Senior Pastor s Paper on Homosexuality & the Church Northern Hills United Methodist Church January 2017 INTRODUCTION In writing this paper, I want to be clear that I am speaking for myself. I am not speaking for the denomination, nor for the staff, nor for Northern Hills. As the senior pastor of this remarkable congregation, I feel that you have a right to know my thoughts and the rationale for them. I feel that a paper is the best vehicle, for I have never been inclined to use the pulpit as a platform for my personal beliefs and opinions, and I never will. The issue before us is a dialogue, not a monologue. I am writing because I think you have a right to know my thinking and feelings on this important matter. I write this with the utmost respect for those who will undoubtedly disagree. I am not intending to pick a fight or start a great debate or change anybody s mind. I am writing to share my thoughts and opinions, not to persuade others to adopt them, and not to say that I am correct and anyone who disagrees is wrong. In fact, a central theme of this paper is a plea for folks to recognize that there are two legitimate sides to the debate over homosexuality, and to persuade you that we can respect one another s differing views and still be a united congregation and denomination. There are two legitimate sides to this controversy, and if we can all recognize and respect that fact, then we can have honest dialogue around a table of unity. In this paper, I will: (1) summarize the current state of affairs in The United Methodist Church on the matter of homosexuality; (2) share briefly my personal feelings about homosexuality and homosexual persons; (3) share my views and the rationale for them regarding what I believe we must do to remain united as a denomination known as The United Methodist Church. Again, I am not writing to change anyone s mind, merely to speak mine. Please know that I speak in love and respect for all. THE BOOK OF DISCIPLINE OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: What Can and Cannot Be Changed The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church is the rule book of United Methodism. It is subject to revision every four years by a legislative body known as General Conference. Delegates to General Conference are elected representatives of Methodism worldwide. There are approximately 1000 delegates. General
Conference is the official voice of The United Methodist Church. General Conference met most recently in Portland, Oregon, in May of 2016. The United Methodist Church was formed in 1968 as a merger of The Methodist Church and The Evangelical United Brethren Church. Included in our Book of Discipline is a section entitled OUR DOCTRINAL STANDARDS AND GENERAL RULES. This section includes THE ARTICLES OF RELIGION OF THE METHODIST CHURCH and THE CONFESSION OF FAITH OF THE EVANGELICAL UNITED BRETHREN CHURCH. Rather than try to merge the two churches statements of faith into one, the organizing conference chose to include them side by side and to make them inviolate. The Constitution of The United Methodist Church, in its Restrictive Rules, protects both the Articles of Religion and The Confession of Faith as doctrinal standards that shall not be revoked, altered, or changed. In other words, General Conference may revise any section or part of our Book of Discipline except this section. (Note: The Book of Discipline in its entirety is available online. Go to umc.org.) Methodist people have long been guided by a Wesleyan mantra: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love. The Doctrinal Standards are the essentials of United Methodism. Here we must have unity. Everything else is important but falls ultimately into the category of non-essentials. In non-essentials, we grant liberty. As Wesley said, We think and let think. Now, the everything else of The Book of Discipline includes our SOCIAL PRINCIPLES, with statements on the Natural World, the Nurturing Community, the Social Community, the Economic Community, the Political Community, and the World Community, along with the Social Creed of The UMC. Our statements on human sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular are found in our SOCIAL PRINCIPLES, and these principles, unlike our doctrinal standards, are subject to change by vote of The General Conference. Our Book of Discipline also includes a very large section entitled ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION, which contains chapters regarding the Local Church, the Ministry of the Ordained, the Superintendency, the Conferences, Administrative Order, Church Property, and Judicial Administration. Our statements prohibiting the ordination of self-avowed practicing homosexuals and prohibiting ordained UM clergy from officiating at same-sex unions/marriages are found in this large section. This part of The Book of Discipline, like our SOCIAL PRINCIPLES, may also be revised by General Conference. Essentials, unity. Non-essentials, liberty. All things, love. If it cannot be changed, it is essential. If it can be changed, it is non-essential. Our doctrine is essential and cannot be changed. Our statements about homosexuality are non-essential and can be changed. In our debate over human sexuality, we are debating a part of the Discipline that can be changed; therefore, we are not debating something considered essential to our faith but merely our opinions of a given matter. We must bear this in mind as we move forward; indeed, if we are to move forward.
PERSONAL FEELINGS My sympathies are with persons who are homosexual. Our Book of Discipline says of homosexual persons that they are persons of sacred worth. All persons are persons of sacred worth. We must not lose sight of this. Neither must we lose sight of the fact that our Lord commanded us to love all persons. Homosexual persons do not reproduce. Homosexual persons are the product of heterosexual unions. Homosexual persons are our sons and daughters. They are our friends, co-workers, fellow citizens, fellow church members, and fellow believers in Jesus. They are our sons and daughters, and they are our brothers and sisters in Christ. They are as loved by Jesus as anyone else. Jesus died for them, as he did for everyone else. Many homosexual persons have endured stigma, judgment, and condemnation. They have been bullied and called names. Sometimes they have been harmed and even killed, for no crime other than being who they are. They have been discriminated against, made to feel unwelcome, and judged by people who could never be that way. They have shown courage that most heterosexual persons have never been required to show. In spite of how they have been treated, and in some places still are treated, they have been true to who they are and have almost universally come to claim who they are as the way God made me. It takes courage to be out, and I respect that. In spite of the fact that the Church through the years has often sent a message of non-acceptance, homosexual persons have consistently professed faith in Christ, consistently sought a place in the Church to live out their faith, and consistently sought a way to live in covenant relationship with those they love. Everyone is welcome at Northern Hills. Everyone who professes Christ and promises to support the church with their prayers, presence, gifts, service, and witness is welcomed into membership. No one is judged. Everyone is called to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. Methodists historically have emphasized a balance between personal holiness and social holiness. Social holiness has to do with justice, with standing up for the one who has little-to-no power and who, without advocacy, may be excluded. Homosexuality to me is as much about social justice as it is about personal morality. It is about whether we who are heterosexual will be compassionate and tolerant of people who are different and are in the minority. In my vocabulary, tolerance is not a bad word. Tolerance to me means acceptance, especially of one who is different and with whom I may disagree. Tolerance in my understanding is not approval. In this paper I plead for tolerance, which means acceptance but not necessarily approval. I may be tolerant of one of whom I do not approve. I may be accepting of others without approving them. I am not arguing that anyone has to approve anyone else, but I am arguing that we must learn to accept others who are different, even though we may not approve. My personal feelings reflect a journey of some 30 years. Where I am today is not where I began. Where I am today is in large part a result of devoting many hours
to listening to and learning from others stories; to thinking and praying; to dialoguing with others, especially others who do not share my feelings; and to careful study of the scriptures that speak against homosexuality in light of a gospel of grace. I do not claim to be in an advanced or superior place, merely to the place where my thought, dialogue, prayer, listening, and study have led me. I decided years ago that no matter what my feelings about something or someone may be, I could always listen, learn, and love. There is no law against love. To love another fulfills God s greatest commandment. I don t have to agree with everybody, nor do I have to approve of everybody. I do have to love everybody, or at least make a good faith effort to love everybody, in obedience to the Great Commandment. HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: Where We ve Been, Where We Are The current position on the practice of homosexuality is one that has been in place since 1972. Since 1972, a few other statements have been added which derive from the original statement. Here is our present position, which has been our basic position since 1972 (italics are mine). I m not including chapter and verse, but these are all direct quotes from our Book of Discipline: We affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God. All persons need the ministry of the Church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. Here are two more statements deriving from the above statement and speaking specifically to ordination and to clergy officiating at same-sex unions/marriages (again, italics are mine): The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore selfavowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church. Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches. So, the official UM position is that we consider the practice of homosexuality to be incompatible with Christian teaching. We prohibit the ordination of self-avowed practicing homosexuals. UM clergy are not permitted to conduct homosexual unions, nor may homosexual unions be conducted in our churches. At the 2016 General Conference held in Portland, Oregon, the Council of Bishops appealed to the General Conference to authorize them to name a commission on human sexuality to study every piece of our current legislation pertaining to human sexuality and report their recommendations back to General Conference,
possibly/hopefully before 2020 at a special called General Conference. The General Conference approved this recommendation, and as of Fall 2016 the commission has been formed. It was named The Commission on a Way Forward. As of the time of this writing (December 2016/January 2017), the Commission has had a long conference call devoted to prayer and has its first meeting later this month. What had been happening is that some Bishops and some Annual Conferences were not enforcing the prohibition of self-avowed practicing homosexual persons being ordained, and some were not enforcing the rule prohibiting clergy from officiating at same-sex marriages. This in turn was angering and alienating those who support our present position(s) on homosexuality and who believe our Discipline should be upheld and not openly defied. This has resulted in heated debate and threats of schism. Various unofficial groups and coalitions have been formed, taking one side or the other. Tension has been high. Passions are inflamed, friends have turned into enemies, and we as a denomination have clearly been distracted from our mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. As with all internal matters, mission is always put on hold while we argue among ourselves. This is the tension that delegates brought to General Conference in May. This led to the Bishops request to allow the Commission to be formed, forestalling another heated debate that would likely only make matters worse. Some say this action was kicking the can down the road, putting off an inevitable schism in our denomination. Others say we need time to prayerfully discern this matter and come back with a comprehensive statement that will either be accepted or rejected by the General Conference. While my initial reaction was the former, my ultimate reaction was the latter. For me, it is not necessary to divide our denomination over a matter that is non-essential. For me, when we are ready to split over our position on homosexuality, or our position on anything else that does not relate to our core doctrine, that amounts to drawing a line in the sand that does not need to be drawn. I realize that churches have split over much lesser issues, but to me, it is a sad witness to the world when Christians are always divided among themselves, always arguing, always taking their marbles and going home when they don t get their way on a given matter. Anyway, remember that the Commission has no authority to revise United Methodist positions or statements, just the authority to make recommendations back to the General Conference. So this is where we presently are. Our current positions stand until we get something back from the Commission to vote on. Meanwhile, the current positions continue to be ignored and defied by various bishops, judicatories, congregations, and clergy. One Jurisdiction of United Methodism even elected a female bishop who is openly gay.
MY HUMBLE OPINION: THE WAY FORWARD FOR UNITED METHODISM I believe that in United Methodism, there is more that unites us than divides us. I believe The United Methodist Church plays an important role in world-wide Christianity. I believe we are an important part of the world-wide Body of Christ. Our mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world is commendable, inspiring, and admirable. It would be a shame for us to allow one controversial matter to divide us. In order for the denomination to remain united, this is what needs to happen: The Commission on a Way Forward needs to recommend, and the General Conference approve, the removal of the incompatibility language regarding homosexuality, along with the derivative ordination and clergy restrictions. The removal of the incompatibility language would be a recognition that there are two legitimate sides to the controversy, and it would give everyone, from the person in the pew to the preacher in the pulpit to congregations to Annual and Jurisdictional Conferences, freedom of conscience. So, this is my recommendation for The Commission on a Way Forward and General Conference: (1) Remove the incompatibility language from The Book of Discipline in our statements on homosexuality. (2) Allow pastors to officiate any legal wedding according to the dictates of their conscience. (3) Allow local churches to establish their own policies for building usage, i.e., to decide whether or not their sanctuaries will be used for same-sex unions/marriages. (4) Allow Annual Conferences the right to establish their own criteria for ordination. Specifically, as it pertains to homosexuality, allow Conferences to decide whether or not a self-avowed practicing homosexual person would automatically be excluded from consideration for ordination. This action would recognize that there are good, Bible-believing, Jesus-following United Methodists on either side of this issue. It would call us to respect both sides of the debate and allow us to agree to disagree, to think and let think. It would recognize that, while the matter of homosexuality is important, it does not rise to the level of essential to our faith, and it would allow people the freedom to make up their own mind. It would make the practice of homosexuality a matter of conscience, not a matter of church law.
Note that I am not recommending that we insert language approving of homosexuality. I am simply recommending that we take out the negative language. If we are to move forward, we must acknowledge that there are two sides to this debate, not one. The tendency is for persons who feel strongly one way or the other to insist that theirs is the only valid belief. Each side -- those who oppose the practice of homosexuality and those who affirm the practice of homosexuality -- has its arguments for why their side is the only valid side. Each side has biblical arguments in support of their belief. Each side is represented by good, Biblebelieving United Methodist Christians. We need to recognize this fact. We need to recognize that homosexuality is a matter upon which we do not agree and allow one another the opinion and belief to which he or she is entitled. Realizing that there will be strong objections to removing the incompatibility language, my recommendation would be that, if the present language is retained in some form, it be non-binding because it is not essential to our faith. For example, The United Methodist Church is opposed to the death penalty and in favor of collective bargaining, yet neither pastors nor laity are bound to support those positions, nor are they subject to punishment or excommunication if they don t. One may be United Methodist and be in favor of the death penalty and opposed to collective bargaining. United Methodist pastors are given the freedom of the pulpit. We are free, while upholding our doctrine, to speak our conscience on any matter, regardless of whether it squares with our denominational position or not. Our stance on homosexuality should be similar. If we retain some version of the existing language, it should be non-binding. In other words, an Annual Conference should be free to ordain self-avowed practicing homosexuals if the Conference so chooses. Clergy should be free to preside at same-sex unions/marriages, should their consciences allow. Congregations likewise should be free to allow or not allow their facilities to be used for same-sex unions/marriages. Additionally, there are reasons to remove the incompatibility language that go beyond a mere keeping of the peace. We judge the practice of homosexuality to be incompatible with Christian teaching based on about six passages of scripture in the Old and New Testaments. By the same standard we judge the practice of homosexuality to be incompatible, we could also judge the following practices to be incompatible: greed, gossip, inhospitality, divorce on grounds other than adultery, remarriage, materialism, not loving one s enemy, living together outside of wedlock, women speaking in church, the ordination of women, and working on the sabbath, to name just a few. Yet, none of the aforementioned practices are described as being incompatible with Christian teaching in our Book of Discipline. My question is, Why do we deem one behavior to be incompatible, while ignoring behaviors that, by the same standard, could rightly be deemed incompatible? This has the effect of singling out a particular group of persons and a particular behavior while (conveniently?)
ignoring others. It further disturbs me that we who are heterosexual and who will always hold the majority vote, have singled out a behavior that we ourselves could never be guilty of. I offer the example of homosexuality vis-à-vis divorce/remarriage. The New Testament witness against homosexuality comes from 2-3 passages of Paul. Jesus, to our knowledge, said nothing about homosexuality or homosexual behavior. Yet Jesus the original Christian Teacher -- is recorded as saying, Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. (Mark 10:11-12) Clearly, Jesus upheld the permanence of marriage and was opposed to divorce (except on the grounds of adultery as we learn in Matthew). Clearly, Jesus taught that to remarry after divorce made one or the other or both (depending on which gospel you read) adulterous. So, in light of the clear teaching of Jesus on divorce and remarriage, what does our Book of Discipline offer as our official position on divorce and remarriage? On divorce: God s plan is for lifelong, faithful marriage However, when a married couple is estranged beyond reconciliation, even after thoughtful consideration and counsel, divorce is a regrettable alternative in the midst of brokenness. And on remarriage: Divorce does not preclude a new marriage. We encourage the intentional commitment of the Church and society to minister compassionately to those in the process of divorce, as well as members of divorce and remarried families, in a community of faith where God s grace is shared by all. According to our Book of Discipline, divorce is a regrettable alternative, and remarriage after divorce is not precluded, even though that is not exactly what Jesus taught. Now, I want to make clear that I support our UM position on divorce and remarriage. We are indeed a community of grace. Our position is grace-filled. It recognizes that we live in a broken world, and it offers the possibility of forgiveness and life beyond divorce. We are right to offer ministry to divorced persons, and we are right to bless the new life that divorced persons often find in remarriage. In the majority of marriages which I have officiated, one or both have been previously married. I believe our position on divorce and remarriage is consistent with the spirit of Jesus and his gospel of grace, even though our position is not based on the literal teaching of our Lord. Most Christians recognize a distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. We recognize that our Gospel gives us freedom to not be legalistic and rigid in our interpretation of scripture. Most Christians further would recognize a distinction between reading the Bible literally and reading it through the lens of the grace of Jesus Christ. Clearly, when we compare our stance on homosexuality with our stance on divorce and remarriage, we have an inconsistent application of scripture. With homosexuality, we are applying the letter. With divorce and remarriage, we are applying the spirit. I maintain that the spirit
should be applied to our position on homosexuality, the same as it is applied to our position on divorce and remarriage. A CALL TO PRAYER AND RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE As I said at the beginning of this paper, I am writing merely to express my opinion, not to suggest that anyone with a differing opinion is wrong. We re all entitled to our opinions. My wish is that we express them in a context of love and of respectful dialogue. Every viewpoint should be respected. No viewpoint, and certainly not the person offering it, should be condemned. We move forward only as we honor those with whom we disagree. Whatever our stance on this or any matter, we all stand under the Great Commandment to love God and love one another. Jesus said, By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. (John 13:35) As I have said so often, being in right relationship is far more important than being right. So I call us to be in and remain in right relationship with God and with one another. Hateful, judgmental language has no place in this dialogue, or anywhere in the Christian vocabulary for that matter. I also call us to pray. I commend the Commission in its early stages of formation for focusing on prayer and for calling the Church to prayer. Prayer changes hearts (if not minds). Prayer shapes how we speak and how we communicate our feelings on important matters. Prayer also makes us subject to the leadership of the Holy Spirit. We need the leadership of the Holy Spirit. We need it for individual guidance, and we need it for denominational guidance. Let us pray for The United Methodist Church. Let us pray the Holy Spirit will keep us united and show us that what we have in common is far greater than what we do not have in common. Let us pray for the Commission and for the General Conference which will have to consider and vote upon the Commission s recommendations. This is a critical time in human and church history. The Gospel has never been more relevant nor more needed than it is today. I pray that our enduring witness as United Methodists will be how we shared and lived the Gospel of Jesus Christ and how we modeled spiritual maturity when faced with controversial matters like we are facing today. In all things, love. In the end, we will choose whether to remain United Methodists. I pray that we will so choose. May God bless The People Called Methodist! Milton Lewis, Senior Pastor Northern Hills United Methodist Church San Antonio January 2017