We
continue our discussion of the debate about human sexuality in the United
Methodist Church. In my first article, I
set three ground rules for myself in writing these articles and for all of us
in discussing them. Please refer back to
those. Last time I outlined some of the
history of the debate. Today, I want to
pick up where I left off in discussing the work of the Commission on a Way
Forward.
This
commission of 32 people from all over the world and representing both sides of
the debate was formed by the Council of Bishops in order to offer possible
solutions to the debate to be presented by the Council of Bishops to a special
called General Conference, which has been set for February of 2019 in St.
Louis. It will be up to the Council of Bishops, with the input of the
Commission on a Way Forward, to decide what will be placed before the special
General Conference for a vote.
The Commission has presented three
possible models to the Council of Bishops…
1. Affirm the current Book of Discipline (which forbids
same-sex marriages and the ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals)
and place a high value on accountability.
Obviously,
this is the solution that is most desired by traditionalists and least desired
by progressives. (I prefer the terms
traditional and progressive to conservative and liberal due the secular political
baggage of the latter. I will discuss
these groups, along with centrists, and the organizations which represent them
in the next article.)
Accountability
has been a major concern for traditionalists because many pastors continue to
perform same-sex marriages and homosexual persons continue to be ordained and
serve as clergy, including Bishop Karen Oliveto in the Yellowstone and Rocky
Mountain Conference.
2. Remove the restrictive language, (from the Discipline) thus
allowing for same-sex marriage and homosexual ordination, while protecting the
rights of those whose conscience will not allow them to perform same-gender
weddings or ordain LBGTQ persons.
This
may seem like a compromise to some, and it is touted by centrists, but I have
seen objections from both traditionalists and progressives. Many traditionalists cannot see themselves as
continuing to be part of a Church that does not uphold their key value of
biblical morality. Likewise, many
progressives see the Church that results from this compromise as segregated and
in violation of their key value of inclusivity, which they also see as a
biblical value.
Also,
I have heard both traditionalist and progressive clergy raise concerns about
being pressured, one way or another depending on where they serve, by their
local churches or conferences.
3. Create separate branches of the Church which are grounded
in a unified core of shared doctrine and services, including a shared Council
of Bishops.
This
would allow traditionalists and progressives, and perhaps centrists, to each
have their own branch of the Church with their own local churches and
conferences and would still allow the branches to share ministries such as United
Methodist Committee on Relief, United Methodist Publishing House, our colleges,
university, seminaries, hospitals, and other institutions, and our pension and
benefits system.
In
my opinion, this may be the best option, but it will need to be done very
carefully and very well.
Depending
on your position, one of these options may seem clearly the right way to
go. However, that does not make it easy. Adopting any one of these options may cause
large numbers of people to leave the Church and still may not end the
debate. I would ask that we all be in
prayer for the Council of Bishops, the Commission on a Way Forward, which
continues to work, and the upcoming Special General Conference.
