By Dr. Riley B. Case
The church is divided over the question of the practice of homosexuality. There is no question about that. While the church has stated that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, many have disagreed. While some would like for the church to remove the restrictions and simply bless the practice of homosexuality, others, including many moderates, would like for the church to find a “middle way.” One “middle way” would be simply to admit the church “is not of one mind” on the matter of the practice of homosexuality and so to state it in our Discipline. The “not of one mind” petition is what failed to pass at the General Conference.
At this point, it would be worth considering what happened the other time the church was so bitterly divided over a moral question, namely, on slavery in the mid-1800s.
There is no question about where Methodists stood on slavery in the early days. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury were horrified at the idea that one human being could enslave another. The General Rules, the Disciplines, and early sermons made it clear that slaveholding was an abominable sin against God and human dignity and would not be tolerated among the people of God called Methodists.
Then Methodists got prosperous and, in the words of Orange Scott, the abolitionist, “aristocratic.” Along with the secular world around them some Methodists, primarily in the South but in other places also, began to argue that it was not slavery as an institution that was so bad, but the mistreatment of slaves. Christian slaveholders had a responsibility to win their slaves to Christ, and maybe even offer a form of education, but were not under moral obligation to free slaves.
Soon Methodists (as well as the rest of the country) were divided into three groups. Abolitionists made up the first group. Slavery and whatever was associated with slavery was to be resisted and abolished, and as soon as possible. All the moral weight of the church was to be poured into this effort (including the Underground Railroad). At the very least slaveholders should not be church members. Abolitionists, moral heroes today, were not seen as such in the mid-1800s. They were troublemakers. Their critical remarks of the church were seen as divisive.
The next two groups were in the “we are not of one mind” category. One group supported slavery. This group argued that slavery was approved by Scripture, and insisted on “non-interference,” the principle that groups from far off should not interfere in local affairs. Theirs was a form of modern multi-culturalism. Cultural circumstances determined what is right and wrong and persons in the church should respect the beliefs of others. What was sin for one group of persons was not necessary sin for others. They argued that slavery was a political issue more than a moral issue. This group claimed allegiance to the slave-permitting laws of the state rather than any moral law, especially if law was imposed by outsiders.
The third group might be called the moderates, although a better description might be, the “Compromised Middle.” Included in this group were the people who either did not know much about slavery or, if they did know, did not desire to be greatly involved. Others in this group, including many church leaders, did know about slavery and were concerned (rightfully so) about slavery’s potential for dividing the church. They deplored the “extremists” on either side. In the language of today, they believed the best way for the church to deal with slavery was through dialogue, understanding, hearing one another’s stories, getting to know each other, and finding the center of their togetherness in love.
With the moderates, or Compromised Middle, the primary concern–ahead of faithfulness to the Scriptures, moral justice, or the tradition of the church–was unity. Many believed, or said they did, that slavery was a sin. But a greater sin, evidently, was intolerance and divisiveness, particularly the intolerance and divisiveness of the abolitionists. The Kentucky Conference in 1835 unanimously adopted a report condemning slavery as morally wrong while at the same time deploring “the interference of the abolitionists.” It was compromise in the interest of avoiding conflict.
The bishops, for their part, were the most compromised of all. Not able to agree among themselves, they condemned extremists, deplored the controversy, and talked unity. The bishops were particularly loath to criticize each other even when one of their own, Bishop James Andrew, was revealed to be a slaveholder. When the issue could be avoided no longer and the General Conference of 1844 was prepared to pass a resolution suggesting that Bishop Andrew desist from exercising his office as long as he continued to be a slaveholder (which was itself a compromised resolution for the sake of harmony), the bishops proposed a resolution that the matter be tabled for four more years.
As with slavery then so with homosexuality today. The church today is divided into three groups. The first group declares that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. According to this group, this stand is consistent with Scripture, with the tradition of the church through the years, and is supported in large part by Christians around the world. Even as slavery struck at the moral fabric of what Christian faith was all about, so with homosexual practice. This group speaks of accountability and upholding the Discipline.
The second group believes homosexuality is a gift of God, or at least, is not inconsistent with Scripture. This group appeals to a number of different arguments: God has revealed new truth (a new revelation which evidently they alone have received) which informs them that the practice of homosexuality is not a sin after all; or, what may be considered wrong in some parts of the world (like Africa) is not necessarily wrong in some other part of the world (like California); or, loving, committed relationships and personal experience trump Scripture and tradition. This group sees the first group as hateful and intolerant.
A third group, which one might call the “moderates,” want us all simply to get along. They deplore the rigid approaches. Much of their effort is spent speaking about dialogue, understanding, hearing one another’s stories, getting along, and finding the center of our unity in love. They find attraction in the idea that perhaps it is best that we just admit we “are not of one mind” and let people do what is right in their own eyes.
The bishops, like the bishops during the years of slavery, are themselves conflicted. A number do not personally believe in the church’s stance, and their bias shows. In some annual conferences, candidates for ministry are denied membership for being “rigid,” that is for holding with conviction what the church has always taught about homosexuality. Regardless of what they might say among themselves, publicly they do not engage in debate with one another. When the bishops speak as a Council of Bishops, it is to acknowledge that there is much pain over homosexuality, but the church should be loving in all things, show restraint, and move on to other more important matters.
Very few people are satisfied with the present situation facing the United Methodist Church. Those who would affirm the practice of homosexuality believe the church is rigid, intolerant, and hate-filled and has been manipulated by hate-mongers and right-wingers. Those who support the Biblical view of homosexuality believe the church is on the edge of apostasy. Those in the middle, like a mother whose children are out of control but who doesn’t know what to do, tell us we should all be nice to each other. They appear to be, in the words to the church at Laodicea, “neither hot nor cold.”
The Methodi
st Episcopal Church had many things to be proud of in the nineteenth century. How it dealt with slavery, however, was not one of them. The resolution on Bishop Andrew led to a Plan of Separation, which was a form of amiable separation. It was the northern conferences who, in the name of unity, passed resolutions against the plan. Thus, when separation came, it was not amiable. Battles over property and encroachment represent an ugly chapter in the church’s history. The Methodist Protestants, who did work out an amiable separation, were able to reunite in 1877.
What will happen to the United Methodist Church in the coming years over the issue of homosexuality? There is not much encouragement in thinking that things will probably progress just as they have been: continual political maneuvering, announced strategies to undermine the Discipline, ugly words spoken against brothers and sisters, more rounds of dialogue that don’t solve anything, a compromised moral witness, resolutions on unity that provide no help in bringing about that unity, conflicted bishops. Those on the evangelical side of the issue are alarmed that some of our best families, our best prospective pastors, and even some churches, are simply opting out of the denomination. Despite the church’s announced position, the church’s ambiguity has the effect of permission-giving to the acceptance of homosexual practice.
One must always hold out the hope that God will do some new thing. If so, it will probably come through the moderates in the denomination. But for the moderates, as well as all of us, it can no longer be business as usual. The church’s response to slavery should teach us that.
Pingback: Sexuality resolution not at variance with Discipline, bishop rules « MethodistThinker.com
Pingback: In embracing homosexual marriage, Foundry UMC rejects UM boundaries, 2 millennia of church teaching « MethodistThinker.com
The world changes. The crime in general is it takes so long. We’ve never seen God hand down a new tablet or commandment that says “Slavery is criminal” or Gays are my creation also, entitled to be accepted as they are, their loving relationships recognized like any other person to person relationship.
And the so long seems to be an artifact of religion. Civil societies are moving ahead so much faster. Understanding eg the horrors of how religion can poison society and then you get the holocaust not just of Jews, but of gays, Gypsies and so many others by a man whose soldiers belt buckles all said “Gott Mitt Uns” – god is with us. And 55 million died before he was destroyed.
I’m very involved in the gay civil rights movement. You should be also. I don’t look at scripture which condemns me to death for working on the sabbath, eating pork, etc etc, in fact it drives me further and further from relgion.
So lets have the debate. If you are good people you know where this will end up – with our gay citizens recognized as part of God’s creation.
YOu just have to open your heart, and realize that people shouldn’t vote on other peoples rights, whether it is in the church or in civil society. The crime is that there have been and will be so many more Tyler Clementis before somce churches change.
BTW, after the horrific murder and funeral of Matthew Shepard, actually sat next to Judy Shepard on a plane about 6 months later. Recognized her, but what do you say to a person who has suffered such a tragedy. Well, over the years we have met about 5 times. Just to show our support for that family.
And I am the guy who chased the psychopaths of the Westboro Baptist church away from the mass gay marriage ceremony in DC in April. People who belong in an insane asylum. People of a family ridden with endless physical, mental, and most likely sexual abuse generation to generation. Google “addicted to hate” for a free electronic copy of a book by two of their children who left that Kult’s nuthouse the day they were 18. Don’t eat too much while reading it unless you have a strong stomach.
And the ultimate solution in the next 10 years in the USA – a few more states will enable gay civil marriage, and quite a few will enable something quite similar but under an alternate name as our country moves forward.
LikeLike
A simple comment – welcome to the Episcopal church within the UMC. The great great majority of the Episcopal churches stand on the side of love and committment. A small number have joined with the African variant of the church.
Africa, where Uganda has a gay genocide bill in the parliment, Kenya just said gays should be arrested (auschwitz II anyone?). And the influence of Islamic extremism is all over that sad continent.
LikeLike
Steve, I won’t presume to answer for Dr. Case.
But I will say that the whole Gay thing is something all Christians need to deal with, beyond just a skimming over it as so many do, but deeper, struggling with the issue.
There are areas where we do agree, to an extent. I do agree that the homosexuals, et.al., are part of God’s creation. But all of creation has been damaged by sin. I don’t believe we should be accepting and encouraging that sin.
Having said that, we all do need to be accepting of homosexuals as human beings, but more importantly in the Church, as sinners in need of a savior. Every last one of us is a sinner, and we all need to repent of our sin and turn in faith to the Lord Jesus Christ as our one and only hope of escaping the wrath to come. The gays no less than the heterosexuals are in the same boat. None of us are holy, not one of us. Every one of us needs to repent.
The Bible, in every place where it mentions homosexuality, condemns it as an abomination in God’s sight. I therefore cannot accept as good something that God condemns. Yes, God is forgiving, and I believe there will be many homosexuals in heaven, just as there will be many heterosexual sinners there too. But they will all be cleansed of their sin. They will hate their sin; they will repent of their sin; they will turn to Jesus for forgiveness of their sin.
I accept homosexuals. They are there. I probably see them every day. The problem comes when they refuse to understand that what they are doing is sin and must be repented of. For some reason they think they are a special case; that they don’t need to repent like everyone else. And even worse are those who encourage homosexual activity by calling it an “alternative lifestyle” and want to teach it as a normal thing in our schools, even to kids as young as kindergarten. When homosexuals are willing to repent of their sin, then we will make progress.
And probably the most heinous of all are those who believe unrepentant, practicing homosexuals should be allowed to preach their false doctrine in our pulpits. That is a terrible abomination. Pastors, while not perfect (nobody is), must be repentant sinners, not unrepentant.
LikeLike
Pingback: Judicial Council overturns bishop’s ruling on sexuality statement, affirms apportionments decision « MethodistThinker.com
Maybe I missed the biggest issue of all…….
The church can do what it wants in its church. What it should not be able to do is tell other people how to live, or enforce their “beliefs” on others. My religion and my wifes both bless gay marriages. as do about half a dozen others.
And the churches should have zero right to tell people who do not believe in what they believe how to live, or to intrude into our civil (vs religious) laws re who can share in the rights and priveledges of marriage under civil law.
To do otherwise is doing what the maniac sects of Islam did to us on 9/11. For while the church doesn’t take flying lessons, its words contribute to the 9/11 every year of about 3000 gay children committing suicide. Thats the real point you are missing.
BTW one of my kids was suicidal, alcoholic, doing poorly in school. Obvious problem -failure with girls as a teen.
Real problem – he thought that if he couldn’t succeed with girls, there was nothing to do except “become gay”. Which to him was a fate worse then death.
On this one we were lucky, a good psych helped. And years later the Psych told me that this is a very common fear. Only God knows how many of the non-gay kids who commit suicide are actually being murdered by the words of intolerance and “sin” we hear from many conservative churches. Add them to the carnage.
Stephen_1553-k@comcast.net
LikeLike
Steve,
A couple of points…
1) The church can, and should, call the world to repent from their sin (including homosexuality).
2) You say the church should not be able to…tell other people how to live, or enforce their “beliefs” on others. What if they believe that it is what they are to do? Wouldn’t you then be trying to enforce (your) “beliefs” on others? Doesn’t seem fair.
3) I’m not sure what religion you are referencing when you say it bless(es) gay marriages. Certainly it is not one that would be considered Biblically Christian. Paul writes: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV)
Paul also wrote: For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. (Romans 1:26-28 ESV)
4) Your reference to 9/11 is shameful.
LikeLike
Steven, believe it or not, I agree with your first two points there. We don’t have the right as Christians to force our beliefs on others. I don’t like it, but I agree.
The other issue concerning suicide is one that we need to address. I am the father of a teenage daughter who struggled through school and her relationships with other kids. I admit there were times I was concerned for her mental state, and still am at times. While her issues do not get into the area of homosexuality, you know my heart goes out to her.
The issue of the way the church comes across to the kids, whether or not they self-identify as homosexuals, is critical. I believe in the authority of the scriptures, but the scriptures are so large and diverse that it’s impossible to preach forth the “whole counsel of God” in every message, and so parts of it are missed, and those parts can be extremely important to a young person’s understanding.
The problem from my point of view, Steve, is that we have to find a way to condemn the sin while embracing the sinner. Kids hear that God condemns homosexuality, and they identify themselves as homosexual, and so they think they’re going to hell. Other kids, who do not self-identify themselves as gay, still hear the church condemning what the schools teach them is good and right, and so they may decide the church is old-fashioned and irrelevant.
We cannot unconditionally accept the sin along with the sinner. That is simply wrong. But the sinner needs to understand that what is necessary is repentance and the turning away from sin, turning towards Jesus in faith; but just as much it’s realizing that everybody is in the same boat, that we’re all sinners, all condemned to hell without saving faith in Jesus.
What is the answer to this dilemma? We do not, we cannot, have the church today (particularly the UMC) be a church of believers only. It is a body made up of believers, non-believers, and children alike. And we are so large that any change would be incremental and glacier-like. But we do have the Holy Spirit, and where we say we cannot, He can! I believe that we in the UMC, and other churches for that matter, must take the initiative to start loving the sinners among us, right here in our local churches, one church at a time.
Is this something we can agree on, Steve?
LikeLike