-------
An Open Letter to Revs. Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter
Thursday, 12 June 2014 By Rob Renfroe
Dear Adam and Mike,
We appreciate your attempt to present a proposal that “is a better way forward than the current impasse or the division of The United Methodist Church” over the issue of biblical interpretation related to homosexuality. We especially appreciate that you have identified with us that the current situation in The United Methodist Church is untenable, with the growing refusal of parts of the church to live within our covenant of support and accountability. But with all due respect, your proposal will only extend, localize and exacerbate the acrimonious debate over the issue by forcing every congregation and annual conference to continue arguing about it for years to come. Your solution would pit many pastors against laity in local churches, friends against friends in our congregations, members against members at every annual conference, and bishops against pastors in the appointive process, all without any assurance that it will really resolve the issue.
Adam and Mike, what you propose is a fundamental shift of The United Methodist Church’s connectional polity to a congregational model, and this is being proposed in order to solve one issue. We are a United Methodist Church. Your plan would remove our UM DNA and replace it with a form of church government that Methodists have always thought lacking. This plan would add major complications to our system of itinerancy as bishops seek to match pastors willing to perform same-sex unions with supportive congregations. Bishops would be called upon to referee disputes between pastors advocating for a liberalizing view of homosexuality and congregations that support our present teachings. Clergy ordained in one annual conference of the church may no longer be acceptable for ministry in other conferences. Our connection to one another would be undermined by significant variations in teaching and practice, as well as constant continuing conflict. We believe our polity is a sound one; it is not the source of our present crisis. Rather, there are two sources for the crisis in which we find ourselves: progressives who willfully disregard the teachings of our church, and bishops who enable their disobedience by refusing to hold them accountable to our polity. We believe United Methodist doctrine, polity and practice are sound and enduring, and we see no reason to change them simply because others are unwilling to live by them.
This plan would also do great harm to the vast majority of our local churches that adhere to United Methodism’s teachings on this matter. Presently, we can say to members who are dismayed and frustrated with clergy who violate the Discipline and bishops who do not enforce it, that our church has compassionate, biblical statements on sexuality, and that we are working for unity around them. However, under this new proposal, traditionalist clergy would have to tell our members that the UM Church does condone the practice of homosexuality, despite what our official stance says. At that point, many of our members would leave because they would believe that the church had left them. A two-minded approach would result in an increased decline in memberships and a concomitant reduction in support and enthusiasm for our God-given mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.
Furthermore, our brothers and sisters in many of the central conferences, representing almost half of the denomination, have told us how a change in our present position would be devastating to their witness. A first-world solution to our division would be harmful to United Methodists in other parts of the world, many of whom live in an environment hostile to Christianity. Hearing that United Methodism condones same-sex marriage and ordains practicing homosexuals would only increase the adversity under which many of them labor and potentially expose them to harm.
In addition, this new proposal to allow annual conferences “to determine whether they will or will not ordain self-avowed, practicing homosexuals” would create years of bitter infighting in our annual conferences. Where progressives are in the minority, they would continue, on an annual basis, to bring petitions calling for the full inclusion of openly gay pastors and the approval of same-sex marriage. Far from getting us around or through the current impasse, this plan would exacerbate it and make it the central focus of many annual conferences for decades to come, diverting time and resources from the church’s main mission and ministry.
This new policy is asking us, and millions like us, to approve a practice we deem contrary to Scripture and the teachings of the Church Universal. We believe that sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage are sin. Fundamentally, this matter is over the interpretation of Scripture. We simply cannot abandon the Bible’s teachings on the practice of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. We believe that marriage between one man and one woman is a foundational institution, ordained of God and good for the well being of all people. We cannot forsake our sincere beliefs on this matter in order to keep the church united. Your proposal would put us, who believe that same sex relations are sinful, in the position of having to deny our consciences. This new policy is simply asking us to do something we cannot do.
Finally, what guarantee can we be given that this compromise would end the battles we have fought at General Conference? What assurance can you give that those who want to change our position would be satisfied with a church that in their minds allows its pastors and congregations to deny justice to homosexual persons? Justice would require them to continue the fight. And we would continue to be divided, only more so than ever.
Adam and Mike, we appreciate and share your love for the church and your desire to keep it united. And therefore, we remain open to proposals that would keep us united, but not at the cost of condoning a practice that we believe is contrary to Scripture and the teachings of the Church Universal. Your plan, unfortunately, will not keep us united. In fact, it will only prolong the debate and continue to divert us from fulfilling our shared mission. We hope you will rethink your proposal.
Respectfully,
Dr. William J. Abraham
Rev. Rob Renfroe
Rev. Chuck Savage II
Rev. Greg Stover
Ch, Col W. Scott Adams
Rev. Christopher Akers
Rodney Akers
Rev. J. Scott Allred
Dr. Bill T. Arnold
Rev. Randall Bain
Rev. Larry R. Baird
Rev. Thomas R. Barnard
Kiah Beville
Jan Beville
Julie Boucher
Rev. Dr. Bill Bouknight
Dr. Christopher T. Bounds
Rev. Keith Boyette
Rev. John A. Bright
Douglas B. Child, Sr.
Dr. Kenneth J. Collins
Rev. Robert Collins, Jr.
Rev Beth Ann Cook
Rev. Julia D. Crim
Marcelle Crow
Rev. Dr. Steve Dodson
John Dowell
Rev. DeWayne A. Duncan
Dr. Maxie Dunnam
Rev. Walter B. Fenton
Rev. Dr. Scott Field
Rev. David V. Ford
Rev. Dan Fuller
Nan W. Gorton
Rev. Jim Govatos
Rev. Michael Grant
Jim Green
Dr. Wes Griffin
Rod Groom
Rev. Randy Hageman
Rev. Barry Hallman
Rev. Chester H. Harris
Rev. Norwood N. “Woody” Hingle III, Ph.D.
Rev. Edward H. Johnson
Pamela K. Johnson
Douglas Jones
Chet Klinger
Rev. Charles Kyker
Rev. Thomas A. Lambrecht
Rev. Charlie Langford
Dr. Jim Leggett
Rev. Kenneth Levingston
Rev. Garry Livermon
John Lomperis
Dr. Joe MacLaren
Dr. Randy Mickler
Rev. John Miles
Rev. Richard A. Nussel
Robert E. “Bud” Orcutt, Jr.
Rev. Ray Owens, Jr.
Rev. John A. Plummer D. Min.
Rev Tim Prather
Rev. Wesley Putnam
Rev. Glen Raley
Rev. Chris Ritter
Rev. Dr. Ed Robb
Rev. Burt Robinson
Rev. Garry Ruff
Rev. Jerry D. Ruff
Dr. Stephen A. Seamands
Dr. John Seth
Dr. Branson Sheets
Rev. Ralph E. Sigler
W. David Stewart
Rev. Clélie Stone
Rev. Henry R. Stone
Dr. Timothy C. Tennent
Rev. H. O. Tom Thomas, Ph. D.
Dr. Richard Thompson
Mark Tooley
Rev. Dr. J. David Trawick
Rev. Guy Weatherly
Dr. Steve Wende
Rev. Jamie Westlake
Rev. Bill L. Wiggs
Rev. R. Kent Wise
Dr. Ben Witherington, III
Rev. Jason Woolever
Rev. Paul Yoder.
-------
with a critique of the document A Way Forward (which you can read here).
-------
A Way Forward for a United Methodist Church
We stand at a crossroads in the United Methodist Church. The ongoing debate over homosexuality continues to divide us. One side believes that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. The other side believes that scriptures related to homosexuality are like scriptures related to the subordination of women, violence or the acceptance and regulation of slavery, reflecting the values of the times in which the scriptures were written more than the timeless will of God.
Every four years United Methodists meet for General Conference, devoting much time and energy to the debate over homosexuality. We leave General Conference more divided than ever. Some, believing the current policies of our denomination regarding homosexuals are unjust and do not reflect God’s will, call for a reversal of the language in the Book of Discipline restricting the rights of gay and lesbian people to marry or be ordained. Others suggest that if this were ever to happen, they would have no choice but to leave the denomination.
Some, in frustration with the current impasse, are now violating the Discipline and officiating at weddings for homosexuals. Others, frustrated that the Discipline is being flouted, are now calling for the formal division of the United Methodist Church into two denominations: one that holds that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, and which forbids the marriage of homosexual people and the ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals. The other, presumably, would embrace homosexual marriage and ordination.
We, the undersigned, believe the division of the United Methodist Church over this issue would be shortsighted, costly, detrimental to all of our churches, and not in keeping with God’s will.
While some on either side of this issue see only two sides in the debate, a vast majority of our churches are divided on this issue. United Methodists have gay and lesbian children, friends, co-workers and neighbors. A large number of our churches have gay and lesbian members. Our members, like the broader society, are not of one mind on the issue of ordination or marriage for gay and lesbian people, and many find themselves confused about bisexuality and those who are transgender. Most of our churches, regardless of the dominant view of the issue in their congregation, stand to lose members if The United Methodist Church divides into two churches over homosexuality.
We believe the decision to divide the church over homosexuality would be shortsighted. Views on this issue in our society are rapidly changing, yet are far from settled. The February 2014 Pew Research Center poll found that 54% of Americans now favor the right of gay and lesbian people to marry, up from 31% just ten years ago. Among young adults, support for gay marriage is now at 66%.[1] The church does not determine Christian ethics by looking at poll numbers. But, the poll numbers tell us that the people we are trying to reach, and the people in our pews, are divided and shifting on this issue. To form a new denomination primarily based upon opposition to homosexuality would negatively impact that Church’s ministry with 54% of the population, and two-thirds of young adults. Further, a significant majority of young clergy in the United Methodist Church hold a more progressive view on homosexuality. A denomination formed largely due to its opposition to homosexuality may find its ministry to younger adults increasingly difficult in the decades ahead.
We believe that the question of homosexuality is virtually irresolvable at General Conference. Maintaining our current position will force progressives to continue to violate the Discipline as a matter of conscience. Reversing the position at General Conference would force hundreds of thousands of our conservative members to leave the denomination as a matter of conscience, with devastating consequences to many of our churches, and in turn, to our shared mission and ministry together. We believe there is a better way forward than the current impasse or the division of the United Methodist Church.
Paragraphs 201-204 of The Book of Discipline note that the local church is the “most significant arena through which disciple making occurs.” It is “primarily at the level of the local charge…that the church encounters the world,” and “the local church is a strategic base from which Christians move out to the structures of society.” Further, it states that, “Each local church shall have a definite evangelistic, nurture and witness responsibility for its members and the surrounding area…it shall be responsible for ministering to all its members.”
In recent years the General Conference, through the Discipline, has given increasing permission for local churches to organize in ways that are most helpful to the congregation. Further, local churches already determine their own strategies and plans for making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. This leads us to the following suggestion for how we move forward as a denomination:
We propose that the United Methodist Church entrust to each local church the authority to determine how they will be in ministry with gay and lesbian people including whether they will, or will not, allow for homosexual marriages or unions.
Under this plan the current position of the Discipline would become the position of each local church, but a local congregation, at the request of the senior pastor and with a supermajority vote of the members of the congregation and only after a process of prayer, study and discernment, could determine their own position. Churches could vote to adopt a more inclusive policy allowing for homosexuals to be married in their churches and welcoming gay and lesbian clergy. Conversely, they might take the position that their members are “not of one mind” on this issue and therefore postpone any decision until they gained greater clarity on the issue. Doing nothing would mean that they affirm the current disciplinary language. Traditionalist churches around the world would retain the current language in their local congregations. Strongly progressive churches could adopt more inclusive language and practices.
Regarding ordination, in keeping with the current provisions in the Book of Discipline empowering Boards of Ordained Ministry to review candidates for ordination, we suggest that annual conferences be permitted to determine whether they will or will not ordain self-avowed, practicing homosexuals while allowing local churches to determine if they would or would not be willing to receive gay and lesbian clergy. In conferences where the ordination of gay and lesbian people was allowed, they would be held to the same standard heterosexual clergy are held to: fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness.
This proposal is, at this point, merely conceptual. There are many questions that must be answered and many details to be worked out. A study team will be working on legislation required to implement this policy. But we believe this concept gives us the best opportunity to address one of the most challenging issues the church faces today, and to do so in a way that honors each local church and reduces the harm that will inevitably come from either dividing the United Methodist Church, or continuing to force all churches to conform to one interpretation of scripture regarding the issue of homosexuality.
What Unites Us as United Methodists
United Methodist congregations already hold different views on how to interpret the scriptures related to homosexuality. They also have different ways of being in ministry with gay and lesbian people. What makes us United Methodists is not our position on homosexuality, but a core set of theological, missional and ministry convictions.
To be United Methodist is to believe, follow and serve Jesus Christ. It is to hold together a passionate and personal evangelical gospel and a serious and sacrificial social gospel. It is to hold together a deep and wide understanding of grace and a call to holiness of heart and life. It is to hold together a faith that speaks to the intellect and a faith that warms the heart. To be United Methodist is to be a people who study and seek to live scripture and who read it with the help of tradition, experience and reason. To be United Methodist is to invite the Spirit’s sanctifying work in our lives to the end that we might love God with all that is within us and love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
United Methodists believe that God’s grace is available to all, not only a predestined “elect.” We believe that God brings good from evil, but we don’t believe that God causes evil. We believe that it’s okay to ask questions and that we’re not meant to check our brains at the door of the church. We find helpful those guidelines we call the General Rules: Refrain from evil, do all the good you can, and do those things which help you grow in love for God. The Covenant Prayer is for us a powerful reminder of what it means to call Jesus Christ Lord: “I am no longer my own, but thine. Put me to what you will…”
United Methodists have at times been called people of the “radical center” or the “extreme center,” holding together the best of each side of the theological divide. It is this ability to hold together the important insights and perspectives of both the left and the right that is exemplified in a church that allows local congregations to hold varied scriptural interpretations on the issue of homosexuality.
We believe the world needs a vital United Methodist Church now more than ever. In an increasingly secular age, the world needs churches that can make an intellectually sound case for the gospel, proclaim a faith that touches the heart, and call Christians to action seeking to help our world look more like the kingdom of God. A vital United Methodism will remember its heritage and mission. It will be deeply devoted to Jesus Christ, and serious about its role as his body – in the world. If it will have a future, it must help gifted young adults to answer God’s call to full time Christian service. And it must focus on both starting new congregations and working to revitalize existing congregations.
By moving the decision-making regarding homosexuality to the local church, we hope to end the rancor, animosity and endless debate that divide our denomination every four years at General Conference. What we propose would allow conservative, centrist and progressive churches to come to their own conclusions regarding this important issue and to focus on how best to minister in their own communities. We will be bound together by what we share in common, rather than posturing to impose our will upon one another in areas where we are so deeply divided.
United Methodists have an approach to the gospel that 21st century people can and will respond to. Our hope is that United Methodists might be united around our common heritage and our theological and missional convictions, so that we might be used by God to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.
-------
The letter was entitled An Open Letter to Revs. Adam Hamilton and Michael Slaughter and was signed by 87 other pastors and laity. Shortly after that he released the document to the press. Rob had previously released a document calling for an amicable separation in the denomination. The document, A Way Forward, was written in response to his original call to divide the church. I am grateful for Rob and believe that these public discussions can help The United Methodist Church as it seeks a solution for the current impasse over homosexuality. I offer the following response to Rob’s letter in the same hope. One note of clarification: there are multiple pastors who helped craft A Way Forward.
Friday, 13 June 2014
Dear Rob,
Thanks for your note and critique of A Way Forward. I think we’re all looking for ways that The United Methodist Church might move forward in light of the current impasse regarding homosexuality and the church. Your proposal is to divide the church in an “amicable separation.” We’re looking for an alternative to that; one which would hold together most of our churches by focusing on what we share in common while allowing for differences in interpretation and practice concerning homosexuality. We wrote A Way Forward as a discussion starter, not a finished document. I take your critiques and questions as an opportunity to continue that discussion.
Like 90% of the United Methodist laity surveyed several weeks ago, the 2,145 pastors and church leaders who signed A Way Forward to date do not believe the church should divide over this issue. The signers don’t all agree on how to read and interpret the biblical texts often cited regarding homosexuality. What they agree upon is that it is possible to be faithful, orthodox, Wesleyan, United Methodist Christians and hold to differing ways of understanding these texts and to come to different conclusions regarding homosexuality.
I’d like to briefly address several of your critiques.
You’ve mentioned that our proposal is a “fundamental shift” of United Methodist polity from connectionalism to congregationalism. We don’t believe this is true. Our connectionalism is not based upon uniformity in our interpretation of scriptures related to homosexuality. Our connectional form of polity is largely built, as I see it, around 1. Our way of assigning clergy (appointed by a bishop, not “called” by a local congregation); 2. Our shared mission and ministry funded through apportionments; 3. Our trust clause indicating that United Methodist property is held in trust “for the benefit of the entire denomination”; 4. Our common Discipline; and 5. Our shared convictions and practices described in the section of A Way Forward entitled, “What Unites Us as United Methodists.” There are no doubt many other elements of connectionalism, but these seem to me to be the foundations of a connectional polity.
Rob, you note that A Way Forward would “add major complications to our system of itinerancy as bishops seek to match pastors willing to perform same-sex unions with supportive congregations.” Bishops are already assigning clergy to churches based upon theological and social affinity and fit. They don’t assign “conservative” clergy to “liberal” congregations or “liberal” clergy to “conservative” congregations. We have Reconciling churches in the UMC and the bishops take this into account when assigning clergy. I’ve spoken with several bishops and superintendents about this and all agreed that they routinely take into account this kind of “fitness” when making appointments.
Your point about conflict in the churches is a very real and valid concern. It has the potential of simply pushing the conflict from General Conference once every four years to each local church. We’ve spent time talking about this. One attempt to address this was requiring a super-majority vote and the senior pastor’s approval in order for a congregation to adopt an alternative position to the current position of the Discipline. We agree that the process for discerning and voting on adopting a variance from the current position would need to be carefully spelled out by the Discipline. We also believe appropriate resources to help pastors and local churches navigate the process and potential potholes would need to be developed.
Local churches are already wrestling with the questions of biblical interpretation as it relates to homosexuality. The issue comes up in small groups, in Bible study classes, in Sunday school classes and at church councils. Rob, you have gay and lesbian people in your church, and parents, aunts and uncles and friends of gay and lesbian people and at least some of these people disagree with your position. But they stay at The Woodlands because they love you and Ed and the rest of the staff, and they find their lives enriched through your ministry. You’ve found a way to agree to disagree on the issue.
You note, “Our connection to one another would be undermined by significant variations in teaching and practice, as well as constant continuing conflict.” We already have significant variations in teaching and practice and constant continuing conflict. Yet we minister alongside one another in communities, sit by one another at annual conference, consider one another brothers and sisters in Christ and share together in our connectional ministries. Our hope in allowing churches to minister with gay and lesbian people according to their theological and biblical convictions while upholding celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage would be to reduce the level of conflict. In agreeing to disagree, we would hope to take the focus off of homosexuality and set our focus as a church back on the mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. We hope that what would bind us together as churches would be the kind of common convictions we listed in the section, “What Unites us as United Methodists” in A Way Forward.
You mention the churches in the Central Conferences and the concern that a change in the Discipline “would be devastating to their witness” and “potentially expose them to harm.” I agree with you, which is why our proposal allows them to maintain the current disciplinary language. Under your original proposal, that the church “amicably divide,” you would force African churches to decide which of the two churches they would align with. Wouldn’t this have tremendous negative consequences for the Central Conferences? If they aligned with the churches that left the denomination they would sever the relationships they have with many of the churches that have been their partners. We are suggesting that A Way Forward is a better solution for Central Conferences than an amicable separation.
You note that this new policy would be asking you to approve a practice you deem contrary to scripture. Under our proposal you would not be asked to approve of a practice you deem contrary to scripture. You would be able to continue to profess that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” The Discipline would contain permissive language for those churches whose convictions are different from yours to enter a process of discernment that would allow them to express their own convictions. Under this scenario the left could not dictate a position to the right, nor the right to the left.
Your question on what guarantee could be given that this compromise would end the battles being fought at General Conference is a very good one. I believe the left would have to enter into this negotiation with good faith and that they would need to agree to restrictive language regarding these concerns. This is precisely where this proposal must protect the convictions of both sides, and where it is not fully satisfactory to either.
Is A Way Forward a perfect proposal? No. If there is a better proposal to address the current impasse, I suspect most of the 2,145 people who signed A Way Forward would gladly defer to it. The proposal you’ve offered so far is to divide the denomination in an amicable separation. Those of us who signed A Way Forward are looking for a way to hold most of the church together.
Thanks for writing, Rob, and for asking questions and offering critiques.
In Christ,
Adam Hamilton
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment