A plan has recently emerged to preserve the unity of the UMC. I encourage you to read it carefully and prayerfully. The proposal begins by diagnosing a very serious problem in our denomination: we have reached an impasse on matters related to “self-avowed, practicing homosexual” people. The proposal then offers a potential solution which I will discuss below. Many of those who have signed on to this document are people I know and respect. Mike Slaughter in particular is a friend, trusted partner in ministry, and valued colleague. Each person who has signed the document has gone out on a limb publicly to try to develop a compromise position that will not satisfy everyone but is intended hold us together in the work of ministry. I respect that. To be clear, then, the comments I’ll make below are offered in the interest of fostering conversation and furthering our common dialogue. To summarize what follows, I agree with the diagnosis of the problem facing our denomination, but I have serious concerns regarding the proposed solutions.
What is helpful in this plan?
1. “We, the undersigned, believe the division of the United Methodist Church over this issue would be shortsighted, costly, detrimental to all of our churches, and not in keeping with God’s will.” I agree 100%.
2. “While some on either side of this issue see only two sides in the debate, a vast majority of our churches are divided on this issue. United Methodists have gay and lesbian children, friends, co-workers and neighbors. A large number of our churches have gay and lesbian members. Our members, like the broader society, are not of one mind on the issue of ordination or marriage for gay and lesbian people, and many find
themselves confused about bisexuality and those who are transgender. Most of our churches, regardless of the dominant view of the issue in their congregation, stand to lose members if The United Methodist Church divides into two churches over homosexuality.” It’s hard to argue with this point. If a division occurs, both “sides” will certainly lose members.
3. “We believe that the question of homosexuality is virtually irresolvable at General Conference.” In light of our current denominational structure and the circus-like atmosphere of our General Conference, I agree completely.
4. If this plan works as intended, it will allow us to focus much more attention on a variety of different matters of ministry, and not just on “homosexual practice. ” Our myopic fascination with these matters is diverting massive amounts of attention away from other ministry areas that are at least as important.
5. “What makes us United Methodists is not our position on homosexuality, but a core set of theological, missional and ministry convictions.” This is certainly true. I particularly like the emphasis on a core set of theological convictions, which would then drive convictions around mission and ministry.
What problems attend this plan?
The solution to the problems diagnosed in the first few paragraphs is twofold. First, the UMC will “entrust to each local church the authority to determine how they will be in ministry with gay and lesbian people including whether they will, or will not, allow for homosexual marriages or unions.” Second, annual conferences will “be permitted to determine whether they will or will not ordain self-avowed, practicing homosexuals while allowing local churches to determine if they would or would not be willing to receive gay and lesbian clergy. In conferences where the ordination of gay and lesbian people was allowed, they would be held to the same standard heterosexual clergy are held to: fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness.”
Will this solution help us move beyond our current impasse and help to preserve denominational unity? There are several reasons that I question whether it would.
1. It seems unlikely that the adoption of this proposal would stop or even mitigate debate on the marriage and ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexual people at the General Conference. Remember: protesters shut down the 2012 General Conference for two hours at a cost of around $180,000 because of decisions the General Conference made regarding self-avowed, practicing homosexual people. This type of action implies that, regardless of any other business that may need to take place, the practice of disruption is warranted by the overwhelming importance of the protesters’ agenda. This ideology is not one that will allow conservative annual conferences and congregations to go about their business in their own way. Do all people who support the progressive position on this matter endorse these kinds of tactics? No, of course not, but it only takes a segment of this group to cause disruption and to keep the debate at the center of attention at the level of the General Conference.
2. Some annual conferences and congregations will be unanimous or nearly unanimous in their positions, while others will not. Our annual conferences are already full of resolutions regarding the ordination and marriage of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals. Imagine what would happen if the annual conferences had real decision-making power to determine policy on this issue. Perhaps in the Western Jurisdiction there would be near-unanimity on these matters. In my own conference, West Ohio, it would be ugly. As for the local church… wow. Bringing this debate to the level of the local church will do to many congregations what has happened to the General Conference. These congregations will be torn apart.
3. Does this type of action set a precedent with regard to other controversial matters? Are we going to take a similar position on, say, euthanasia or abortion? If so, on what basis should we say that the denomination as a whole should have any moral teaching at all?
4. It’s not at all clear that this proposal will actually preserve our unity. Dividing up between annual conferences and congregations that accept gay and lesbian marriage and ordination and those that do not seems to be a step toward division, rather than away from it.
5. This proposal would seriously complicate the matter of itinerancy. Can a progressive pastor go to a traditionalist congregation or vice-versa? Will each congregation and minister need to declare his or her position for the purposes of itinerancy?
6. Yes, “a core set of theological, missional and ministry convictions” should define us as United Methodists, but there is also the matter of polity. This is essentially a congregationalist approach to ethics and certain ecclesial practices in a denomination that is not congregationalist in its polity. While Baptists strongly value the autonomy of the local church, this has never been a core value of United Methodism.
There may well be compelling answers to each of these concerns I’ve raised, and I’m certainly willing to hear them. I want a solution as much as anyone so that we can move forward as a church in ministry. Despite these concerns, I am appreciative of the attempt to find a workable solution for the UMC. I wish more people were equally irenic and creative in their approaches. Undoubtedly there are matters here that I’m not seeing. I look forward to learning about these from your comments.
David F. Watson 
David –
As always, thank you for your thoughtful and faith-filled analysis. I have read the “A Way Forward” proposal and read it again after reading your questions. I wonder if we might do one and not the other – allow local churches to decide about marriage in that church but not touch the ordination issue? I can immediately sense and see where that would perhaps add to the confusion rather than to alleviate it.
While I understand your concerns over moving in a congregationalist direction, I think honesty requires us to see we are already there. Most local churches select the emphases that resonate with them and ignore others. For instance, on a different level entirely, my congregation and I observe a few of the Special Sunday’s despite an expectation that local UM congregations would observe and contribute to all. This is even more true in the area of the Social Principles and Book of Resolutions. I confess that there are part of the Social Principles that I do not believe despite our assertion that they speak for the church as a whole. That despite being an elder in full-connection in our tradition.
Thanks again… much to ponder, more over which to pray here.
Randy
I hear ya’, Randy. I think it’s just a part of the reality of being in a denomination (or, for that matter, in a non-denominational church) that we have to live with ideas we don’t always agree with.
I have yet to see anyone who makes a theological case for why THIS, above everything else, is an “essential,” requiring “In essentials unity.” I contend that it falls into the “non-essentials,” leading to “In non-essentials liberty.” There is, of course a great dearth of “In all things charity.” The only response I’ve gotten is along the lines of “A lot of folks (or I) FEEL that it’s essential.” I honor people’s “feelings,” but that’s nothing to have schism over.
For what it’s worth, John Wesley never said “In non-essentials, liberty” or apparently any facsimile.
You have the right to believe that a local option or “congregationalism” on this issue is appropriate. However, the majority of General Conference and the vast majority of The UMC as a whole (judged by the two-thirds vote to REJECT Amendment I after the 2008 GC) do not agree with you.
It is ironic that when people came together to talk about “amicable separation” they were pilloried, but a proposal to separate within ourselves is fine. The two biggest questions raised by the new Hamilton-Slaughter proposal (beyond the administrative nightmares) is how does “guaranteed appointment” fit into this new framework and where does it stop? We already demand that our local churches not only accept but also love and support their appointed clergy whether of a different race, culture, primary language, theological perspective than the congregation or if they are female or if they are divorced or going through family issues of one type or another. Openly gay ordained clergy with a right to an appointment simply isn’t sustainable.
Another major problem is the naive belief that the issue will end here. There will be a number of conferences that may vote for same sex marriage ceremonies that will not allow openly gay ordained clergy. Are we just going to have another fight in 2020, 2024, etc.? Assuming that the major issues of outreach and nurture that we neglect to spend an inordinate amount of time around this issue don’t end us in the meantime.
So you have no theological case to make for why this, above everything else, is “essential.”
Would it have made a difference? It doesn’t sound from all of your comments that you would listen anyway. You don’t seem to honor anyone’s “feelings” when you disagree with them. You might call them the “clobber” verses but they are still in the Bible. Clergy swear to uphold a covenant which has been shredded by those whom you support and enable. You have no reply to the substantive points that are raised.
I never used the phrase “clobber verses,” Those verses admit to differing interpretation. No case has been made that 1. The “traditional” interpretation is the only (“infallible”) interpretation” or 2. Why that interpretation is “essential.” You “assume” way too much.
If a wide majority believes that there is a theological basis for prohibiting openly gay ordained clergy and conducting same sex marriage ceremonies and you say there isn’t, you seem to keep saying that your viewpoint should prevail anyway even though that is contrary to Scripture, reason, tradition and experience.
That isn’t a discussion or reasoning together, that is just you repeating yourself. So, I am going to stop on this thread unless you come up with something new otherwise I am just repeating myself.
You really are appealing to “majority rules”? By the time of the next General Conference, it’s highly likely that marriage equality will be the “law of the land” in the United States. Already,55% of U.S. persons support marriage equality. That number will only grow. You will need much more than a “majority rules” case to make for why the United Methodist Church should abandon the United States mission field.
Part of your problem is “majority of what?” Not a majority of The UMC as a whole. Likely not a majority of the United States membership favors same sex marriage ceremonies at UM churches nor openly gay ordained clergy (Amendment I which was just “all means all” was a tie in the USA). There is no evidence that a traditional approach to the larger issues around homosexuality is the same as “abandoning the United States mission field.” If it meant engagement, then we should have seen the Episcopalians benefiting hugely instead of dying faster than we are. The Western Jurisdiction would be growing instead of being the fastest declining jurisdiction.
Your information about the Episcopal Church is out of date.
In 2004 when Bishop Robinson was consecrated, The Episcopal Church had 2,409,940 members. In 2012, it had 2,066,710 members. That is a decline of 14.2%.
In 2004, The United Methodist Church had 8,075,010 members. In 2012, it had 7,392,654 members. That is a decline of 8.5%. 14.2% is more than 8.5%.
Additionally, The Episcopal Church had an average worship attendance of 833,138 in 2004 and lost 18% of them to decline to 679,923 in 2012.
Please give me more updated information if you have it. Facts are facts: following The Episcopal Church would be a disastrous path for us.
I heard there was some name calling at one annual conference in particular. The Bishop said from the podium that there should be no name calling (I agree) and referenced an occurrence where someone reported hearing another clergy use the “F” word (not four letters but six) when speaking of someone on the LGBT side. That same “someone” was heard to call another on the “opposing” (hate that word) side “a homophobic bigot”. I would assume that a “no name calling policy” would apply to both sides? That instance and other demonstrations give me a negative view of the LGBT “side”. I know, as you reference that that’s not everyone but blocking the business of the church, throwing chairs, name calling, blocking entrance to conference events, etc. is just, well, childish. My prayer is that those of us who call ourselves Christian would be “demonstrating” or raising our voices about child trafficking, modern day slavery or human trafficking, or shouting about the freedom salvation through Jesus Christ brings! Those issues or needs are worthy of raising our voices, calling for action and doing something about. This all, of course, is IMHO.
Amen, Peggi.
First let me say that I believe we should all welcome any and all proposals to move us beyond our present state of ecclesiastical dysfunction. Let us be reminded that all of these are just that, proposals. Secondly, I would ask how this proposal is not a form of “amicable separation” which brings with it all of the problems Dr. Watson raises. I continue to pray for all of us, and believe that any discussion done forthrightly and compassionately is a good thing.
Larry, I think it is indeed close to amicable separation. Thanks for your comment.
Really? Coming to agree to disagree on this issue is close to amicable separation?
Do you really mean to say that this would be similar to creating two new denominations that might re-write their entire doctrinal standards?
A modification to the local plan:
Would it be possible to do this in a couple of rounds? First, let the annual conference vote. That would be one body arguing over this versus 600 congregations. Then, let churches who disagree with the decision of their Annual Conference opt out of their Annual Conference. Churches opting out of an annual conference could collectively join another annual conference that agrees with their theology. We can still all work together as members of the same denomination.
It reduces the winner-take-all, fight-to-the-death mentality of an annual conference vote…. hopefully reducing the ugliness of the debate at that level. And, it reduces the number of congregations dividing over the issue, as many will just choose to remain in their Annual Conference, but those who strongly disagree have the option to join another. Maybe, under the circumstances, it helps us do as little harm as possible? Dumb?
don woolley
Don, I appreciate the creative thinking, but I just don’t see this proposal as a live option, even as modified. Your idea is not dumb at all, by the way, and I agree entirely that we should do as little harm as possible.