What Just Happened

While I was busy at the NRA Convention last weekend, two significant developments emerged out of the Council of Bishops meeting that concern the United Methodist Church. Both were clouded in confusion, lack of clarity, and messy roll-outs.

After talking to the bishop and reading a number of articles and documents, I think I finally understand what happened. So let me try to explain as plainly as I can, without editorial comment …

First, the bishops heard the recommendations of the Commission on the Way Forward, which was created in the wake of the 2016 General Conference. This commission was tasked with presenting the bishops with a plan for unity amidst the denomination’s differences on homosexuality. The bishops were presented with three plans; I won’t bore you with the details of each plan (you can read that here).

All you need to know is that one plan was approved overwhelmingly by the bishops. It’s being called the One Church Plan, and it simply calls for the removal of discriminatory language about homosexuality and same-sex weddings in the Book of Discipline. It would be up to individual churches and pastors to determine whether or not they will perform same-sex weddings, and each annual conference would determine whether or not it will ordain gay clergy. 

This is the plan that the bishops will present in February 2019 at a specially-called session of the General Conference in St. Louis, Missouri. One thousand delegates will decide whether or not to accept this plan. They will also be free to amend it, change it, or perhaps even go back to one of the other two plans. Or they may do nothing. 

The problem is that the bishops bungled the communication of this news in the press release. The release stated “the Council of Bishops will submit a report to the Special Session of the General Conference in 2019 that includes: All three plans (The Traditionalist Plan, The One Church Plan and the Connectional Conference Plan) for a way forward considered by the Commission and the Council; The Council’s recommendation of the One Church Plan; (and) An historical narrative of the Council’s discernment process regarding all three plans.”

The fact that the bishops stated that “all three plans” were being submitted in the report led conservatives to seize on the idea that all three options were still on the table, one of which is their own preference — the Traditionalist Plan. They conveniently ignored the fact that the bishops clearly plan to recommend the One Church Plan.

I don’t know what will happen in St. Louis next year. Judging by the results of the 2016 Conference, and considering that most of the same delegates will be present, I don’t know how likely it is that the One Church Plan will be adopted. 

Second, the bishops also revealed the results of worldwide voting on five constitutional amendments, only three of which passed. Amendments are passed by General Conference but must be ratified by a 2/3rds vote in all Annual Conferences around the world. 

The amendments which did not pass revolved around gender equality. Amendment 1 would have added the following new paragraph to the Discipline: 

As the Holy Scripture reveals, both men and women are made in the image of God and, therefore, men and women are of equal value in the eyes of God. The United Methodist Church recognizes it is contrary to Scripture and to logic to say that God is male or female, as maleness and femaleness are characteristics of human bodies and cultures, not characteristics of the divine. The United Methodist Church acknowledges the long history of discrimination against women and girls. The United Methodist Church shall confront and seek to eliminate discrimination against women and girls, whether in organizations or in individuals, in every facet of its life and in society at large. The United Methodist Church shall work collaboratively with others to address concerns that threaten women and girl's equality and well-being.

This amendment failed to get the required 2/3rds vote, falling less than a 100 votes short: 31,304 “yes” votes were cast against 15,753 “no” votes, falling short by .2%. 

Why it fell short is hard to explain. Some perhaps felt that the statement was redundant; the Discipline speaks of gender equality in other places. But there were also conservatives who took issue with the second sentence of the statement, fearing it to be part of the liberal agenda to remove masculine language from God in worship, or to deny the divinity of Jesus.

Amendment 2 would have amended a paragraph in the Discipline which would now read (additions in bold):

The United Methodist Church is part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the connection. In the United Methodist church, no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body of the Church because of race, color, national origin, ability, or economic condition, nor shall any member be denied access to an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of the Church because of race, color, gender, national origin, ability, age, marital status, or economic condition.

This amendment failed by a larger margin: 29,049 “yes votes against 18,317 “no” votes, for a majority of only 61.3%.

The problem with this amendment was, apparently, the use of two words, “age” and “gender,” in the last sentence. Conservatives feared that, by prohibiting discrimination based on age, the bishops would be unduly empowered. Here’s how one conservative commentator explains it: “Outlawing any discrimination over ‘age’ would have ended UMC’s longstanding requirements for bishops and other leaders to retire before reaching a certain age. Thus, this provision would have effectively served as a power grab for bishops seeking to consolidate and hold onto their power for far longer than what would be healthy for the church.”

Concerning the inclusion of the word “gender,” conservatives feared that this was a back-door attempt to legitimize LGBTQ acceptance in the church.

For more reading, I recommend this statement from our bishop, this press release about the constitutional amendments, and this pastoral letter from the female bishops. 

The Church on Trial

Bishop Karen Oliveto after being elected in July 2016.

As I write these words, the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church has just begun hearing arguments in its April docket. One of those cases dominates the denomination’s attention and interest.

It’s the question of whether Karen Oliveto’s election as bishop last year in the Western Jurisdictional Conference is lawful under present church rule. Oliveto is a “self-avowed, practicing homosexual” and is married to a same-sex spouse. This is forbidden by current United Methodist Church law, which is contained in the Book of Discipline (BOD).

The case was forwarded to the Judicial Council by the South Central Jurisdiction shortly after Bishop Oliveto’s election last year. Of course, the actual legal ruling has to do with matters of authority, jurisdiction, and precise terminology.

But in reality, this case mirrors the present impasse within the church, with implications that go far beyond the case of one particular bishop. If the election is upheld, then a great many people will argue that our laws have no force and that each jurisdiction will be independent. That is indeed, part of the Western Jurisdiction’s argument; they believe that church law gives authority to determine the credentials and qualifications of pastors and bishops solely to annual (regional) conferences and jurisdictions. Already, I have seen a conservative UM pastor complain on Twitter that, “We are basically in the position where each jurisdiction will become its own denomination if JC does not intervene here.”

If the election is rendered null and void, however, this will send a clear(er) message that LGBTQ folks are not to be considered candidates for ordination, much less the episcopacy. It will enshrine the BOD’s current language that “homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” And it will make it even tougher for future change.

As if anticipating the anxiety that this case is dredging up, the Council of Bishops yesterday announced that there will be a special session of General Conference called for February 23-26, 2019 in St. Louis, Missouri, to hear the findings and recommendations of the Commission on a Way Forward, which was created upon the decision of the 2016 General Conference in Portland, Oregon.

If all this simply confuses you, with its Methodist terminology, acronyms, and legalese, then let me simplify matters for you:

The United Methodist Church is headed for a decision point — finally. That decision point will NOT be reached this week. Regardless of what happens to Bishop Karen Oliveto, the real date to circle in red is the special session beginning on February 23, 2019. The decision on Bishop Oliveto will make half of the church around the world angry, and half will be satisfied, but it won’t really matter. The special session will be the event at which we decide whether we’re going to stay together, or get a big fat messy divorce.

I am aware that some observers believe there are three factions at play — conservatives, liberals, and moderates who just want everyone to get along. But I believe there is a much simpler division. Despite all the talk about orthodoxy, authority of Scripture, and denominational heritage, it all comes down to whether or not one believes that homosexuality is a “sinful practice.”

To date, there have been more Methodists who believe that, yes, homosexuality is a “sinful practice,” than those who don’t. That’s a sad commentary on the contemporary United Methodist Church, but it is the reality.

To date, the United Methodist Church has, in practice, opted for a “big tent” approach, meaning that it has been willing to overlook the fact that gays and lesbians already serve as clergy and lay leaders. But that is changing — from both ends of the spectrum.

Conservatives believe that the purity of the church is at stake; if homosexuality is a sinful choice and lifestyle, then it simply can’t be “accepted” by the church at large, and certainly not in church leadership. In this thinking, the immorality of homosexuality threatens the overall witness of the church.

Progressives are, quite frankly, tired of waiting for church doctrine to change. We don’t believe that homosexuality is a choice, nor is it a “practice.” We believe that a great injustice has been done to gay people, which has caused lasting damage. We know that our denomination’s teachings have contributed to self-harming behaviors, including addiction and suicide. In our understanding, the discrimination and shame foisted upon LGBTQ persons threatens the overall witness of the church.

I don’t think these two viewpoints can coexist in the same denomination. Either homosexuals are living in sin and need to change, or they are living out the fullness of their God-given being and are to be affirmed and encouraged to live out their vocations. It’s one or the other.

This is one of those times when the church is called to make an either/or decision. I think of Joshua, who stood in front of the people of Israel as they were about to cross over into the Promised Land. He challenged them: “Choose this day whom you will serve … but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15).

Long before we voted to become a “Reconciling Congregation,” Kessler Park UMC made its decision. We decided to serve the Lord by standing firmly on the side of LGBTQ persons, because they “are” us. We refuse to go backward on the path of justice, and we extend our arms to those who have been excluded by the church from living their full personhood.

The rest of the United Methodist Church must also choose ...