Schism
A state of schism exists within the United Methodist Church, and perhaps that’s not all bad.
For decades we have been divided on a number of issues, one of which is the sinfulness of homosexual conduct. Our General Conference has consistently decided to adhere to the historic and ecumenical Christian standard: homosexual conduct is incompatible with Christian teaching and those who engage in it will not serve as pastors. A vocal minority of the church disagrees with this standard and refuses to accept the decision of General Conference.
The covenant that binds us together has been coming apart at the seams for quite some time; now the fabric of our covenant may be irrevocably torn. A group calling itself the “Church Within a Church” has taken it upon itself to ordain two individuals – one a partner in a homosexual marriage - who were not offered ordination within the United Methodist Church. The ordinations took place in Baltimore on October 19, 2008. You can read more at:
- The Baltimore Sun
- United Methodist Portal
- Reconciling Ministries Blog
- The Institute for Religion and Democracy
“Extraordinary ordination” is schismatic act. Under United Methodist law, the right to ordain belongs only to the Annual Conferences and the bishops, and then only when acting in accordance with the rules and procedures outlined in the Book of Discipline. With this act of ordination, the Church Within a Church has become a Church Outside the Church. United Methodists should understand this. Extraordinary ordination is how Methodists came to separate from the Church of England.
Methodism was born as a renewal movement within the Church of England and remained so until the American Revolution. In 1784 John Wesley ordained two men (Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey) as clergy for Methodists in the newly free colonies. He also appointed Thomas Coke (an ordained Anglican priest) as “superintendent” or bishop. Upon arriving in Baltimore, Coke called the American Methodists to assemble. Together, they established the Methodist Episcopal Church, ordained twelve additional elders and one additional bishop – Francis Asbury. With an act of extraordinary ordination, Methodism ceased to be a movement in the Anglican communion and became a separate institution and a new denomination of Christianity.
CWAC openly says that it chose Baltimore because of that city's associations with the 1784 birth of Methodism. There is one important difference, here, however. With its 1784 ordinations, American Methodism recognized that its future was separate from other Anglican heritage churches in America. It did not then try to reassert its influence or claim authority within the Anglican Church from which it separated. I doubt that will be the case here. I suspect that CWAC intends this as act an end-run around the Discipline, since church law also allows those ordained in other Christian bodies to be recognized and received as clergy and appointed as pastors. Presumably, the prohibition against the bishops appointing clergy involved in homosexual relationships to active ministry still stands, but I foresee more legal wrangling ahead.
Before the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.” The United Methodist Church can probably endure in some form with divisions over homosexuality, but it cannot thrive in the presence of an ongoing internal rebellion. When an institution cannot live with the rules that it sets for itself, its ruin is at hand. The covenant that exists among us means nothing when people are no longer willing to live by its provisions.
Perhaps it might be better, then, if we followed the 1784 model to its logical conclusion – two separate bodies, each taking responsibility before God for their own understanding of ministry and the Christian life, living side-by-side, respecting each other as Christian churches but recognizing our significant differences on important matters. The ongoing conflict is harmful to the church. Both sides might do more good for the kingdom if we didn’t have to spend so much time and energy defending our positions or confronting the each other. In the end, God’s action in history will make things clear.
Go in peace. Serve the Lord.
Related:
What’s the Trajectory, Kenneth?
Flee Sexual Immorality
To Have and Have Not
Clergy Sexual Ethics
Sexual Ethics in 1 Corinthians
Forsaking All Others
Printer Friendly Version
Ok, I am pretty dense, but I do not understand why these ladies weren't just ordained in the UCC. Why would one want to become a clergy member in a denomination with which one disagrees? Sheesh!
Kelly,
As a self-avowed practicing United Methodist, I can say, speaking only for my self, that there are two reasons I stay within the UMC.
First, the UMC is part of who I am. My faith and worldview was formed within the context of the UMC. I could no more divorce my United Methodism from my self as I could divorce my Irish Heritage.
The second reason is that G-d has called me (and my queer colleagues) to ordained ministry within the United Methodist Church. That is a calling that I take seriously. It is a calling which I believe also includes working to proclaim the good news that the Holy Spirit is moving and working in the lives of queer people and the Church needs to awake from its slumber to see the fire in the hearts of those whom G-d has chosen to ordain.
Sure, I could go to the UCC and be ordained along side my queer brothers and sisters of faith. But that denies who I am and my calling from G-d. Asking someone to ignore this is simply unfair and contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Now more directly to the point of the blog:
Thank you for this perspective. I was not at the extraordinary ordination, but it certainly has been the topic of many conversations since I first heard of the possibility at General Conference.
I get how you see this event as schismatic, however, I disagree. Rather, I see this as a symptom of the schism that has been happening for many years. And, as I lament this, I do not believe that we should split to be two separate entities. And one of the reasons for this is also the reason why I believe the UMC should change its current understanding of scripture in relation to Homosexuality. Namely, queer youth are 2 to 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than non-queer youth. Of that segment, queer youth in churches are 4 times more likely than their non-churched sisters and brothers to attempt suicide, making the churched queer youth much, MUCH more at risk for attempting suicide. To put it bluntly, the church's stance that homosexuality is a sin is killing kids.
While queer ordination and marriage rights (and rites) are important to my calling is to stop the complicity in the murder of youth at rates higher than that of the witch trails in Europe throughout the Dark Ages and Renaissance.
This is both another reason why I don't go to a more queer-affirming denomination and why I don't think the UMC should split. If we should split, the anti-queer faction would still have queer youth (as well as queer laity, clergy, bishops.) The Southern Baptist Convention, likely one of the least queer-friendly connections, has queer people. We can not and should not "wish the gay away."
Changing the inaccurate interpretation of scripture that says homosexuality is a sin will save lives, be most authentic to the teachings of Jesus Christ (not to mention Wesley) and put us on the road which the Holy Spirit is illuminating before us.
(cross posted, edited, as a note on Facebook)
I don't particularly want to pursue the issue of homosexual conduct itself here. The arguments are well known and have been rehashed ad nauseum - literally. Suffice it to say, that I have beliefs diametrically opposed to the previous commenter, that I hold them as deeply and passionately, that I have not come to them lightly or uncritically, and that I them see them as godly, biblical, Wesleyan, spiritual, just, and good for the world and its people. I'm sure that I cannot convince any of the dissenters of my point of view, so I won't try.
In the post, I focused on issues of institutional unity and integrity. I see the dissenters' actions as undermining the integrity of the institution itself. I wondered if something closer to a "win-win" solution might not be for both sides to pursue their visions of shalom in separate institutional bodies. An equitable solution would include a fair division of the property.
The dissenters cannot tolerate, it seems, living with the status quo. It appears their solution is to turn the tables on the current majority and impose their vision on the rest of the church. This is a situation which the current majority could not tolerate.
This is not a situation where compromise or agreeing to disagree is likely to work in the long run. We either marry same-sex couples or we don't. We either ordain people in homosexual relationships or we don't. I don't see a middle ground.
After decades of failing to persuade the rest of the church, it seems that the real issue for the dissenters is not freedom to pursue a vision for ministry and church life, but the need to defeat those whom the previous commenter described as child-killers. In other words, the dissenters don't see this situation as analogous to Paul and Barnabas going their separate ways in Acts 15; it is more like the case of David whom God sent to slay the evil Goliath and save the people of God from the Philistines. But even if the virtuous David doesn't win, he can't allow Goliath to win either. The death of both combatants is preferable to the survival of the evil Goliath. And that's exactly what we will get if we continue down this path. We'll get a pathetic ghost of a once-living church that will serve no one well.
I am sorry that I didn't more directly address the topic at hand. I get myself all worked up when I start thinking about the complicity of the church in the attempted suicides of youth. And you are absolutely right that I can't live with the status quote. The status quo is leading to the attempted suicide of youth. One cannot dispute that. And you've described this as, “godly, biblical, Wesleyan, spiritual, just, and good for the world and its people.” I don't think seeing children want to end their own life as any of those things.
When I say that the UMC should stay together, its for multiple reasons. Most important, and most relevant to the conversation is that however we divide, there will be queer people on both sides of the division. If we have the “UMC, Conservative” and “UMC, Liberal” (and I hate those terms!) the UMCC will still have queer youth. If the UMCC youth continue to hear the incorrect interpretation that homosexuality is a sin, they will continue to be at greater risk for suicide attempts. What good does splitting do for those children?
Also, and probably most relevant to the conversation, I am not saying that the UMC in the way it currently works should live. The main argument I want to make is that saying that either we stay together or split is setting up a false dichotomy. There is (at least) one other way. Namely, our commission might be that of Jeremiah,
“[G-d] reached out, touched my mouth, and said,
'Look! I've just put my words in your mouth -- hand-delivered!
See what I've done?
I've given you a job to do
..........among nations and governments -- a red-letter day! Your job is to pull up and tear down,
..........take apart and demolish.
And then start over,
..........building and planting.'"
Jer 1:9-10 (The Message)
Let's be clear, how the church responds to the Holy Spirit bringing queer people forward is not the only problem we face. Just to name four, we have work to do confronting our racism, sexism, imperialism, and America-centrism (is that even a word? I mean to say that we need to address how to be a global church, not an American Church, worldwide.) Surly, we have started work on those, but I mention them to simply say we have a whole lot of work to do.
I also want to say that the destruction of the way we do things currently wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. As a person who believes in Resurrection, I know that you have to go through death to reach new-life. I don't believe that we WILL become the pathetic ghost of a once-living church that will serve no one well. I believe we are already there. We need change. That status quo is failing not only queer youth, but also it is failing the world and indeed it is failing G-d.
Look at Isaiah. King Uzziah had just died and Isaiah says “I saw the Lord.” As I heard preached recently, when the mess showed up, the Lord showed up. In the king's death, Isaiah experienced new-life, a new way of being, a new understanding, a burning, purifying coal touched to his lips. In the destruction of our current model of being, we might encounter G-d and experience new-life and no longer be the pathetic ghost.
Mr. Gill - What do you propose to do with me? Assume the institutional changes take place in the church that you want to see. Assume that I don't change my point of view. I am an ordained elder. In every appointment I receive and at every opportunity in every church I will proclaim the truth as I see it: sexual union outside of a permanent union between a man and a woman is contrary to the will of God, destructive of human society and a sin against God who has revealed the truth to us. What will become of me and the millions of people just like me in this united church?
You mentioned the word divorce in your first post. I am part of that church to which you are married. I have to say, I don't feel the love. Some married couples in fact have long term problems that they can't resolve. It may be impossible to live together in one house. Too often, however, disagreements slide into a pattern of domestic abuse. When a disagreement arises in the home, one partner just won't drop it. He/she will not stop the argument no matter what. He/she follows the other person from room to room, even into the bathroom, escalating a disagreement into a violent argument. The abuser just knows he/she is right. They love the abused partner in their own way, but have an irresistible need to dominate. That's what the tactics of the GLBTQ full equality movement feel like.
Every married couple needs a process for solving disagreements, accepting the results of the process and moving on. The United Methodist Church has followed its covenant process and reached a conclusion about homosexual conduct. Some partners in this relationship just won't accept it. What, then, is the most loving way forward for the institution?
"What do you propose to do with me? Assume the institutional changes take place in the church that you want to see. Assume that I don’t change my point of view."
I believe you'd find that queer pastors would set the table for you and serve you the sacrament of bread and wine. You'd soon discover that the Holy Spirit has anointed them and that what you call unholy is holy indeed.
Mr. Hebblethwaite thinks I will change my view, but that's contrary to the premise of the question, so it's not really very helpful. And he's wrong.
So to answer the question I posed, here's what I think will happen. At the very least, the idea that the traditionalist elders can pastor any church in the conference would go out the window. I would become unwelcome in the pulpits of those who shared the new majority opinion. I would eventually become completely unappointable because I continued to hold to an understanding of the scriptures which, at the time of my ordination 26 years ago, was the explicit teaching of the church. The Board of Ministry would require me to attend indoctrination classes to enrich my experience and show me the error of my ways. The District Superintendent would counsel me and warn me of dire consequences if I didn't come around to the new party line. Those who persisted in teaching the current sexual ethic would themselves ultimately be barred from the ministry of word and sacrament to which they were ordained. That's understandable, because all thriving organizations have rules and expectations that they enforce. I mean, seriously, if you think my teaching is cruel, unjust and destructive of human life, how can you let me keep teaching it when you have the power to stop me? In other words, I will be expected to keep the terms of the revised covenant that then exists between the church and its elders. If that day comes, I hope I have the grace to leave the institution I love to its new masters - without bitterness, without the need to be destructive on my way out the door, with good hopes for its future - and associate myself with a new group of believers with whom I can faithfully live out my calling. I've had to do that once in my life already, and it turned out for the best. I hope I don't have to do it again; it's not something I would choose for myself, but worse things have happened.
And with that, we've had three speeches against and three speeches for the motion, and by our rules (which I just made up) the discussion is closed. (I'm practicing for the time I'm elected bishop.)For those who have lost track amidst the red herrings and non sequiturs, here was the original proposition.
"Perhaps it might be better, then, if we followed the 1784 model to its logical conclusion – two separate bodies, each taking responsibility before God for their own understanding of ministry and the Christian life, living side-by-side, respecting each other as Christian churches but recognizing our significant differences on important matters. The ongoing conflict is harmful to the church. Both sides might do more good for the kingdom if we didn’t have to spend so much time and energy defending our positions or confronting the each other. In the end, God’s action in history will make things clear."
Mitch I'm with you 100% but there's one factor you did not consider that I think makes an equitable separation agreement unlikely - finances. The so-called “progressive” jurisdictions that have welcomed groups like the CWAC and generally ignore the Bible, long standing Christian tradition and the Discipline of the United Methodist Church have so declined in membership and resources during the last four decades that it's questionable whether they could float their ship effectively without pooling resources with the rest of the church. In other words they need our apportionments to help support their infrastructure. In essence the majority of the church is financing the rebellion against it. Until the church is ready to make some hard decisions about money and refuse to continue financing the rebellion I fear it will go on and on.
On a related note, John the Methodist comments about disingenuousness, evasion, deception, mental reservation and other gymnastics of the will with regard to vows of membership and ordination.
Every single United Methodist who has taken vows of membership or ordination since 1972 has voluntarily done so in a church that explicitly rejects homosexual conduct as incompatible with Christian teaching. This includes "life long" UMs who were born after about 1960, who would have come to confirmation age no earlier than 1972.