excellent post.
I would argue that all of us United Methodists, both those who who support our existing, discriminatory position and those who oppose it, are complicit in a violent system, regardless of whether we as individuals engage in violent acts against persons because of their sexual orientation. We don’t have to engage in personal violence; our ecclesial system does it for us. We cannot individually extricate ourselves from complicity in this violent system even if we leave the denomination.
Thanks, Jeremy, for your continuing efforts to enlighten and encourage. Blessings to you and yours.
Roger Tanquist, PK
Each state has its own laws concerning electors. For those states that bind the elector to the candidate a faithless elector faces charges. Curiously of the seven faithless electors five of the defectors were supposed to vote for Hillary Clinton. Only two came from Trump.
Our Methodist clergy know full well what our policy is well before they are ordained. Since they have to respond to these questions;
Have you studied the doctrine and discipline of The UMC? Do you believe they are in harmony with scripture? Will you support them?
If they can no longer support our doctrine then they are ethically bound to leave. We certainly cannot make bargains with oath breakers so the split continues to widen.
I am sorry this discussion keeps going on and on. The matter of sexual practice in the Bible is not a minor issue, like the ceremonial laws which were given for a certain time and situation but were not meant for times and all places. Matters of sexual practice in the Bible are part of the orders of creation and are related to the importance of the covenant (and covenants) which are based on faithfulness. This has been the understanding of the Church through the ages and has been taught in all cultures and nationalities and at all times. With the exception, of course, of modern-day secularism which makes human autonomy (with all of its biases and prejudices and inclinations) the arbitrator of all truth. There was a woman who started coming to the church I was serving some years ago. She was by her own admission, promiscuous sexually, both for money and without money. She was loved by the church and came to confess faith in Christ for salvation. I assumed that she would then have a change of behavior but it was not to be. She, in fact, gave Bible reasons why her life-style was doing more good than harm (frustrated men who need comfort, etc.). It was, in her mind, a way of loving the neighbor as ones self. Did we cast her out of the church? No. Did we continue to love her and encourage her? Would we have had her teach Sunday school? No. I believe she respected the church’s stand on sexuality and did not start a crusade to change our standards. I, and others, object strongly to the comparison of homosexual practice and prejudice based on race. Integrity is a factor in these discussions because integrity should take precedence over “unity.” If integrity is being true to one’s convictions it also means being true to the standards and promises of the covenants we are a part of. This would suggest some sort of division or separation. This is already happening, unfortunately, not on the part of those who threaten to bring the church down if they don’t get their way, but on the part of those who believe the church is being severely compromised and that God is leading them out of United Methodism in order to serve Him with integrity. It is an historical fact that in America (not necessarily so in Europe) with a much more sectarian understanding of the Church, the Church at large for the most part has thrived on division. This is the thesis Nathan Hatch in his classic The Democratization of American Christianity. For sure no one is thriving under what is happening presently within United Methodism
My experience is that the Orientation or the lasting direction of feelings and attractions is fixed and immutable. For some time long ago, I tried to change my attractions from male to female and found that to be impossible, even with years of psychotherapy. However the psychotherapy was a Godsend in many other ways. Attractions, NOT behavior, per se, makes a person Gay. Many men, for instance, will engage in homosexual behavior in prison but this doesn’t necessarily mean they have feelings in that direction. Likewise many Gay men will marry women, yet their attractions are for other men. Being gay is NOT akin to an addiction. Feelings and sense of identity comprise part of what a person. Most definitely one’s Sexual Orientation is akin to one’s race.
Where your analogy falls apart is that within The United Methodist Church, progressives have determined their conscience supercedes the conscience of those that disagree with them. Sadly, the lesson that your individual freedom ends where mine begins is lost on progressives. The difference between us is that I have no problem that you believe differently than me; you are more than welcome to your beliefs and I will defend your right to have them. However, differences in belief become a problem when one person insists that the other person bend to their will–which is exactly what United Methodist progressives are telling the rest of the church. It is that insistence that you are right and everybody is wrong is what has pushed those that disagree with you to now draw their own lines in the sand and created this stand-off that has the future of the denomination in question.
It seems to me that the conservatives do not believe that anyone has a right to disagree with them, since they believe that they speak for God. Progressives don’t try to institute punishments for disagreement as the conservatives has instituted draconian punishments for either ordaining or marrying LGBT persons. Progressives would allow a “local option” for either accepting or rejecting LGBT persons within the denomination but the conservatives insist that every Church or Annual Conference must absolutely have no right to an local option to accept LGBT persons.
Apparently there is some confusion between disagreement and disobedience. One involves discussion and discernment. The other causes division, breaking the bonds of trust and eventually schism.
Then how come of all things, being accepting of LGBT persons was turned into disobedience? Pastors are perfectly free to disregard, for instance, our teaching that Capital Punishment is against the teachings of Jesus, but Pastors cannot accept Gay persons as they are. The Bible is clear throughout that we should care for the poor, but it isn’t a chargeable offense to disregard Jesus’ teaching on this. Turning the acceptance of persons into disobedience is based on the idea that the Bible is only “clear” on two subjects, abortion and homosexuality, but on no other moral issue. ANYWAY, the book of Discipline DOES support Civil Disobedience to unjust laws. Here is a statement from the Social Principles, which could also apply to our denomination, since we LGBT have exhausted all legal recourse to be considered equal in our denomination.
“Governments and laws should be servants of God and of human beings. Citizens have a duty to abide by laws duly adopted by orderly and just process of government. But governments, no less than individuals, are subject to the judgment of God. Therefore, we recognize the right of individuals to dissent when acting under the constraint of conscience and, after having exhausted all legal recourse, to resist or disobey laws that they deem to be unjust or that are discriminately enforced. Even then, respect for law should be shown by refraining from violence and by being willing to accept the costs of disobedience. We do not encourage or condone any form of violent protest as a legitimate exercise of free speech or civil disobedience. We offer our prayers for those in rightful authority who serve the public, and we support their efforts to afford justice and equal opportunity for all people. We assert the duty of churches to support those who suffer because of their stands of conscience represented by nonviolent beliefs or acts. We urge governments to ensure civil rights, as defined by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to persons in legal jeopardy because of those nonviolent acts.”
Even more confusion. There is a difference between civil disobedience against unjust laws. And those who do so should expect to be punished as the law allows. Such people are often held in high regard.
And then there is ecclesial disobedience where people disobey the rules (not laws) of a church they have sworn to uphold. This is simply oath breaking and such people are held in very low regard.