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 
By that definition would say that the whole of Christianity would be bigoted because it believes that not everyone will inherit everlasting life?
Well, I disagree. This unfortunate situation IS about sex. But it is also about more than that. It is about our failed system of church government. Our current constitution is based on the model of the US government, which I contend is NOT a suitable structure for a Christian church. This constitutional form is inherently polarizing and leads to the kind of “party spirit” that St. Paul rightly abhorred.
Fortunately, the 2012 General Conference voted to begin work on a new GLOBAL Book of Discipline. A task force from The Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters recently met to begin their work. I was quite heartened by the tweets I read from their meeting in Budapest. They seem to be proposing a two volume BOD. Volume 1 would be designed for the entire global connection. It would be SMALL (Bishop Strieff held up a BOD from the 18th century that was small enough to fit in his pocket). This book would focus on our common theology and history as Wesleyans. It would serve to give us a common identity. It would not be a book of rules (like our current BOD). The vision then allows multiple volume 2 BOD's. I believe these would be regional and contextual books.
My hope is that this proposal will be embraced enthusiastically and soon. I believe it is time for The United Methodist Church to move on. We need to celebrate our many successes, repent of the harm we have done, admit that we have failed to be an obedient church, and embrace God's vision for global Wesleyan Christianity. Perhaps we should hold a service of Death and Resurrection for the United Methodist Church. Let's reboot–perhaps as part of a new “Global Methodist Connection”.
I have some dreams for the American church too. I would like for our churches to recenter on Christ by adopting eucharistic worship–at least weekly. I would also like to see us return to our roots with a renewed emphasis on Wesley Class Meetings and Band meetings. I sincerely hope we will look at alternative ways to make decisions. Voting is not Biblical. Robert's Rules of Order are designed to temper combat, but they also promote partisan spirit. We can learn much from other, obviously sustainable models of church government (yes, I mean catholisism and orthodoxy). Let's take some of their best ideas and put a Wesleyan twist on them.
As a retired United Methodist pastor, I am more interested in the future of Wesleyan Christianity than holding on to the obviously dysfunctional form of Methodism to which I vowed my loyalty. May God grant us wisdom and grace as we move forward.
The Rev. Holly Boardman, Florida Conference, retired elder
Dr. David, thank you for a thoughtful post. I would like to mention two points (since there are only two, maybe that means I'm not a good preacher). First, I am a member of another group, people with disabilities, who have often been excluded from the church or some of its functions based on readings of scripture that are now generally accepted as misleading (for those looking for information about this, please visit the UM Association of Ministers with Disabilities at http://www.umdisability.org and look up the reports of our 2013 meeting). As I consider my own stance, memories of this treatment flood my mind.
Second, the institution where you work is ideal for this kind of reflection; when I was a student there, I read many reels of the Telescope-Messenger in the microfilm room, where I learned about how the EUB church stressed its mission and life of the Spirit as central. Even in the 1800's they understood that scripture is often vague (and often noted how both sides had used it in the slavery debate). I'd like to think that if we could get away from an American-style “winner” mentality (as mentioned above) to a true pursuit of holiness, things would be very different.
Wow, Holly. That's a lot to consider. I don't really have a response at this time because I don't feel informed regarding several of the issues you've brought up. Nevertheless, thanks for your contribution to this conversation.
No doubt they would be different. I do hope United can be a place where we can have the kind of reflection you mention. In other words, I hope we can be a place of intellectual virtue. Thanks for weighing in on the conversation.