METHODISTS AND HOMOSEXUALITY
Hug your Methodist friends. They are going to need it. The United Methodist Church is about to take up the issues of homosexuality that have roiled the Episcopal Church for the past thirty years. In fact, the Bishop Love episode in Albany reminds us, as if we need it, that these issues are far from being resolved in the Episcopal Church even though there have been enormous strides in that direction.
From February 23 to 26, a special session of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church will meet in Saint Louis, Missouri, to take up various resolutions on changes to the Methodist rules concerning homosexuality. As of now, the United Methodist Book of Discipline declares "The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." (304.1) It forbids both a "practicing" homosexual person from being ordained in the Church and for churches to be used for same-sex marriages. Advocates of human rights, for equality and inclusion of homosexuals persons in the Methodist church, are pushing for substantial reforms in the old rules. The church has optimistically allotted three days for the 864 delegates to deal with this vast and complex set of issues. This is not realistic.
There will be many pieces of legislation and resolutions offered, but three have already arisen to the forefront (see this article ):
1. THE TRADITIONAL PLAN. Conservative agenda. Keeps in place the bans on the ordinations of openly gay persons and same-sex blessings and marriages as well as the condemnation of the "practice" of homosexuality. It also strengthens strict enforcement of the rules. However, the plan also calls for local conferences and churches that disagree with this to have some sort of autonomy although this is unclear.
This plan is obviously backed by traditionalist, conservative factions that seem to have unified around it.
2. THE ONE CHURCH PLAN. This one was the work of the 32-member Commission on a Way Forward, set up by the church in 2016.
This removes the language in the Book of Discipline that condemns homosexuality and deletes the provision banning "practicing" homosexuals from the ordained ministry. It would allow the local conferences to determine their own rules for ordination. In addition, it would allow clergy to conduct same-sex marriages in the local churches.
This opens up the whole church to the possibility of openly gay clergy and to same-sex marriages, but does not require any local conference to adopt such.
This plan is backed by the progressives who advocate for equality and inclusion of homosexuals.
3. THE CONNECTIONAL CONFERENCE PLAN. This plan would replace the five U.S. church jurisdictions with three "connectional conferences" that are united on issues rather than on geography. Each local conference would join the one of the three it chose. Each of the three new conferences would have virtually independent rules. All of this would require a list of constitutional amendments to enact, a heavy burden.
Conventional wisdom holds that this plan is the least likely to be adopted because of its entangled complications.
As far as I can gather, one of five options is likely to happen in the special session: one of the three plans will be adopted, no plan will be adopted, or a hybrid conglomeration combining various resolutions will be adopted. I suspect the last is the most likely at this point. I expect in the end there will be a "committee resolution" in which everyone gains something but no one is happy with the result. If the first or second plan passes as is, we can expect schisms of whole conferences and numerous local churches even though the United Methodists have property laws that have been described as "the Dennis Canon on steroids." Schisms would have lawsuits written all over them. Surely no sane person could wish on our Methodist brothers and sisters the destructive disaster than has befallen the Episcopal Church in South Carolina.
What about the ordinary Methodists, the people-in-the-pews? What do they want to see happen on the issues of homosexuality? Good question. Let us go back to the recent Pew "Religious Landscape" study as look at what it found about Methodist thinking. Find it here .
The Pew study found that United Methodists tend to be politically conservative, 54% Republican and 35% Democrat. A plurality, 45% said they were conservative, 38% moderate, and 15% liberal. 67% said they wanted a smaller government and most (54%) said government programs for the poor do more harm than good. This would suggest popular sentiment for the traditional plan above.
However, on social issues, Methodists are about as progressive as Episcopalians and Anglicans. 58% of Methodists say abortion should be legal. On homosexuality, 60% said it should be "accepted" while 32% said it should be "discouraged." On same-sex marriage, more Methodists support it (49%) than oppose it (43%). This would suggest popular sentiment for the progressive plan above.
Thus, it boils down to whether the political or the social views win out. If Methodists want to interpret change in a political light, as "Anglicans" did, they will keep the traditional views and continue to exclude open homosexuals. If they want to interpret change in a social light, as the Episcopalians did, they will change the traditional rules to give equality and inclusion to openly homosexual men and women.
It is clear that American society has moved overwhelmingly to acceptance of homosexuality as another aspect of sexuality, neither inherently good nor bad, and has taken enormous strides towards full human rights for homosexual persons. If the Methodists decide to jump on the train of history, they will be fairly late to board. For years now, numerous denominations have extended equal rights to gays: United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church, Presbyterian Church USA, Quakers, Unitarians-Universalists, and the Episcopal Church. If the Methodists decide to join, they will be in good company indeed.
The United States adopted same-sex marriage in 2015 through a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the U.S. was far from being the first country to do so. In fact, numerous nations had already legalized same-sex marriage including hispanic countries with conservative cultures: the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, and Denmark. The first country, Netherlands, acted in 2001. At the time of the schism, in 2012, Bishop Lawrence was fond of saying that, in adopting the blessing of same-sex unions, the Episcopal Church was going where no civilization had ever gone. This was demonstrably untrue. In fact, twelve nations had already adopted same-sex marriage and numerous American denominations had already begun blessing same-sex unions.
I suspect the Methodists are just starting on a long road of gradual reform that will eventually reach full equality for and inclusion of open, or "practicing" homosexual men and women. This will not be simple or easy, just the opposite. Reforms of embedded social conventions are extremely difficult in democratic institutions. The best example of this is the American Civil War. It was the result of the spectacular failure of American citizens to deal with the human rights of four million enslaved people. For that failure, we paid a very high price, one that we southerners know well. Change is just so hard, particularly change in how we relate to one another. Yet, sometimes it has to come, and sometimes the hard way. The Methodists will realize this just as the Episcopalians did.
If it is any comfort to the Methodists, they should realize the Episcopal Church has been working on these issues for at least thirty years and has still not reached a full resolution. To say the least it has not been easy. Change was not a foregone conclusion. In fact, the Episcopal Church acted only by reacting to provocative events. It was just too hard for the church to have a full, open discussion of the morality of homosexuality, so the church simply avoided it. Instead, the reforms came in piecemeal and by the back door. The first great episode started in 1989 when a "practicing" gay man was ordained to the priesthood. The church nearly fell apart in the next few years. What brought this to an end really was not the General Convention, it was an ecclesiastical court in 1996. The court ruled that there was nothing in Episcopal Church canons to block homosexuals from ordination. So much for settling the priesthood. Then came the episcopacy. In 2003, the General Convention had to vote on whether to confirm Robinson, an open and partnered gay man, as a bishop. It did. Then it took years for the church to reach the blessings of same-sex unions (2012) and same-sex marriage (2015). Now, Bishop William Love, of Albany, is challenging the reform of 2018 that required every diocese to open up to the possibility of same-sex marriage
Everyone who reads this blog regularly knows my thesis that the church's reforms for homosexuals is the last part of a great democratic revolution that started in the 1950's with civil rights. The Episcopal Church resolved to champion rights and inclusion for blacks, women, and gays. The schisms in the Episcopal Church were politically conservative counter-revolutions against the great democratic revolution in the Church. The Methodists have had a similar history of democratic reform. In this last part, they are arriving, if a bit late. I believe they will get there because they are committed to justice and they know it is the right thing to do. It is matter of human rights. Most Methodists know that.
Meanwhile, let us keep our Methodist friends in our prayers. They will need them.
I suspect the Methodists are just starting on a long road of gradual reform that will eventually reach full equality for and inclusion of open, or "practicing" homosexual men and women. This will not be simple or easy, just the opposite. Reforms of embedded social conventions are extremely difficult in democratic institutions. The best example of this is the American Civil War. It was the result of the spectacular failure of American citizens to deal with the human rights of four million enslaved people. For that failure, we paid a very high price, one that we southerners know well. Change is just so hard, particularly change in how we relate to one another. Yet, sometimes it has to come, and sometimes the hard way. The Methodists will realize this just as the Episcopalians did.
If it is any comfort to the Methodists, they should realize the Episcopal Church has been working on these issues for at least thirty years and has still not reached a full resolution. To say the least it has not been easy. Change was not a foregone conclusion. In fact, the Episcopal Church acted only by reacting to provocative events. It was just too hard for the church to have a full, open discussion of the morality of homosexuality, so the church simply avoided it. Instead, the reforms came in piecemeal and by the back door. The first great episode started in 1989 when a "practicing" gay man was ordained to the priesthood. The church nearly fell apart in the next few years. What brought this to an end really was not the General Convention, it was an ecclesiastical court in 1996. The court ruled that there was nothing in Episcopal Church canons to block homosexuals from ordination. So much for settling the priesthood. Then came the episcopacy. In 2003, the General Convention had to vote on whether to confirm Robinson, an open and partnered gay man, as a bishop. It did. Then it took years for the church to reach the blessings of same-sex unions (2012) and same-sex marriage (2015). Now, Bishop William Love, of Albany, is challenging the reform of 2018 that required every diocese to open up to the possibility of same-sex marriage
Everyone who reads this blog regularly knows my thesis that the church's reforms for homosexuals is the last part of a great democratic revolution that started in the 1950's with civil rights. The Episcopal Church resolved to champion rights and inclusion for blacks, women, and gays. The schisms in the Episcopal Church were politically conservative counter-revolutions against the great democratic revolution in the Church. The Methodists have had a similar history of democratic reform. In this last part, they are arriving, if a bit late. I believe they will get there because they are committed to justice and they know it is the right thing to do. It is matter of human rights. Most Methodists know that.
Meanwhile, let us keep our Methodist friends in our prayers. They will need them.
