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 
“The UMC is not congregationalist”
True.
How is the UMC ever going to find a way if no one has clearly defined what the word “unity” really means?
How did the Apostle Paul define unity?
How did the Early Church Fatthers understand unity in the Christian Community?
What did the great apologists of the CC have to say about unity, common practices,belief’s and lifestyle of the Christian Community when attacked from without or from within?
What caused great divisions in the CC and the call of the great councils to come together to squash falsehoods and cement the official position of the Christian Catholic Community?
Until unity is clearly defined and understood from the perspective of the Apostles and Early Church I do not see how anyone will ever begin to find a way forward.
d
I hate your posting sir. Just as African Americans/ Blacks get to choose their name. I demand that you show LGBT/Gay people the same respect. DO NOT REDUCE US TO OUR SEXUAL ORIENTATION! Or in all fairness you need to name everyone’s sexual orientation when speaking. What is your sexual orientation, your souse’s, how about your children or grandchildren’s sexual orientation. Lets all reduce each other to discussion of something so private and central to our intimate relationships. Lets start every sentence with our Heterosexual. Such as, “our heterosexual Pastor will begin the meeting.” Plus if a person is celibate and chase what is their “self avowed practicing sexual orientation.” You see this is not respectful. Please call people by what they wish to be called LGBT/Gay. Then lets talk about marriage equality and equality of ordination. Because marriage and ordination are covenants they are not sexual acts. I don’t believe that there is such as thing as gay marriage there is marriage and various people covenant to form a family. Individuals covenant to serve our Lord as a minster/pastor. I don’t believe there is such a thing as a homosexual minister, there are ministers who happen to be gay but being Gay is secondary to their covenant with the Lord. Oh yes, I’m a gay prude. With all due respect don’t reduce people to sex, please. Thank you.
Dear Mark,
My choice of words is simply taken from the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church. I meant no disrespect to anyone. I use the terms of the Book of Discipline because those are the terms of our current debate.
Isn’t that LGBTQ people?
I think that is what the progressives in the church call for “full inclusion” of LGBTQ persons.
The Q stands for what?
These terms are used and should be defined so everyone knows what everyone is talking about.
That is respectful.
I think the defining of persons is by insisting on using the LGBTQ label.
…”marriage and ordination are covenants..”
That is true and it is also true the covenant of marriage requires certain acts to fulfill the covenant.
Mark’s comment is evidence of how backwards the language in BoD is.
David, I think you make valid points. I would argue with you on #5. The reality is that we already have progressive/conservative churches that will not fair well if a pastor to far along that spectrum serves there. I’m the most conservative pastor of the 5 who have served my current congregation. I’m left of center and have still lost some members. If I agreed with the current BoD I would have lasted here 1 year. We already have a modified itineracy.
Fair points, David.
David,
Thanks again for your thoughtfulness and care on these and other issues. In reading various opinions on the future of the UMC, it seems to me that the emerging positions regarding a way forward for the UMC include:
(1) Pro-LGBT Ecclesiological Disobedience
(2) Functional Congregationalism when it comes to LGBT related issues (This proposal falls in that camp).
(3) Reform of Episcopal Accountability, upholding the status quo while allowing for continued dialogue.
(4) Schism/Amicable Separation
Persoally, I find myself pretty squarely in the (3) camp, but have a deep level of respect for the thoughtfulness and attention to basic theological orthodoxy that has emerged from folks in the (2) camp. I just wonder, given all of these dynamics, whether (2) or (3) will be able to muster enough support at GC in 2016. If neither proposal can succeed then, I’m not sure if the UMC can stay whole much longer.
Personally, Joe, I think that (3) is the only way forward that could possibly work.
I think you’re right here, David and Joe, on the breakdown of these 4 positions and the preference for and workability of position 3.
The problem is demonstrated opposition to exercising it from those favoring change in the UMC’s LGBTQ stance, plus seeming disinterest in serious reform of church/episcopal authority from the self-styled “middle”. There’s nothing in the Hamilton-Slaughter proposal that seems to address it. And the term “middle” is so relative, it’s hard to discern what it really means.
So far it looks like peace at any price via essential concession/accommodation by the right and willing self-limitation by the left to a congregation-by-congregation approach rather than the present “law of the land” approach that’s been seeking to overturn the stance denomination-wide. Given the concessions, however, that would be made under the AH-MS proposal, it would be a short journey to seeing the stance overturned officially for the whole denomination, after having been done so de facto for a time, once those conservatives whose clarity on the topic would not allow remaining in a denomination without church-wide consistency on sexual morality. The numbers would likely shift enough to make stance-change-advocates the majority within a short period of time.
This is why I don’t see much reason not to support this proposal for those advocating change from a pragmatic standpoint (pardon my double-negative). Even if you disagree with some of it on principle you’re likely to gain the total victory you seek in a relatively short period of time with a clear path laid out before you.
Here, however, it does not avoid the potential for local-church rending that a separation would also undoubtedly entail. For once every church declares, as they would have to under this plan, those persons whose consciences demanded disassociation with that local congregation due to the result of the vote (whether on the left or on the right), there would be something of a re-sort.
While position 3 above is the only way I see to remain “the UMC” with integrity and as a healthy, functioning organization, and would ideally be the preferred position to seek, it seems increasingly unlikely to hold sway with a significant enough number of people. I think the question then becomes: When should other options begin to be considered based on an honest assessment of the preferred position’s chances of success? That’s what I’m wrestling with.
Thanks again for your thoughtful analysis and creation of a space for honest, considerate public conversation around this.
Guy,
Thanks for your thoughts. I think it’s important for us to consider that Paragraph 16.5 of the Constitution allows GC to discontinue bishops for “unacceptability” and/or “inefficiency.” Unlike the process for Jursidictions to force a bishop to retire (which is not part of the Constitution), I see NO guarantee of due process for bishops in that provision of the Constitution, nor do I see anything implying that it takes more than a simple majority of GC delegates to discontinue a bishop. I would prefer solutions that were more rigorous and involved lasting and consensus-driven Constitutional amendments, because the prospect of quick and narrow votes to discontinue bishops worries me a bit. Nonetheless, a simple majority of GC is all it takes to discontinue a bishop under the current constitution of the UMC.
http://www.pnwumc.org/news/poll-making-disciples-tops-united-methodists-priorities-sexuality-ranks-low/
Having participated in that poll, its wording was biased (I don’t doubt they put the “I hope we don’t split but it might be necessary” numbers in the ‘don’t want to split’ tab). It was also an extremely small (509) internet poll, which by their very nature are largely self-selecting. At the very least, it ends up representing internet users who 1) know of the survey’s existence during the brief 3-day window it was open and 2) care enough to take the poll.
The questions represented the range of responses I’ve seen. The accuracy of any internet poll is limited by the self-selected nature of the respondents. On the other hand, those who cared enough to answer the poll would also be fairly representative of those who care enough to participate in the selection of General Conference delegates.