Let’s get this out of the way: good people within the United Methodist Church, with all the best intentions, disagree on matters of human sexuality. There’s no way around this. Whether or not the General Conference petition by Mike Slaughter and Adam Hamilton would have made for effective legislation, the fact of the matter is that their proposed legislation reflected a truth that inheres within United Methodism: we disagree with one another about homosexuality.
In fact, we disagree about many things. That is why we have a set of regulations that effectively functions as church law. These regulations are contained in the Book of Discipline.
For years, many United Methodists have defied the Book of Discipline on matters of doctrine. Denial of doctrines such as the Trinity, Incarnation, and Resurrection are violations of our doctrinal standards, which are protected in the first Restrictive Rule. We have been able to deal with this matter, though, because of the gray area created by the section of the Discipine called “Our Theological Task.” In other words, for all its faults, the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral has created enough ambiguity to allow us to avoid church trials over matters of deviation from the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith.
Ethical matters such as homosexuality, however, while certainly related to theology and doctrine, fall into a different category. These are specifically matters of behavior and practice, and, at times, the General Conference has seen fit, rightly or wrongly, to issue clear regulations on ethical matters.
This is where church law comes into play. Church law emerges specifically because of our disagreement. When there is deep disagreement and debate over important matters, the church may see fit to regulate itself internally. The resulting regulations will necessarily make some people unhappy. Yet without such internal regulations, the UMC cannot function as a denomination. We have regulations regarding our internal hierarchy, our appointment system, the ministry of the ordained, and many other such matters. Granted, the level of adherence to these regulations has at times varied, but I don’t recall a time when there has been such widespread open defiance of the Discipline as is the case now in relation to issues of human sexuality.
We can say that we are held together in our love for Christ and the unity of the Holy Spirit, and indeed we are. We are held together as Christians in this way. Denominations, however, are held together by their internal self-regulation. If we disregard our church law, we are no longer a denomination.
The ministers of the church who are openly defying the teaching in the Book of Discipline are engaging in de facto schism. The question is not, at this point, whether the church will divide. It has divided because of the open defiance of the Discipline. It has not divided de jure yet, but continued de facto division will result in a de jure division. Perhaps this is the goal of such behavior. My own opinion is that dividing the church in this way would be a huge mistake, but it wouldn’t be the first huge mistake in the history of either the UMC or the Church universal.
With all due respect to Dr. Thomas Frank, who is widely recognized as one of the foremost experts in UM polity, referring this issue back to conferences for discussion among ordained clergy seems to repeat a process that has not worked. Annual conferences have discussed this issue to the point of neglecting other business of the conferences. The General Conference has repeatedly taken up this issue. No doubt, we will continue to have discussions along these lines, though the extent to which they will be productive is questionable. Our discussions of human sexuality have been more rhetorical than reasonable, more political than persuasive. Real discussion of these matters cannot take place in settings in which caucus groups control the conversations.
Dissolving our denomination will have tragic consequences. There are huge problems facing the world today, and not all of them relate to human sexuality. My own primary concerns relate to ministry with people with disabilities. I want the church to pay attention to this matter, to take it seriously, to make more of a tangible difference in the lives of people who live with disabling conditions. And yet there are more problems: a child dies from the effects of extreme poverty every three seconds. Half the world lives without clean drinking water. Christians in many parts of the world continue to be martyred for the faith. The list could go on. As long as we are consumed to the extent we are by a single issue—the issue of human sexuality—we divert proportionate time and resources from the myriad other issues facing the church today.
Church law matters because it allows us to go about our work together. It is not always right, but it is a necessary way of organizing our corporate life. Apart from this realization, the UMC cannot exist.
Church law matters because it allows us to go about our work together. It is not always right, but it is a necessary way of organizing our corporate life. Apart from this realization, the UMC cannot exist.
David F. Watson 
I hear that, Joel. If we are going to ignore it, we may as well quite holding our General Conference meetings.
I thank you for your reasoned response and while I don't agree with your conclusion, I do appreciate the time and thought that went into your words. Having said that I have to say this. I see this whole issue over homosexuality as plain and simple bigotry….defined by Webster's dictionary as extreme intolerance of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from one's own. Those who wish to deny any person the same rights and privileges and responsibilities that they themselves enjoy in my mind is a bigot and the church has for ages participated in bigotry and received a free pass by the state and federal and local governments to practice such bigotry in the open…..like no other body has a right to…….I would think the church would be the first in line to stand up for and fight for equal rights for all under the law of humans and with the gospel as our guide…..I am tired of the church looking like the Pharisees of old.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, Bruce. I appreciate the spirit of dialogue you bring to the conversation. If there were more people who expressed themselves in this spirit, maybe we could make some progress on this issue.
David This issue, not about sex but about our Book of Discipline, is not radical since laws on various levels have been ignored for centuries, what makes this so radical to me is that we (The United Methodist Church) have come to the place where the Authority of Scripture is ignored. If the written foundation for our Faith in Jesus Christ is ignored who are we? Are we even “Christians?” I am bothered most by the fact that for over 30 years this issue has been addressed in General Conference Sessions and those sessions have sided with Scripture and so stated the same in the BoD and we are still fighting it. The battle should be over! Why visit it over and over and over and over? At some point in time the subject needs to be defined as decided, and those who cannot abide that decision my have to join themselves with another denomination or start another church.
Dr. Abbott, thank you for your contributions to this conversation. Part of the reason that this issue has not reached some resolution, I think, has to do with the fact that people on both sides of the argument believe that they are acting more consistently with scripture. My own opinion is that appeals to scripture alone will not resolve this matter. I do agree with you, though, that there has to be a point by which we resolve that the matter has been decided. To engage in one issue in such an extended way every four years diverts attention away from many other issues which are also important for the life of the church.