The UMC and the Issues 2012: Abortion

The two most divisive moral issues of our day are homosexuality and abortion.  Homosexuality I dealt with prior to General Conference and the official position of the United Methodist Church, despite some lively and heartfelt debate on both sides, did not change.  However, there are still many in the Church who publicly and privately disagree with that position.  

On the other issue, abortion, General Conference added language that expanded and somewhat strengthened the Church’s official position.  The added language will appear in the 2012 version of the Discipline.  However, the general content and context of the position remained the same, therefore; I am quoting the 2008 language below.

“...Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion.
But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child.  
We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures...
...We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection...
...We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may cause them to consider abortion.
The Church shall offer ministries to reduce unintended pregnancies. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth...
...Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, family, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel.” (From: The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2008 Paragraph 161J)

The thing that distresses me most about the abortion debate in our culture is the fact that both sides take such extreme positions.  The Pro-Life side says that abortion is murder and that abortion should be illegal in all, or most, circumstances.  (Some do not even make exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the mother.)  Meanwhile, the Pro-Choice side often seems to cast abortion as merely in the realm of personal choice that a woman has over her body.  (This often sounds like abortion is the moral equivalent of a haircut or a tattoo.)  Many reasonable churches, which I believe the UMC is, and many reasonable people, which I think I am, and all of you are, would reject both of these extremes.

The UMC states, “We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures.”  At the same time, the UMC does not affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control.  There are varied and tragic circumstances that may justify abortion, but abortion is never simply a “choice” or a “solution” to the “problem” of an unwanted pregnancy.

In closing, I would commend to all of us, as a local church, and as individuals, the recommendations of this Social Principle.  First, to be in ministry to reduce unintended pregnancies and to provide nurturing ministries to those who have had abortions, to those in the midst of crisis pregnancies, and to those who give birth.  And, second, to engage in a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may lead people to consider abortion and under what circumstances abortion would be justified, remembering that, “Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience.”

The UMC and the Issues 2012: Gambling

The Social Principles reserve their strongest language for the issue of gambling calling gambling “a menace to society.”  The full statement reads as follows,

Gambling is a menace to society, deadly to the best interests of moral, social, economic, and spiritual life, and destructive of good government. As an act of faith and concern, Christians should abstain from gambling and should strive to minister to those victimized by the practice.

Where gambling has become addictive, the Church will encourage such individuals to receive therapeutic assistance so that the individual's energies may be redirected into positive and constructive ends.

The Church should promote standards and personal lifestyles that would make unnecessary and undesirable the resort to commercial gambling—including public lotteries—as a recreation, as an escape, or as a means of producing public revenue or funds for support of charities or government. (Discipline paragraph 163.G)

Also, the United Methodist Church has rules prohibiting local churches, conferences, and agencies from using “raffles, bingo, door prizes, other drawing schemes, or games of chance for the purpose of gambling or fundraising.” (Book of Resolutions of the United Methodist Church 2008 page 556)  Churches are also prohibited from accepting funds from gambling sources.

I am aware that this is a sensitive issue for us here in this area due to the presence of the Meskwaki Casino.  Our Book of Resolutions, which contains resolutions by General Conference that expand on the Social Principles, does address the issue of tribal casinos.

While we support tribal self-determination and self-governance, resorting to gambling as a form of economic development is regrettable... We encourage tribal governments to wean themselves from gambling as a form of economic development; and we encourage and fully support tribal efforts to diversify economically away from gambling. (Book of Resolutions of the United Methodist Church 2008 pages 555-556)

We all know deep in our hearts that gambling is not a sustainable method of economic development because it takes more than it gives and destroys more than it creates.  We also know deep in our hearts the damage that gambling does to individuals, families, communities, and society as a whole.

I know that many of you may gamble recreationally.  I would encourage you to consider less destructive methods of recreation.  I encourage those of you who struggle with gambling to reach out to me or to others for help.  And, if you have a problem with excess money on your hands, I am sure the church can help you out with that!  Ha ha!

UMC and the Issues 2012: Alcohol, and Tobacco

Historically, Methodism, and the United Brethren Church, have been associated with the Temperance Movement which came to a climax in the 1920’s with Prohibition.  There was a time when being a Mthodist or Brethren meant absolute abstinence from alcohol and tobacco.  For clergy, complete abstinence from both was part of the vows which they took.
However, times have changed somewhat.  Our current Social Principles read.

We affirm our long-standing support of abstinence from alcohol as a faithful witness to God's liberating and redeeming love for persons. We support abstinence from the use of any illegal drugs. Since the use of illegal drugs, as well as illegal and problematic use of alcohol, is a major factor in crime, disease, death, and family dysfunction, we support educational programs as well as other prevention strategies encouraging abstinence from illegal drug use and, with regard to those who choose to consume alcoholic beverages, judicious use with deliberate and intentional restraint, with Scripture as a guide. (Paragraph 162.L)
We affirm our historic tradition of high standards of personal discipline and social responsibility. In light of the overwhelming evidence that tobacco smoking and the use of smokeless tobacco are hazardous to the health of persons of all ages, we recommend total abstinence from the use of tobacco. (Paragraph 162.M)

        For clergy, our vows now include the statement that we will, “Agree for the sake of the mission of Jesus Christ in the world to... exercise responsible self control by personal habits conducive to bodily health, [and] mental and emotional maturity...” (Paragraph 311.2.d)
       I am often asked questions like, “Can United Methodists drink, smoke, etc.?  If the meaning of those questions are along the lines of, “Will someone who drinks or smokes be denied membership in, or be removed from, the church,” the answer is an overwhelming “No.”
      However, the better question is, “Should United Methodists drink or smoke?”  Given God’s great concern for our individual and personal well-being in mind, body, and spirit, a concern which God has called the church to proclaim, and given the overwhelming evidence for the damage that is caused by alcohol and tobacco to our personal well-being and the well-being of families and society as a whole, the answer to that question must also be a resounding “No,” or at least, “With great restraint and moderation.”
      This is also a good reminder of what the Social Principles are and how they are meant to be used.  The Social Principles are not a rulebook which we must agree with and obey in order to call ourselves United Methodists, rather they are a guidebook to help us make decisions about how we will live.  We are free to disagree with any or all of their guidance.  However, I, and all who teach in the church, are required to present them as the official positions of the United Methodist Church.
      I hope you will join me in following the guidance of the Social Principles in making better and more healthy choices in all areas of our lives.  I also hope you will join me in celebrating the fact that we are part of a church that cares enough about us and the world and the world around us to offer us guidance but stops short of trying to force us to agree.  

The UMC and the Issues 2012: The Environment

The opening paragraph of the section of the Social Principles of The United Methodist church entitled “The Natural World” reads...
“All creation is the Lord’s, and we are responsible for the ways in which we use and abuse it. Water, air, soil, minerals, energy resources, plants, animal life, and space are to be valued and conserved because they are God’s creation and not solely because they are useful to human beings. God has granted us stewardship of creation. We should meet these stewardship duties through acts of loving care and respect. Economic, political, social, and technological developments have increased our human numbers, and lengthened and enriched our lives. However, these developments have led to regional defoliation, dramatic extinction of species, massive human suffering, overpopulation, and misuse and overconsumption of natural and nonrenewable resources, particularly by industrialized societies. This continued course of action jeopardizes the natural heritage that God has entrusted to all generations. Therefore, let us recognize the responsibility of the church and its members to place a high priority on changes in economic, political, social, and technological lifestyles to support a more ecologically equitable and sustainable world leading to a higher quality of life for all of God’s creation.” (Discipline paragraph 160)
The positions that The United Methodist Church takes on environmental issues are based on our belief that all of Creation belongs to God and that God has made us, individually and collectively, stewards of Creation.  A steward is not an owner, a steward is a caretaker who is responsible to maintain and to use that which has been entrusted to them according to the wishes of the owner.
There are many specific things that the Church encourages including recycling, conservation of energy and water, avoiding the use of bottled water, reducing the use of fossil fuels and the reduction of “greenhouse gases,” responsible mining and drilling, and sustainable agriculture and organic foods. (Discipline paragraphs 161A, B, D, and G)
Oftentimes, I, like perhaps many of you, find myself overwhelmed by the enormity of the environmental problem and the radical change that a truly “green” lifestyle might involve.  Sometimes I feel guilty because I know that I waste fuel, water, and energy.  I know that I often throw away what can be recycled.  I cannot always find, or afford, organic food.  A hybrid just did not fit my family’s needs, or budget, the last time I bought a car.
Of course we do not all have to be environmental saints or live in ecological monasteries, but we do have to take our responsibility as stewards of God’s creation seriously.  We can all make small changes in the way we live and the choices we make every day.
 

The UMC and the Issues 2012: Health Care

The issue of health care is one of the hotest political issues of our time.  This is perhaps because while many issues may not affect all of us, health care is something we all need and it is an issue that can have dangerous and even deadly consequences.

The Social Principles of the United Methodist Church declare that health care is “a basic human right,” and, “We believe it is a governmental responsibility to provide all citizens with health care.”  (Discipline paragraph 162.III.V)

First, let me say that I believe that we in America enjoy a very high quality of health care as well as a very high quantity of health care.  The very best level of care, provided by well qualified and caring professionals in extremely comfortable and well equipped facilities, is available to most Americans, including we who live in rural areas.  In fact, I have begun to consider the possibility that it is precisely the high quality and quantity of health care we enjoy, and have come to expect and demand, that has caused the costs of health care to become so high.  

Am I suggesting that we somehow lower the quality and quantity of our health care to reduce costs?  That may be a good idea is some cases.  For instance, we could stop running to the doctor for every ache and pain demanding the newest drug we have just seen advertised on television.  Also, if a waiting room with a few less potted plants or without a fish tank means that I can save on my medical bills, I am all for that.  However, we all know that it would not be a good idea to take this line of thinking too far, we would not be willing to give up our high quality and high quantity of health care.  In fact, I think it is our fear of losing our high quality and high quantity health care that has made this such a heated debate.  

The problem has become how do we pay for the ever increasing costs of our high quality and high quantity health care?  Government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Hawk-I, and others have helped many to afford health care.  However, programs like these are always limited in what they provide and in the number of people who qualify, and there are always those who fall through the cracks.  There are those who do not qualify for programs and still cannot afford health care and there are those for whom programs do not cover the health care they need.

For many years health care for most people has been paid for by health insurance provided by employers.  However, this system is beginning to break down as costs continue to increase.  Employers, especially small ones including churches, are finding it more difficult to provide health insurance.  This has limited the number of persons employers can hire and has contributed to unemployment.  Also, many people report being stuck in dead end jobs, afraid to change jobs or to start their own businesses, for fear of losing health benefits.

It is clear to me that the current system of health insurance through work is no longer sustainable.  Almost everyone I talk to, on both sides of the political spectrum, agrees that the system must fundamentally change.  The question is, “How?”

One answer I have heard is the elimination of the system of health insurance and a return to a consumer based direct payment model in which people pay for what they need and what they can afford and doctors and hospitals charge whatever the market will bear.  However, common sense will tell us that this would result in a catastrophic reduction in the quality and quantity of health care that is available to people, particularly poor people and those of us who live in rural areas.

The other answer I have heard is the implementation of a government run health care or health insurance system of some kind based on the Canadian or European models.  Valid concerns have been raised, given our government's tendency towards inefficiency, about the effect this will have on the quality and quantity of health care.  

However, as a pastor, based on my interpretation, I have to say that this is the position put forward by General Conference in the Social Principles.  Also, this is my personal position as well.  This appears to me to be the only hope we have to continue to maintain our high quality and high quantity of health care long term and compete economically with the rest of the world.

The UMC and the Issues: Homosexuality

It is with great fear and trembling that I approach the issue of Homosexuality because it is one of the most controversial issues in society and the Church today.
First, I need to outline the UMC’s current stand on the issue. “The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. 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, just 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 with and for all persons.” (Discipline paragraph 161F)

The United Methodist Church supports “laws in civil society that define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.” (Discipline paragraph 161B) Also, the Discipline says, “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.” (Discipline paragraph 341.6) Also, “Self-avowed, practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in the United Methodist Church.” (Discipline paragraph 304.3) And, United Methodist funds cannot be used to promote the acceptance of homosexuality. (Discipline paragraph 806.9)

However, we should also remember that the Church has said that we should not, “reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends.” And, the United Methodist Church supports equal civil rights for all person regardless of sexual orientation. (Discipline paragraph 162J)

Since 1972, when the current language went into place, the Church has debated this issue. There are many in the Church who would like to see the current position reversed and have homosexuality fully accepted in the Church, including marriage and ordination. It seems to me that there have been at least three distinct voices in this issue: “yes,” “no,” and “wait.”

First, we’ll look at the “no.” These folks would point to several passages in the Bible, as well as to nature, and to traditional family structures, to say that we should maintain the current standard. These folks tend to view homosexuality as a perversion, a chosen lifestyle in rejection of God and traditional values.

Next, we will look at the “yes.” These folks would point to the fact that there are many wonderful people who are homosexual, some of whom, by all other appearances, are committed disciples of Jesus Christ. Also, there is much evidence to suggest that sexual orientation is part of who a person is, that the are “born that way,” and, therefore, it is unfair to ask them to change or to pretend to be someone they are not. It would seem fair then, to allow homosexuals to participate in the Church and have their sexuality accepted on the same basis as that of heterosexuals, within the confines of a committed monogamous relationship. 

Finally, we look at the “wait.” These are folks that might agree with the “yes,” but they are afraid of the damage that making a change at this time, when so many are against it, would do to the church. They agree that this is a place that we should, and will eventually, go but they want to wait until a larger consensus can be built.

For myself, I have to admit that I have found myself quite torn on this issue, as I suspect many of you have as well. I have found myself deeply impressed by the faith of homosexual Christians whom I have meet, and by their deep love for one another in their relationships. I have also become increasingly convinced that sexual orientation is something that is often deeply imprinted in our personality. However, I am also extremely reluctant to dismiss the guidance of Scripture. (Although we also do have a history of re-interpreting Scripture in the light of new situations and new understandings. After all, the Bible clearly teaches, or so we used to think, that slavery is permissible and that women are inferior to men.) And, I am also afraid of the effect a sudden change in direction, based on a narrow majority vote, would have on my beloved United Methodist Church.

Having said all of that, no matter what happens at General Conference in Tampa this year, I will remain a faithful United Methodist. Since I am often unsure of what to think, I will trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church. I invite you to join me in praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit upon General Conference and up our whole Church.

Creation and Evolution

In our series on the issues of our day and the United Methodist position on them, we might as well begin at the beginning.  United Methodist proclaim, along with other Christians, in the words of the Apostles’ Creed, that, “We believe in God, the Father, Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.”  

The book of Genesis tells the story of God’s creation of the universe, the world, and everything it in.  The pinnacle of God’s creation is humanity, which is created in the image of God.  According to Genesis, God creates the universe in six days with each day bringing a new step in the creation process that leads ultimately to the creation of humanity.  

Meanwhile, the best science tells us that the universe and the world took shape over billions of years and that life developed gradually in a process called evolution.  Science, of course. makes no claim about the existence of God or God’s involvement in this process.

So what are we to believe?  Should we reject the Bible and the story of creation in favor of evolution, or should we reject the claims of science and cling blindly to the Bible and its traditional interpretation?   The answer is: neither.  The United Methodist Church states in our Social Principles# that, “We find that science’s description of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution and not in conflict with theology.”#  

But you may well ask, “How does that work?”  I am glad you asked.  There are four broad ways that people have responded to these questions.

1. Young Earth Creationism (YEC)# -  These are people who take the Bible literally and believe that the earth, and all life on it, was created as it appears today in six literal 24 hour days.  They believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, a date they arrive at by adding up all of the ages of people listed in Genesis. They dismiss all the mainstream scientific claims that are opposed to them as either mistaken or an attempt to undermine faith; and often conduct research and experimentation of their own to support their claims.  (There were times in history when Christians believed that the Bible clearly taught that the world was flat and that the Sun revolved around the earth.)  However, I do know many wonderful disciples of Jesus Christ who are YECs and I have deep respect for them.
2. Old Earth Creationism (OEC)# - These are people who believe that the universe is some 14.5 billion years old and began with the Big Bang and that the earth is some 4.5 billion years old as modern science states.  The key for OECs is that the Hebrew word yom, which is translated “day” in Genesis 1, can mean a literal 24 hour day or a longer, unspecified, period of time.  They point to the timelessness of God particularly in passages like 2 Peter 3:8, “With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.”  They believer that days/periods of creation in Genesis is the story of God’s gradual creation over a long period time.  Some, called Progressive Creationists, do not believe in evolution.  They say that each species is a unique creation of God. Looking at the fossil record over time, this cold look like evolution.
3. Theistic Evolution (TE)# - TE is essentially another branch of OEC.  TEs believe that God is behind the evolution that science observes in nature.  They believe that God started the process of evolution, and that God, to a greater or lesser degree, guides that process.  Like YEC and OEC, TEs regard humanity, created in  God’s image, as the pinnacle of creation/evolution.  Many faithful Christians, including myself, are OECs and TEs.
4. Atheistic (Materialistic) Evolution (AE) - The name says it all.  These are folks that do not believe in God, and so, therefore, they believe that evolution, without the existence or involvement of God, explains the origins of the universe, the earth, and all life upon, including humans.

All of the first three groups believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life upon it, including humanity; which is especially created in the image of God.  The only difference between each group is the question of how God created.  My point in outlining all of this is to demonstrate that there is some differences of belief among faithful Christians and that there is some wiggle room between hard science and a overly-literal interpretation of the Bible.
However, to come back to the point of this series of articles, the political, social, and religious issues of our day, (Notice how I used the word “day: to refer to something other than a 24 hour period!)  This issue of creation and evolution (and not versus, they do not necessarily have to compete) is usually played out in the debate over the scientific curriculum in our public schools; whether our schools should teach creation or evolution.  

As a pastor, I would prefer that the public school stick to teaching science according to the widely accepted standards of the scientific community; and leave the teaching of religious faith to me, and to qualified leaders of other faiths.  

As a parent, I want my children to be fully educated and ready to succeed in any field they choose, including science.  I expect that my children will learn science, and other subjects, at school; and will learn religious faith at home and church.

I believe that this is the spirit in which the United Methodist Church has developed its position on creation and evolution.