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.



[1] Kinnaman p. 92

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Defenders

Let's change gears for a post. Let's talk about comics. I just finished watching the Netflix series "The Defenders" based on the Marvel Comic series (that should be plural, I suppose!).  It wasn't bad.  It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad. Here's why it wasn't bad.  It did a good job at pulling the characters together in a short amount of time and resolving the story line in a short amount of time as well.  In some respects, the series was the vehicle for the next seasons of Daredevil, Luke Cage, and Jessica Jones (and probably Iron Fist, but I will get to that in a minute).  It pulled the stories of these heroes together and provided them with direct knowledge of each other and a (mostly) willingness to work together. The Defenders is a tough comic to bring to the screen, large or small.  That's because the more recent iterations of The Defenders focuses on the idea that it is a non-team, but a name that applies to a particular group who...
Read more

Thoughts on Pastoral Authority

A friend of mine and I were speaking in general terms about the authority of the pastor within the context of the local church.  As I wrote in my post a few weeks ago, sometimes the authority of the church subverts itself, as in the case of stigmatics, by proclaiming them to be persons with a special revelation, but then have to backpedal when or if that revelation runs counter to the accepted and orthodox traditions. On the other hand, as my friend and I were saying, the Protestant church itself is struggling with the issue of pastoral authority.  Not because we have stigmatics running around proclaiming against us, but because we have congregations in which the pastor is not viewed as the theological authority.  Let me explain how that happens. In many cases, the authority of the pastor is only granted so long as the pastor preaches or teaches that which is already accepted as 'true.'  In other words, the pastor has authority if what they say matches with wh...
Read more

Noah

As the gopher wood bandwagon is being built for the movie “Noah,” I thought I might take a few minutes to offer a few observations about this mostly well-known story from the book of Genesis.   The first observation is that the character of Noah has more lines in the movie trailer than he does in the actual Biblical text.     Not that that’s a problem, but it is something to keep in mind.   Of course, Noah in the movie “The Bible” (1966 – and played by John Huston) also had a few more lines, though not as many as are likely in the upcoming movie version.   And there was the John Voigt “Noah’s Ark” movie in 1999 that had Noah’s Ark come under attack by pirates .     Anyway… Whenever a Biblical story gets adapted into a movie (for good or for ill), inevitably it will garner some discussion from church-goers.   Usually the discussion centers around authenticity, but sometimes it pushes us to deeper theological questions.   Mel Gibs...
Read more