I’m geeking out a bit over this guest article.
Rev. Dr. J. Philip Wogaman is a titan in United Methodism–and he has a Wikipedia page! A fellow graduate of Boston University School of Theology, he’s been a seminary professor, dean, seminary president, senior pastor to presidents, and many other inspirational roles over his lifetime. While Dr. Wogaman is retired, he is involved in the politics of United Methodism enough to want to speak out against errors in logic from his long experience as a Christian ethicist.
The following is an original essay from Dr. Wogaman that he submitted for publication at Hacking Christianity. Enjoy.
===
Flawed Arguments Against United Methodist Change on LGBTQ Policies
J. Philip Wogaman
The recently concluded special United Methodist General Conference voted against removing policies against Gay and Lesbian ordination and forbidding clergy from presiding over same-gender marriages. The “traditional plan” not only called for maintaining those policies but increasing enforcement. The votes were fairly close, with about 10% separating traditionalists and progressives. The final outcome of the conservative changes awaits decisions by the church’s Judicial Council as to their constitutionality. But, as it stands, the General Conference has reinforced existing teaching and law. Progressives had hoped for a different outcome, providing a way forward for the denomination. With another General Conference set for 2020 an immediate split within the denomination appears unlikely, at least for now. But the conflict remains, now exacerbated by the 2019 Conference.
I have followed the debates within the church, before and after the General Conference, with special interest. As an ethicist I have been struck by significant flaws in the reasoning of the traditionalists, led by the UM Good News and Confessionalist movements. Here are some of them:
Flaw #1. Biblical literalism
One of the church’s existing Social Principles asserts that “The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.” In the 46 years since this was adopted, the church has never specified why this is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” However, in defending this position, “homosexual practice” is repeatedly labeled as contrary to biblical teaching. It is, in fact, true that there are a few—perhaps seven—biblical passages condemning same-gender sexual relationships. The most significant of these is probably the words in Romans 1:26-27 that speaks of how those who rebelled against God were given up by God” to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” A condemnation in Leviticus even calls for same-gender sexual acts to be punishable by death.
Those passages are certainly there, along with some identifications of marriage as between man and woman. (Of course, in the case of Abraham, Isaac, David, and Solomon, it wasn’t just one man and one woman but polygamy on a grand scale!) Efforts have been made by progressive Christians to re-frame these passages or to counter them with others.
I am less interested in that then I am in the larger assumption: If a moral teaching is in the Bible, it is, for no other reason, binding upon faithful Christians. In the case of the Confessing Movement, it is the fact that these biblical teachings are repeated throughout a lot of church history. True enough.
But that kind of reasoning is deeply flawed. It passes over the many points at which taking scripture literally is not intellectually sustainable. There are, within scripture, different versions of the same event and descriptions that could not possibly be factual, given what we know scientifically about the world and universe. Moreover, the Bible contains ethical teachings that most United Methodists do not consider binding. For instance, I Timothy 2:11-14 and Ephesians 5:22-24 which mark the inferiority of women to men—and harsh teachings in part of the Older Testament, such as Leviticus.
Do members and particularly leaders of organizations like the Confessing and Good News movements consider themselves to be literalists? I doubt it. But insofar as they allow biblical literalism to be a serious ground for the harsh Traditionalist Plan, we have to question the integrity of the legislative effort.
Perhaps it must be added that progressive United Methodists do take scripture very seriously. I am reminded of an early 20th century Methodist minister who was accosted by a layperson with the question, “Do you take the Bible literally?” To which he is supposed to have replied, “I don’t take it literally, I take it seriously.” To take the Bible seriously is to be led and inspired by its deep theological messages, especially about the importance of love, along with a good dose of humility in face of the grandeur and grace of God.
Flaw #2. Ignoring Facts
A failure to take important facts into account. Moral judgments are at the intersection of values and facts. Our values are grounded biblically and inspired by generations of faithful Christians. But they must be translated into the factual world and universe — context matters. The deep scriptural values at the heart of our faith must not be captive to the factual views of biblical writers. Some of those writings convey views that remain valid, even thousands of years later—particularly those dealing with human nature and our tendencies toward self-centeredness. In dealing with sexual issues, the United Methodist Social Principles are on
Perhaps the most important fact is that there
Flaw #3. Labeling Homosexual “Practice” as necessarily sinful
The line in the Social Principles that treats homosexual “practice” as incompatible with Christian teaching does not, as stated above, give specific reasons. But its point is clearly to identify this as sin—always and necessarily a sin. We’ve already pointed out that such a judgment cannot be based on biblical literalism. But that language pushes us to think more clearly about what “sin” is. There is a good deal of theological support for the view that sin is in what separates us from God. That can’t mean ”literally so” because God is already present everywhere. Nor in Christian faith can it mean that sin is our failure to earn and deserve the grace of God. God’s grace is present all the time, quite apart from our deserving. But sin is real. Perhaps the best way to phrase this is to speak of human actions and attitudes that create obstacles to our receiving that divine grace. Can sexual actions and attitudes be sinful? Of course! But they don’t attach to sexual orientation per se.
Flaw #4. Legalism
The “Traditionalist Plan,” largely adopted by the special General Conference and advocated by the Confessing and Good News movements, not only continued existing legislation prohibiting the ordination of LGBTQ candidates for ministry and made it a chargeable offense for clergy to officiate at same-gender weddings, but it sought to rigidify enforcement of these prohibitions. Some of that has been ruledr unconstitutional by the church’s Judicial Council, but the Traditionalists clearly want to increase legal controls. The basic rationale seems clear enough: Our covenant with one another is expressed in our laws, and everybody should be accountable for obeying them. But not so fast! Do church laws related to LGBTQ issues authentically express the deep meaning of our covenant? Legalism is law required for its own sake, just because it is the law, and not because it expresses an underlying theological or moral truth. John Wesley himself disobeyed Anglican church law when it conflicted with his conscience. When church law is rigidly enforced, it risks making it difficult for people to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit in acts of ecclesial disobedience when church law is deemed to be wrong. The traditionalists want to prescribe definite and harsh penalties, removing all discretion from bishops and church courts. We do well to remember St. Thomas Aquinas’s admonition to rulers not to enact laws that many oppose.
For the sake of good laws we should be cautious in imposing laws that are not supported by a clear consensus.
Flaw #5. Pastoral Insensitivity to the Hurt of LGBTQ People and Their Loved Ones
As noted above, the traditionalists and the current “incompatible with Christian teaching” consider same-gender sexual relationships to be sinful, and in the Book of Discipline, such relationships are singled out for special condemnation in church law. Despite rhetoric about loving the sinner while hating the sin, LGBTQ people are stigmatized. In some parts of the church, such stigma gets translated into rejection by the community—despite the Social Principle imploring us not to reject or condemn. Fact is, that happens and is deeply felt by those who are hurt by it. One especially poignant illustration of the problem occurs to me. I have known children of gay or lesbian couples. Is the church telling those children, in effect, that their same-gender parents are living in sin? How are those children to be regarded in Sunday School and youth groups? And when two people of the same gender clearly love each other why shouldn’t the church recognize and celebrate the moral dignity of their union? When such recognition is denied through church law, isn’t that a profound statement of rejection?
This stigmatizing of same-gender love and the accompanying rejection of a person’s inherent sexual orientation translates as personal rejection. No amount of pastoral solicitude can overcome the wider church’s condemnation, although we can be grateful that numbers of pastors and lay fellow Methodists have sought to be fully inclusive and caring.
Flaw #6. Rejecting the Views of Younger United Methodists
Very large numbers of young people have turned away from American churches. In part this may simply reflect anti-institutional feelings. But young people often have gay and lesbian friends and simply cannot understand why the church is stigmatizing them. When young people sometimes judge the church as hypocritical, this often is cited. No doubt, there are also young people who fully accept current UM teaching about same-gender sexual relationshps, particularly if they have grown up in more conservative churches. But even these youths are not likely to remain in those churches for the rest of their lives.
In some measure, the issues now confronting the church are generational in character. And, say what we will, the younger generation is the future of the church.
J. Philip Wogaman
===
Your turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
Thank-you for a well reasoned, non-inflammatory post on, at least for me, a tough issue. I struggle with this issue and have long felt homosexuality is not compatible with Christianity because for all my life that’s WHAT THE CHURCH HAS TAUGHT ME! Now that our society is more accepting of LGBTQ members I’m told “Psych! Just Kidding! God has changed His mind and you’re a bad person for not accepting them”. If we just make up the rules as society dictates, we’re no different then the HAM radio club I belong to (although the church has much better music).
I question your flaw #5 (pastoral insensitivity to the hurt caused) and #6 (ignoring our young people). Both of these appear to place not offending people at the top of the list. But we are told that Jesus is and will be a “stumbling block”. He was offensive to many when he was in the flesh and will always continue to offend. This, of course, can be the case by offending those who resist the LGBTQ efforts as well. I just don’t think Biblical truth should be based on whether it offends someone or not. And do we change our teaching because our youth, or any other demographic, are turning from the church? That brings to mind the politician who said “I have to follow these people because I’m their leader”. Are our values driven by the number of people we get in the pews?
Again, I struggle with this and want to know God’s will. Both the “traditional” and “progressive” sides can be (and have been) ugly to me because I won’t stand with either right now (and I don’t think I’m alone). I enjoy reading reasoned arguments from both “sides” but see current events as nothing more than power politics — a feeling only reinforced after watching the special session of the conference — and the people “voting” on what Biblical truth should be.
My view of the points you raised with offending people and that Jesus often offended people is that Jesus was usually calling out the already religious in their practices and was inviting to those who were “obvious” sinners. To me, this translates that if Jesus were here, he would be asking the traditionalists “why are you not welcoming to everyone?” and would be dining with and loving on the LGBT folks. This is just my understanding. Feel free to disagree.
I’ve also seen the argument that we are just changing the rules because that is what society dictates very often. My argument to that is that, personally, my views didn’t change because of society, although I did look into it more as LGBT gained more rights in our country and I was exposed to more people in the LGBT community. But this led me to look into it more and understand the context of the scripture and other scripture. It led me to prayer. Through this study and prayer, I have come to a new understanding that a monogamous, homosexual relationship is no more sinful than my own relationship. Yes, I was led to look into it more because of our society. But it was not societal pressures that changed my mind. Especially since I am still quite in the minority of my area.
I am so sorry that both sides have been ugly to you during all of this. That is one of the things that I hate about this so much. There is so much fighting and it turns ugly very quickly. I hope that my words come off with the loving tone that I have meant.
Some random thoughts:
Methodists aren’t biblical literalists. Just ask the Baptists. The author even says so. You can’t get to the BoD feminism and civil rights positions with a literalists approach.
There are clear statements in support of very harsh understanding of homosexuality, of which, we reject and the consensus is something much different than the literal Biblical approach.
BoD doesn’t call homosexuality a sin. Similarly, pre-marital sex isn’t called a sin. Racism is called out as a sin on mulitple occasions in the BoD. But their does seem to be a reluctance to endorse either homosexuality or pre-marital sex.
Is the author suggesting that you can’t choose to be homosexual? Why not? If no one would want to choose to be a homosexual, then why should we endorse. Saying it’s not a choice seems to be very similar to saying ‘look, its in the bible’. Both sides want a short cut to get to the answer they already support.
Traditional Plan is a product of the WJ actions. Those actions have not promoted good conferencing. Which may have been the point.
There is a firm consensus (as evidenced by us voting to include in the BoD) that rejections and condemnation (BTW, isn’t condemnation associated with sin) of homosexuals are bad ideas. The BoD calls us to be supportive of the LGBT community.
The BoD also added (either 2008/2012) that the rights based on sexual orientation should include rights that would come to a partnership that entered into a civil union or marriage. That’s a consensus opinion in the UMC in support of marriage equality.
Blessings of a union (as compared to a marriage ceremony) are allowed under the BoD (my interpretation at least).
I’m younger than the author. It doesn’t make anything I said more right. 🙂
In response to “Is the author suggesting that you can’t choose to be homosexual? Why not? If no one would want to choose to be a homosexual, then why should we endorse. Saying it’s not a choice seems to be very similar to saying ‘look, its in the bible’. Both sides want a short cut to get to the answer they already support.”
I believe the author is suggesting this and that is exactly why homosexuals should be treated the same as heterosexuals. These people have no choice. It is a part of them. I do not understand why that is the same as saying “look, it’s in the bible.” Basically, I do not understand your argument. To me, understanding that some humans are only attracted to those of their same gender is nothing like reading the bible literally, which seems to be what you are talking about.
Can bisexuals choose to be in lesbian or gay relationships? It seems like they would have to make a choice. But why couldn’t a women just choose to be with a women versus being born that way? If you would only be a lesbian if you were born that way, then doesn’t that imply that it is the inferior orientation.
I’m not taking the position that its the inferior orientation, only that this position that its not a choice implies that it is. My position is that it seems like it can be a choice, that some people state that they feel like they choose to be gay/lesbian and that more than likely that deciding to be gay is a combination of possibly genetic predisposition and early experiences. The position that its not a choice seems antithetical to the idea of free will.
Saying its not a choice is a good strategy for gaining equal rights but we’ve moved past that at this point. We are now being asked to give our affirmation which seems a little different to me. This choice question seems very important to our older LGBT advocates.
But I’m really just thinking through the issue without the benefit of being gay I guess.
I would suggest that homosexual relationships CAN be a choice, but usually are not. Most of the LGBTQ+ folks I know are quite adamant that they were born that way – but I can accept that a choice might be available for some.
I don’t think it’s a sin either way.
Homosexual relationships as we define them simply weren’t an option in Biblical times. I found this reference summed up the critical items with respect to literal Biblical references quite nicely: https://medium.com/@adamnicholasphillips/the-bible-does-not-condemn-homosexuality-seriously-it-doesn-t-13ae949d6619
There was even a motion to include divorce and adultery as forbidden activity (in alignment with Matthew 19:9 et al) that was shot down by the Traditionalist side, as it was a poison pill. I guess that one struck too close to home.
Above I noted that Methodists aren’t literalists. The BoD current policy isn’t anywhere near a literalist interpretation of the Bible. So, I’m not sure how relevant your link is to me. It seems like a great link to support our current take on things when talking to a Baptist.
I have great difficulty with inconsistency of thought on Biblical mandates. Certainly there’s little quibbling on issues of sanctity of life but we’re not campaigning to stop capital punishment…. and on issues of marriage we have ample biblical guidance for no divorce & remarriage is wrong if spouse is living…. how many would that take from our pulpits or episcopacy?!!!!
I’m not advocating getting literal ~ I could always leave to more evangelical sects if so ~ but the lack of grace & love in the GC19 vote has left me stunned!
Who among us has no flaws or differences?
“For this reason, we oppose the death penalty (capital punishment) and urge its
elimination from all criminal codes.” – 2016 BoD
We have changed how we view penalties and forgiveness when a marriage goes south, but we still affirm that marriage should be for life.
To somewhat paraphrase Christ: “Walk, pick up your bed and go home … your faith has healed you … go & sin no more” and those were the words of the man who also is God — what is more compelling? Paul added, Those who saw this were AMAZED! Amazement is void of negative judgement. Do l hear your AMEN!
Amen, Brother Phil!! We at Foundry UMC are proud of your long-standing leadership on the inclusion AND affirmation of our siblings.
Can bisexuals choose to be in lesbian or gay relationships? It seems like they would have to make a choice. But why couldn’t a women just choose to be with a women versus being born that way? If you would only be a lesbian if you were born that way, then doesn’t that imply that it is the inferior orientation.
I’m not taking the position that its the inferior orientation, only that this position that its not a choice implies that it is. My position is that it seems like it can be a choice, that some people state that they feel like they choose to be gay/lesbian and that more than likely that deciding to be gay is a combination of possibly genetic predisposition and early experiences. The position that its not a choice seems antithetical to the idea of free will.
Saying its not a choice is a good strategy for gaining equal rights but we’ve moved past that at this point. We are now being asked to give our affirmation which seems a little different to me. This choice question seems very important to our older LGBT advocates.
But I’m really just thinking through the issue without the benefit of being gay I guess.
While there is much that is not understood about the science of sexuality and gender, what IS understood, at this point, is that a strict heterosexual male/female binary is not supported by the facts. How individuals respond to their own sexuality and gender identity is something that any outsider should approach with deep humility and caution, because God loves them as they ARE.
Thanks for this well thought out essay.
As usual you make perfect sense. It has been a long time since our encounter around this issue and I appreciated you then and even more now. Thanks for a wonderfully crafted writing.
Jesus was not quoted or mentioned. Why not? Jesus references creation, the two sexes, adultery, enuchs, holy marriage, and those who would undo it- in Matthew 19. Its instructive that the Lord goes to the creation and the first sentences of the Bible. The first Christian teachers were quick to eschew holy marriage taught by Jesus. Our present Christian teachers want to do the same. Jesus echoes and amplifies Mosaic teaching. Holy marriage is ‘one flesh’. It is a mystery, a creation mystery. The creation couple have an essence and a charge. Holy marriage is divine in essence as is man. God wants holy seed. Eunuchs also have a place. Hear Jesus. Teach this and you will have holy seed.
AMEN!!!
First – Section 2 states, “The deep scriptural values at the heart of our faith must not be captive to the factual views of biblical writers. Some of those writings convey views that remain valid, even thousands of years later—particularly those dealing with human nature and our tendencies toward self-centeredness. In dealing with sexual issues, the United Methodist Social Principles are on solid factual ground in warning against the moral dangers of sexual exploitation and disconnecting sexual expression from love. But our traditionalist friends overlook factual realities in same-gender relationships.” So there’s the immediate contradiction of factual views being okay in certain situations but not others. WHAT????
Next – Yes, John Wesley disagreed with the Anglican church. And he LEFT and started his own denomination.
Next – Section #5 is garbage. There’s ALWAYS going to be hurt from someone and for someone. That’s called LIFE. If you try to please everyone, you’re going to turn the church into a pretzel and lose everyone in the process. Nothing changed aside from some stricter repercussions for those who violate their oaths (which I have no issue with because you should get in trouble if you violate an oath). So there’s no more hurt than there was on February 24, 2019; but the progressives are all stunned because they thought for certain there was no way they would lose (refer to the 2016 Presidential election for more information on losing when you thought you had all the bases bought). Stop acting all butt-hurt and grow up!
Last – Section #6 is also garbage. There’s no PROOF that the younger generation agrees with same-sex relationships, even if they’re more accepting of it. Polls can be found to say anything you want them to say. The church is hypocritical (see my first comment). I’m 53 and have called the church (all, not just Methodist) hypocritical numerous times; and still do at times.
I truly care for ALL people. I also truly care for the church. What I see right now is a bunch of people whining and crying because they didn’t get their way, like toddlers throwing tantrums over a toy or ice cream. And I don’t like it.
“Next – Section #5 is garbage. There’s ALWAYS going to be hurt from someone and for someone. That’s called LIFE.”
Remind me, what was Wesley’s first rule?
“So there’s no more hurt than there was on February 24, 2019; but the progressives are all stunned because they thought for certain there was no way they would lose…”
No, we had higher expectations for our Church. By all accounts, the moderates and progressives went in trying to find common ground and a way to unify the church – while the conservatives went in with no such intentions. They were going to take full control or a significant faction was going to walk. [And everything is on the internet, skim through some of those blogs from the WCA, Good News, etc.]
It’s going to make for a really nice documentary at some point.
John Wesley did not leave the Anglican Church, despite their differences of opinions. Despite the fact that many Anglican’s and his bishop hated his teachings, he never intended to form a separate denomination. The only reason the Americans broke of from the Anglican Church was because of the Revolution.
I grew up in the Methodist Church (I’m 24) and I know a decent bit about it’s history. I do not believe that the traditionalist plan is what Wesley would have wanted. Wesley was all about grace and love. I accept that Wesley was just a man, no more important than any other, but that’s kind of my point.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/denominationalfounders/john-wesley.html
Thank you for the reasoned, intelligent essay.
I must ask what, in my opinion, is the key question: What did Jesus teach on this?
I am a Christian. I am not a Paulite. Jesus taught love. He challenged those who sought to live by only their “religious laws” and not their faith. Jesus sets the example I need to aspire to.
The Pentateuch (first five books of the Hebrew bible/Old Testament) clearly states that it’s the literal, eternal, immutable word/law of God. It even specifies the punishments to be visited upon those who don’t obey the Law, try to change it, add to it, or take away from it.
One of those dictates is that male (not female!) homosexuals should be put to death. No expiration date on this.
So, either you believe God, or you don’t. No picking and choosing.
Like everyone here, I don’t believe this either. But, if there is anyone who does believe that the Pentateuch is the literal, eternal, immutable word/law of God, please feel free to respond.
Here’s a fun quirk that I like to bring up every now and again when I teach Sunday school classes:
Jesus was pretty clear that HE could pick and choose.
There’s the eye for an eye vs turn the other cheek.
There’s ‘Let he without sin cast the first stone’.
And my favorite, by far, is the Greatest Commandment.
Love God with your whole heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.
The first part shows up several times in the Old Testament, and it’s pretty standard fare.
That second part – love your neighbor – that comes out of Leviticus 19:17-18.
17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.
18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.
“Neighbor” here is clearly noted to be “of your own people”. Jesus took a small piece of the law, which was directed VERY specifically to only the Israelites, and expanded that to really include everyone, Jew or Gentile.
Makes you kind of wonder what Jesus would do now about this issue, doesn’t it?
When Jesus comes again with his angel armies, he will purge the earth of all the unrighteous. So let the righteous and unrighteous grow together in the field–like the wheat and tares–leave off this harmful weeding out of those who are judged unrighteous by those equally unrighteous.
These are very good points and I find them very thought provoking. I think at the heart of the issues is the idea that choices and beliefs all come with consequences. If LGBTQ lifestyles, or any other life practice is sinful in God’s sight then the consequences are extremely horrible, eternal separation from God and all good. I believe the intensity of this and many other issues comes from our interpretation of it’s consequences. The Methodists are attempting to give their churches their CHOICE concerning these consequences.