Return to the Middle (part 3)
I write these particular
words as I sit pondering a meeting of the annual conference to which I, as a
United Methodist Pastor, belong. I sit
in an auditorium, feeling a sense of anxiety and worry. I wonder about the future of the church. Is the United Methodist Church going to
survive? Are we going to divide into two
denominations? If so, what will become
of the former UMC pastors?
It is an issue that
saddens me.
It saddens me because even
though the issue is homosexuality, we
have learned to couch the conversation in terms that do not actually express
that issue. We talk about “issues of
leadership” and “issues of covenant.”
These are legalistic smoke screens.
I have found, though, that
these kinds of phrases indicate a lessening desire for conversation. I know I recognize it within myself. I have trouble talking with people who are vehemently
for or against something. I dislike
conflict, but I do enjoy conversation.
Yet it seems to me like we
live in an increasingly polarized time, and our church is becoming no
different.
It is a painful time for
the church. Perhaps it is avoidable, or
perhaps there are means to address the issue directly. What I do know is that as a pastor in the
United Methodist Church, I face a conundrum which has to do with the fact that –
whatever your point of view – I am called to be a pastor to both sides in the
issue.
While this position might
seem untenable for some, (to try and pastor to such disparity in ideology) let
me explain where I am.
I am an ordained elder in
the United Methodist Church. The
definition and duties of an ordained Elder in the UMC are found in full in our
Book of Discipline at ¶322-342. I would draw your attention to ¶340 in which
the responsibilities and duties of Elders are outlined. Part of the tension that exists stems from
what would seem to be a conflict of interest between ¶340.a1a: “To ensure
faithful transmission of the Christian faith.” and ¶340.c2a, “To administer the
provisions of the Discipline.” For some,
homosexuality is not compatible with the Christian faith (and that is our
stance as a denomination). However, to
transmit the Christian faith would be, for some, to exclude homosexuals from
participation in our worship services.
Yet in administration of the Discipline, I am also bound to welcome all
into the service of worship – provided they are not disruptive. Again, disruption is a matter of opinion, I
suppose. But our Discipline states “The
practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals
are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to
serve in The United Methodist Church.” (¶304.3) Likewise, “The United Methodist
Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this
practice incompatible with Christian teaching.” (¶161f)
In tension with this
statement is the next statement, “We
affirm that God’s grace is available to all.
We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming,
forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to
reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and
with all persons.” (¶161f)
This is both in keeping
with our understanding of the Gospel as well as the further mandate in the
Discipline that an ordained Elder is “to build the body of Christ as a caring
and giving community, extending the ministry of Christ to the world.” (¶340.d3) This places us in a unique position which
both refuses to condone a particular behavior yet also deliberately invites
that same behavior to be present in the congregation.
Our denomination has
wrestled with this subject for many years, and I am not going to be able to
solve the dilemma on my own. I do
understand that the church does not condone homosexuality, and calls it
incompatible with Christian teaching. I
do also understand that, as a model of Christian behavior, the church is called
to witness the love of Christ in all that we do, which would not be to exclude
someone.
This is problematic. What we end up with is not so much a
contradiction in the Book of Discipline as it is a genuine reflection on the
fact that the issue of homosexuality is at best convoluted. David Kinnaman, in his book UnChristian
explains that this issue is one that will be with us for a long while.
The
gay issue has become the “big one,” the negative image most likely to be
intertwined with Christianity’s reputation.
It is also the dimension that most clearly demonstrates the unchristian
faith to young people today, surfacing a spate of negative perceptions:
judgmental, bigoted, sheltered, right-wingers, hypocritical, insincere, and
uncaring. Outsiders say our hostility
toward gays – not just opposition to homosexual politics and behaviors but
disdain for gay individuals – has become virtually synonymous with the
Christian faith.[1]
Our Book of Disciple recognizes
the tension that exists with regard to the issue of homosexuality. As an ordained Elder in that church, I will
abide by it. More to the point, I will
do all in my ability to be a witness to the love of God as found in Jesus the
Christ. I will strive to be their pastor as
much as I strive to be the pastor for all the people in this church.
The final point, I suppose,
is that if you are ordained in the United Methodist Church, this is what you
have vowed to uphold. As I have said to colleagues, if you are
completely against homosexuality, the language of the Discipline will not let
you go so far as to banish them. If you have
no issue with homosexuality, the Discipline holds you in tension with our
theological understanding. It may not be
your personal point of view, but it is what we promised to uphold.
If the language in it
changes, then there would be the time for re-evaluation, I would think.
But it is who we are. We have promised this would be our point of
view. The threatened division comes from
those on both sides who would not seek to walk the difficult road of hearing
multiple points of view.
Maybe that has become
untenable because we are so insistent on winning this battle rather than living
out faith.
Comments
Post a Comment