The following statement was released April 13 by the Renewal and Reform Coalition, composed of Good News, the Confessing Movement Within the United Methodist Church, Lifewatch, RENEW, Transforming Congregations, and UMAction.
Links and subheadings have been added by MethodistThinker.com — Ed.
–
It’s that time again. General Conference will soon be here and all of us are hoping and praying for a Conference that will “major on the majors” and propel The United Methodist Church toward a vital, growing, and faithful future.
Of course, the issue that has divided us for over 40 years will need to be addressed again. And no doubt the debate regarding the practice of homosexuality will be as heartfelt and as emotional as it has been in the past.
Though other issues such as restructuring, vital congregations, and reaching young adults are essential for our future, none of those issues carries the possibility of splitting the denomination. Only the issue of homosexuality has that potential — will we ordain and appoint practicing homosexual clergy and marry same-sex couples?
Homosexuality is not the most important issue before the church, but it is the most divisive and the one that can rip apart The United Methodist Church, just as it has The United Church of Christ, The Episcopal Church in the U.S., The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and, most recently, The Presbyterian Church (USA).
–
A proposed ‘compromise’
Some are proposing that we avoid this kind of damage to The United Methodist Church by adopting one of two “compromise” positions. At our last General Conference there was a strong movement simply to “agree to disagree.” This position would have us admit that we are of divided mind regarding homosexual practice and would have us make no definitive statement regarding the practice of homosexuality until we receive “further light.”
|
From the UM
Book of Discipline
¶161F Human Sexuality — We affirm that sexuality is God’s good gift to all persons. We call everyone to responsible stewardship of this sacred gift.
Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are affirmed only within the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
We deplore all forms of the commercialization, abuse, and exploitation of sex. We call for strict global enforcement of laws prohibiting the sexual exploitation of children and for adequate protection, guidance, and counseling for abused children.
All persons, regardless of age, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation, are entitled to have their human and civil rights ensured and to be protected against violence. The Church should support the family in providing age-appropriate education regarding sexuality to children, youth, and adults.
We affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God. All persons need the ministry of the Church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self.
The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.
¶304.3 Regarding Clergy — While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world.
Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.
|
While appealing to some, this “compromise” is ultimately unhelpful. We all want to be done with this issue. When a matter is pragmatic and little more, compromise can be the right option to take. Part of growing up is realizing that you can’t and don’t need to get your way all the time.
But when the issue is one of principle and when it involves the clear teaching of Scripture, we cannot take the easy way out and claim that we do not know what we believe without injuring our personal integrity and our corporate witness.
And to be honest, everyone knows that removing the clear statement we currently have in the Discipline would not resolve the issue. It is only a first step by those whose ultimate intention is to change the church’s position. That’s hardly a true compromise.
When the “agree-to-disagree compromise” was defeated in Fort Worth and the historic position of the church was reaffirmed, the charge against those who supported the church’s stance was, “You’re dishonest. We are of divided mind. Why won’t you even allow us to state that we differ?”
It’s a good question. And there’s a very good answer. We United Methodists are divided on practically every issue. But in none of our other statements on matters theological, moral, or cultural do we state that we have agreed to disagree.
Many United Methodists were surprised to discover that our denomination has a position on healthcare that supports the government providing universal coverage. Not only surprised to discover that we had a position, they were adamant that they disagreed with it.
Will those wanting us to adopt the “agree to disagree” position on homosexuality be consistent and ask the General Conference to remove our stance on healthcare and replace it with “we are of divided mind and are waiting for God to give us additional light before we take a position”?
We are divided on the church’s position regarding abortion. Some want us to take a stand against all abortions. Others want us to liberalize our position. Should we have no statement other than “we aren’t sure what we believe about abortion”?
We are divided regarding war. Some of us are pacifists; others adopt a just war viewpoint. Our differences have not kept our Bishops from issuing a statement on war. Nor have our differences kept us from making pronouncements in the Book of Discipline regarding collective bargaining, consumption, civil disobedience, and the death penalty.
None of those positions passed with 100% agreement at General Conference, and none of our positions in the Book of Discipline on those issues begins, “We are of divided mind.”
–
Another approach
The other “compromise” that will come before General Conference is an “Annual Conference” option. This approach would grant each Conference the autonomy to decide its own policies regarding ordination of practicing homosexual clergy, as well as performing same-sex marriages.
Again, though perhaps well intended, such a solution would be disastrous for the health of our church. We are a connectional body — and we are grateful and even proud of that reality. One of the reasons we are United Methodists is because we believe that a divided church is less than what Christ desires and prayed for in John 17.
In the past we have bemoaned the fragmented nature of the Church Universal and have been dismayed that there are so many “independent” congregations that are autonomous and accountable to no body greater than themselves.
Now, some are trying to make us United Methodists what we have never been to solve a matter of biblical interpretation and ecclesiastical accountability.
Annual Conferences and individual churches are not autonomous when it comes to paying apportionments, infant baptism, or women’s ordination — and they shouldn’t be. It means something to be United Methodists. We cannot violate our very nature to solve a problem just because we want it to go away.
|
- The autonomous solution would create chaos. Could an elder ordained in one Annual Conference be denied appointment in another Conference because the second Conference has different ordination standards?
- The autonomous solution would ruin our witness. Persons looking for a church home could not be certain what they would find in any congregation, and a bad experience in one local church could very easily turn them away from the entire denomination.
- The autonomous solution would destroy our unity. This would be the first step toward a balkanization of the church that would cause us to drift further apart as time passes. This compromise intended to “keep us together” would insure, over time, just the opposite.
- The autonomous solution would grant exemptions from church standards. Once exemptions are granted in one area, it will be very difficult to maintain any kind of covenant of mutual accountability within the church.
|
No promise of ecclesiastical peace and unity can justify these distortions of the church’s theology and polity.
–
The way forward
We may remain a divided church on the practice of homosexuality for some time to come. That’s a hard place to be. But our way out is not an easy solution that compromises our integrity by saying we don’t know what we believe or dismantles our connectional unity.
Our way forward is to listen to each other respectfully, to remain open to God, to vote our conscience, and to stay committed to each other and to the process of holy conferencing.
Related posts |
| • |
General Conference 2012: More attempts to change UM standards on sexual behavior |
| • |
If defiance continues, United Methodism may come crashing down |
| • |
Podcast: Mark Tooley, author of Taking Back the United Methodist Church |
| • |
Outcome of DeLong trial likely to exacerbate disunity of UMC |
| • |
Bishop Mack Stokes: Holiness in human sexuality |
| • |
A word from Mr. Wesley: Holiness in singleness |
| • |
Why the United Methodist Church cannot condone homosexuality |
| • |
Pro-homosexuality foundation pours millions into Catholic and mainline Protestant dissident groups |
| • |
Breaking the covenant: Why aren’t ‘Reconciling’ churches being held to account? |
| • |
Renewal & Reform Coalition responds to retired bishops’ call to alter UMC’s sexuality standards |
| • |
In embracing homosexual marriage, Foundry UMC rejects UM boundaries, breaks with 2 millennia of church teaching |
| • |
Board of Church and Society sex-ed writer: Sex outside of marriage can be ‘moral, ethical’ |
| • |
In Mississippi Conference, testimony from lesbian couple stirs controversy |
| • |
Judicial Council says no to same-sex marriage |
| • |
Billy Abraham on United Methodism: ‘There is no common faith among us’ |
Related articles and information |
| • |
The church addresses marriage and sexuality | Thomas A. Lambrecht, Good News (January/February 2012) |
| • |
Outsider influence over homosexuality at General Conference | Karen Booth, Good News (January/February 2012) |
| • |
Book Review: Forgetting How To Blush: United Methodism’s Compromise with the Sexual Revolution by Karen Booth | James V. Heidinger II, Good News (March/April 2012) |
| • |
UM clergy vow to wed homosexual couples | Sam Hodges, UM Reporter (July 15, 2011) |
| • |
Eros defended or eros defiled — What do Wesley and the Bible say? | Ben Witherington, The Bible and Culture (Patheos.com) (Feb. 14, 2011) |
| • |
Christianity elevates sexual morality (a historical overview of the Christian church’s teaching on sexual morality) — Chapter 3 of How Christianity Changed the World | Alvin Schmidt (Zondervan, 2004 — via Google Books) |
| • |
Book: Staying the Course: Supporting the Church’s Position on Homosexuality (ordering details) | Maxie Dunnam and H. Newton Malony, ed. (Abingdon Press, 2003) |
| • |
Anyone who works under the authority or auspices of the Church must be held to the highest standards of behavior, free of misconduct in any form | UMSexualEthics.org |
| • |
United Methodist churches perform same-sex weddings with one foot in the closet | Amanda Hess, TBD.com (Sept. 30, 2010) |
| • |
UM Judicial Council backs clergy dismissal over affair | Linda Bloom, UMNS (April 27, 2010) |
| • |
What the evidence really says about Scripture and homosexual practice: Five issues (PDF) | Robert A. J. Gagnon (March 2009) |
| • |
Slavery, homosexuality, and not being of one mind | Riley B. Case, via The Sundry Times (July 1, 2008) |
| • |
How churches can refine message on homosexuality | Robin Russell, United Methodist Reporter (May 19, 2008) |
| • |
United Methodists uphold homosexuality stance | Robin Russell, United Methodist News Service (April 30, 2008) |
| • |
United Methodism in crisis: Scriptural renewal through the Good News Movement | Chapter 4 of Public Pulpits: Methodists and Mainline Churches in the Moral Argument of Public Life by Steven M. Tipton (University of Chicago Press, 2008 — via Google Books) |
| • |
Methodists strengthen stand against homosexual practice | Christianity Today (May 5, 2004) |
| • |
Homosexuality and the Great Commandment (an address to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh) | Peter C. Moore (November 2002) |
| • |
‘Good News’ says push to accept homosexual practice threatens to split United Methodist Church | United Methodist News Service (May 6, 1997) |
Read Full Post »
The chart at right illustrates that while the UMC has experienced a 25 percent decline in total membership since 1974, during the same period the membership drop for United Methodist Women has been 58 percent.
