Ignoring the Discipline Doesn’t Doom Us - II

In my first statement about the unlikelihood of our church being doomed to schism over violations of the Discipline, I may have come across as a little bit flip about how seriously those violations are being taken. I may have underplayed how frequently conversation about homosexuality issues comes up. I accept those criticisms. My main point was that violations of the Discipline will not lead to the church splitting. I think that there are those who want to control the whole denomination and are using the threat to split as an emotional hook to keep everyone’s attention so that no one will notice what they are doing on other fronts to gain control.


I understand and respect that there are people of integrity who are so concerned that they are ready to separate themselves from the Church and say so openly. I have heard it from friends on both sides. I am not talking about them in my assertions about the use of schism as a distraction. Some on both sides are just caught up in the emotion because until we find consensus, our respective commitment to our view of things will be painful to us. My hope is that they will listen to me long enough to separate their emotion from the issues so that they can watch out for being manipulated into actions which harm our real covenant which I symbolized in my last statement with the potluck suppers and shared mission.


Let me lay groundwork for my view that schism is not pending by sharing a little history.


When I became a minister there was a largely accepted view in our denomination that homosexuality be ignored. There was no concern about it in my first decade in the ministry. Homosexuality was first mentioned in the Discipline in the section on “Social Principles” in 1972. Homosexuals were to be treated as children of God and homosexual marriage was not “recommended.”


Homosexuality got controversial when a very popular Baltimore pastor came out of the closet and was asked to give up his credentials. There was nothing against being Gay in the Discipline at the time, and there was no landmark decision on the separation of church and state which was to come down from the Supreme Court soon after. The pastor sued and won a six figure settlement from the conference and was reinstated by court order.


Believe it or not, the movement to include passages against homosexuality in the Discipline was quietly supported by bishops because they didn’t want courts to interfere with their appointive authority. Even the liberals of stature (the older ones) were hung up on the "Ewww" factor, the distasteful image among straight people of intimacy between men.


The bishops wanted a quick way to get rid of homosexuals who were beginning to come out and got the 1980 General Conference to give them the tool of involuntary leave of absence. The Judicial Council supported this dastardly tool in a case specifically involving a Gay pastor.


In conservative literature that I’ve seen, they say they became involved around then because of the Gay pastor who won his law suit.


The result was the unlikely joining of the two now disparate bodies supporting making homosexuality and its ancillary practices illegal in church law.


While the bishops got a way to remove Gays from ministry in 1980, the conservatives succeeded in making it against the Discipline for any church body to donate to anyone promoting acceptance of the Gay life style. To get it through, there were rumors that they would leave the denomination if they didn’t get it passed.


That threat was taken very seriously over the following Quadrennium. The most common topic at the 1984 General Conference was about whether or not the denomination would split as it had in 1844 over slavery. The conservatives came in with very strong language against ordaining and appointing homosexual pastors. The moderates tried to use "the seven last words" as they were called ("fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness") to bridge the gap. The threats to leave the church continued. But there was no schism.


Similarly, at each of the General Conferences since, there have been variations on the theme of schism and it never happened. Why? There are at least two reasons: One, the ones making the threats got what they wanted. Two, what use would it be to control half of a diminishing denomination and spend years fighting over property in the courts?


On an individual basis, leaving the UMC over our homosexual issues, no matter which side one of us is on, makes sense. There are other denominations where our viewpoint is carried out in the life of that church. But breaking up the whole denomination just isn’t feasible because so little would be left.


So I urge you, dear reader, to stop fretting about schism. It ain’t gonna happen!

JCD 1254

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1375&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1259

“LEGISLATIVE MANDATE” OR “LEGISLATION?”

The bishop of the California-Pacific Annual Conference was asked if a resolution asking that a portion of the Social Principles be ignored was legal.  She ruled that because the Social Principles were for thoughtful and prayerful consideration and were not law, the resolution was not illegal.  

The Council majority agreed and said that the difference between her ruling on this question and the ruling in JCD 833 where a portion of the Social Principles was indeed law is that the other Social Principles statement was a mandate to action while the portion relevant to the instant case was not.

The three members of the Council from outside the United States disagreed, saying that there is precedent in JCD 1120 which says that anything passed by General Conference cannot be legally ignored by action of any other body of the denomination.

The Council acknowledged that members of the denomination disagreed with many portions of the Social Principles such as those related to gun control and war.  That was okay because, concurring with the bishop, the Council sees most of the Social Principles were a call for “prayerful dialogue.”

From what I heard at General Conference, a lot of church people in the Central Conferences find literalism more secure and have a hard time with the attitude that they see in America regarding “loose” interpretations of everything.  But I also remember very well some thoughtful leaders from Africa and Asia that were very calm about differences and were willing to question us in detail about our differing views on things like homosexuality.  The United Methodist Church is in flux all over the world, not just here in America.

Watch for who signs which concurring and dissenting opinions and you will see these dynamics reflected.

WHOA!

Was I wrong!

Based on all the votes we have taken in General Conference in which the moderates and liberals routed the conservatives, I was stunned that they got an affirming vote for an amendment to the Social Principles that marriage is one man/one woman. It was close, about 100 or so votes apart.

The bishop who chaired the session seemed to favor that.

When questioned from the floor, he said that whatever the Social Principles said was binding on every United Methodist world-wide. That changed the complexion of the vote.

Only a handful of folks know that the Social Principles themselves in their preamble describe them to be for "instruction and persuasion." (See page 95 of the 2004 Book Of Discipline, third paragraph.) So a lot of good people, knowing our international delegates represent cultures which have become anti-homosexual based on Scripture (one African delegate even quoted Martin Luther's "Sola Scriptura" as his basis for believing homosexuality is a sin), may have voted for their sake.

Another opinion is that many foreign delegates were given free cell phones for use in the United States while they are at GC with the hope they would support the conservative group's proposals with their vote . . . .

The actual petition that passed was really a good one with the exception that it did not acknowledge that Christians may differ and that it restricted any understanding of marriage to one man/one woman.

The conservative coalition may know something about the new Judicial Council the rest of us do not but the consensus I hear is that the Council will not be tied in with the conservative coalition. If the presiding bishop is taken seriously by the new Judicial Council, that the Social Principles are binding, then we may find complaints against all kinds of people for their view on war which may be at odds with the Social Principles, just to mention one.

I don't know if I will go to First Christian Church tomorrow for an all day planning session to respond to today's events. Cool heads will need to prevail over there. But I am not sought out by them (nor anyone else) so I have not got the "street creds" to make a difference there.

I want to watch for the report on the censure petitions. Not making it to every minute of the plenary nor having spent time scouring the Daily Christian Advocate for actions that may have been taken to put them on the consent calendar (probably rejecting them) without any further floor mention about them, I will say no more. When I learn something definitive, I'll post it for you.