“What’s Going on in the UMC? – Article 3: The Three Models”

           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.