For years now, I have sat back and listened to both sides of
this argument and as 2016 comes closer and closer, it seems that we as a church
may never actually have a conversation about the issue. Some are claiming there are “irreconcilable
differences” but I’m not sure how you ever hope to reconcile a difference when
you never talk about it. From our local
churches to our General Conferences, sexuality has been a taboo topic. We have anticipated nothing but pain and
unfiltered passion and for that reason time and again we have refused to
address the issue. It’s time to start
talking.
To Secede from the Union
Recently, some of our colleagues have suggested an amicable
split. The primary argument seems to be
that those who are performing same-sex marriages are breaking the rules and not
being properly punished. Their reasoning
is: if you’re not going to follow the rules, then I no longer want to play the
game.
While I understand their frustration and I too believe that
elders who knowingly and intentionally break our covenant should be prepared to
hand over their orders, I do not believe that the solution is to tear the game
board in half. If you don’t like the way
the game is played, then it’s your job to figure out how to cause healthy
change. And if you don’t think you’re up
to the challenge of creating healthy change, then you have the freedom to leave
the game, but you do not get to ruin the game for everyone else who has not yet
given up!
In fact, calling for a division of the church runs contrary
to our covenant and such persons are just as guilty of violating their orders
as other offenders. The Discipline is a narrative of finding union in spite of
disagreements. It is this union to which
we have covenanted:
While it is true that United
Methodists are fixed upon certain religious affirmations, grounded in the
gospel and confirmed in their experience, they also recognize the right of
Christians to disagree on matters such as forms of worship, structures of
church government, modes of Baptism, or theological explorations. They believe such differences do not break
the bond of fellowship that ties Christians together in Jesus Christ. Wesley’s familiar dictum was, “As to all
opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let
think.” (The Discipline ¶103, pg 54,
2012)
Christian
unity is not an option; it is a gift to be received and expressed. United Methodists respond to the theological,
biblical, and practical mandates for Christian unity by firmly committing
ourselves to the cause of Christain unity at local, national, and world
levels…Knowing the denominational loyality is always subsumed in our life in
the church of Jesus Christ, we welcome and celebrate the rich experience of
United Methodist leadership in church councils and consultations, in
multilateral and bilateral dialogues, as well as in other forms of ecumenical
convergence that have lead to the healing of churches and nations. (The Discipline ¶105, pg 88, 2012)
Whereas we seek to find healing among the nations, it seems
ironic that we can find no healing within ourselves. If “denominational loyalty” is something that
can be “subsumed” within our broader understanding of ecumenism, then a firm
understanding of denominational unity must
be assumed within our understanding
of membership to the local church or conference. None of us has the right to call for
division. We vowed that we would not. So it’s time to start talking.
A More Perfect Union
Some have argued that division is necessary in order to form
a more perfect union. They believe we
are hopelessly divided over even the most fundamental things such as
scripture. And while I share in a
frustration that we are not more seamlessly united, I do not believe that
perfect agreement is even possible or advisable.
On the one hand we must consider to what extent we should be
in agreement. Suppose we divide over the
issue of same-sex unions. Should we then
also divide over divorce? Some think
it’s okay, while others believe it is not?
Or what about interracial marriage?
Or polygamy? I hear we have
brothers in the Central Conferences who have multiple wives; when they come to
Christ we do not ask them to leave their wives because that would be
irresponsible and it would destroy the family. Applying that line of thinking,
if someone is in a same-sex marriage before coming to Christ, then may we allow
them to stay in that union after coming to Christ? I am not here advocating one solution over
another. I am merely considering the
challenge of finding agreement and pondering where the next division might
occur.
On the other hand, we must also consider how a church that
demands perfect agreement might survive and evangelize in a postmodern world that
values holding competing truths in tension.
Out of the gate some will discount the value of postmodernity and
declare it impossible to evangelize in such an environment. They will want to press the absolute truth of
the Gospel, though from the previous argument it seems that we cannot even
agree on how broad that truth is. These
people have given up on Paul’s missional mindset to go into the world of the
Athenians to teach them about the “Unknown God.” Perfect agreement leads us to become insular
and inward focused. For those who can embrace
disagreements and dialogue with contradictions, they will find endless opportunities
to evangelize. It’s time to start
talking.
Counting the Cost
When I first heard the idea of division, I felt the bottom
of my stomach fall out. Did anyone stop
to think about the ramifications of such a decision? My father always taught me that suicide was a
permanent solution to a temporary problem.
You can’t undo it and most times when the dust settles you realize the
problem wasn’t as life-altering as it seemed.
I think his advice holds true for our connection. Any division will be tantamount to
suicide. There will be irreparable damage
and we’re not even clear yet on the depth and breadth of the issue. I suspect we’re a lot closer than we allow
ourselves to think.
However, if we pursue division, there will be
consequences. In the context of the
communities we serve, we will be labeled out-of-touch and incapable of adapting
to the needs of our context. Young
people and trendy leaders will cease to hear our voices since we will no longer
appear to be living in their world. The
least, the last, and the lost will not trust us to love them as we will appear
to have minimum requirements for love.
The hurting and the seeking will keep looking for safer places to land
where they can openly and honestly ask questions about their faith without fear
of judgment or exclusion. We will no
longer be missional.
In the event of an amicable split, we will necessarily
exercise reckless disregard for stewardship.
Property, trust funds, endowments, pensions, boards and agencies, and
all other assets will have to be divided.
Legal documents will have to be rewritten and plans will have to be made
to address our existing financial commitments to our missionaries and
retirees. It will take years of time and
millions of dollars. Property law will
monopolize the time of our conference leaders.
Cases will have to go to court for decision and appeal. Mistakes will be made and matters will need
reviewed and re-reviewed. Worse yet, our
mission will come to a standstill. We
will be so inundated with the work of separation that we will no longer have
time to “make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” Funds that could have been used to spread the
Gospel of Jesus Christ will be spent on legal fees. Leaders who had committed their lives to
telling people about Jesus will be burned out by the cost of division. And the next generation of Christ followers
who we were entrusted to reach will fall to the wayside.
For the sake of the church, for the sake of the communities
we serve, for Christ’s sake…it’s time to start talking.
