PERSPECTIVES, VALUES, & POSSIBILITIES A RESOURCE FROM THE VIRGINIA CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH. In 2014, the members of the Virginia Annual Conference voted to postpone a resolution concerning human sexuality in order to allow for a time of prayer, education and discussion. In November of that year, many gathered in various locations across the Commonwealth for a Day of Holy Conversation which included panel discussions and small group reflection. Both in follow-up to the Day of Holy Conversation and in continued preparation for the 2015 Annual Conference the Common Table for Church Vitality has endorsed this document for continued study, reflection and conversation regarding human sexuality. This document may be used for personal study, Sunday school and small groups or as a resource for pastors and worship teams. At the conclusion of the document is a series of questions that may be helpful for individual or group reflection. An audio pod cast of the document may be found at http://www.vaumc.org/ncfilereposit ory/sound/150328-125711.mp3 1
Perspectives, Values and Possibilities Where do we stand on the issue of homosexuality, why, and what does it mean for the future of The United Methodist Church? Where Are We? SECTION 1: PERSPECTIVES Over many years of discourse and more recently throughout the Day of Holy Conversation countless individuals and groups have offered varying perspectives on human sexuality and its place in The United Methodist Church. While generalization necessarily bears the consequence of imperfect representation, these various positions may essentially be understood to coincide with one of three perspectives. Below is a generic representation of these three perspectives followed by a basic rationale and a common critique to each. Perspective 1: While all human beings are of sacred worth, the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Rationale: This perspective, generally, relies upon statements of scripture that allow for the expression of human sexuality solely within a marriage covenant of one male and one female. Scriptures referenced in support of this position may include Genesis 1-2, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Matthew 19, Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Critique: A common challenge to this stance is of a cultural nature, suggesting that the Biblical authors were speaking about practices that do not clearly equate to a 21st century understanding of homosexuality and/or that cultural values have shifted in such a way as to render certain passages of scripture moot, i.e. Colossians 3:22, "Slaves obey your masters, or 1 Corinthians 14:34, Women should remain silent in the churches. Perspective 2: Homosexual marriage reflects God's love in the same way as heterosexual marriage. The United Methodist Church should perform and bless same sex marriages. Further, the UMC should ordain pastors who are married to same-sex spouses. Rationale: The adherents of such a stance may note the ongoing nature of God's revelation and the necessity of continually re-engaging scripture as the primary source for moral guidance in light of ever expanding tradition, reason and experience. This is what Albert Outler called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. This rationale allows for a 2
reinterpretation of Biblical texts that have often been employed to condemn the practice of homosexuality. Critique: A common challenge to this stance is to suggest it relegates scripture to the point of possessing little if any moral authority. Said differently, in the event the Church reinterprets moral guidance on the issue of homosexuality, what will prevent the Church from doing the same with other issues? Perspective 3: The third category very broadly includes those who fall short of complete solidarity with either statement above. Rationale: While adherents hold this position for many reasons, two are more common: 1) a genuine and ongoing process of discerning the issue or 2) a deep concern over the potential fracture of The United Methodist Church. Critique: Opponents to this third position may suggest it is noncommittal and that the valuing of unity over doctrine weakens the Church. SECTION 2: A VALENCE OF VALUES A valance is a relatively sheer curtain, many times hung from a bedframe. When gazing through it, the color of the valance can cause one to see the whole world as tinted. Often, when engaging questions of human sexuality, we have settled for conversations that are tinted by our own perspectives, our valances, our presuppositions. Valence with an e is a dramatically different word, a term used in chemistry. It refers to the capacity of an atom to come together or combine with other atomic particles. The purpose of this document is not to change anyone s perspective. Rather, it is to help us discern whether or not there is something to be learned from the perspective of the other: to determine if our valances might become valences. Any single mechanism or framework for understanding the way The United Methodist Church, its doctrine and practices, relate to homosexuality will almost certainly fall short of fully articulating the breadth of the discussion. With this said, one possible framework for more fully understanding the complexity of the conversation is to think in terms of values. What do the perspectives we hold state about our values and about the values of others in our connection? There are at least three values held in tension in the midst of a conversation about The United Methodist Church and its relationship to homosexuality. VALUE 1: One value is the preservation of Biblical integrity. An adherent of perspective one as described above may value a clear, plain sense interpretation of Biblical statements regarding human sexuality and its expression solely within the covenant of marriage between one male and one female. At the same moment, an 3
adherent of perspective two might suggest that the scriptures did not address the issue of human sexuality as we understand it today. For this person, to value the preservation of Biblical integrity necessitates a differently nuanced comprehension of the culture, language and context of the passages in question. Adherents of perspective three might suggest that Jesus, having never addressed homosexuality, clearly conveys at the conclusion of the high priestly prayer in John 17 that his great desire for his followers is that they may be one, and by allowing fracture to the church over any single issue, we are violating one of Christ s great desires. What begins to emerge is the recognition that each perspective values scripture immensely even if interpretations of the scriptures in question may vary drastically. VALUE 2: A second value articulated throughout this conversation is that of justice. Common themes throughout scripture are the preference of God for those who experience oppression and the call God places upon the Church to work for justice in the world. An adherent of perspective two may submit that those who engage in same sex relationships have been disenfranchised within the societies of the earth, and it is the Church s responsibility to stand up for them. In so doing, the follower of Christ is working for justice. Whereas an individual who subscribes to perspective one might also value justice, suggesting that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, so if the Church endorses such a practice, it is condoning sin and necessarily corrupting the work of righteousness and justice the Church is called to embody. An adherent of perspective three will likely agree that the call of God upon the Church to work for justice exists, but without a degree of clarity surrounding the issue of the practice of homosexuality, the Church must return to the primary Wesleyan imperative. Without a clear consensus on how to address the issue, we must, first, do no harm to the work of justice. Again, each perspective values the work of justice, but the embodiment of that work may look quite different. VALUE 3: A third value at play in the midst of this conversation is the value of unity in Christ s church. An observer of perspective three may suggest that our unity as the body of Christ is paramount, citing Jesus statements in John 13 and 17 or Paul s description of the church as one body in 1 Corinthians 12. Adherents of perspectives one and two may also place great value upon the unity of the Church but suggest that the Church is clearly not unified over this matter. And to proceed as if we are would be to embody a false sense of unity, undermining the evangelical and missional fruit true unity bears. Thus, it is not sufficient to suggest that a certain perspective affirms scripture, another, justice and a third, unity. Rather, it becomes necessary to understand that our differing perspectives represent a diversity in how we understand and articulate our commitments to and value of scripture, justice and unity. 4
SECTION 3: POSSIBILITIES Where Could We Go? Following this discussion of the various perspectives and values which inform The United Methodist Church as it relates to the issue of human sexuality in general and homosexuality specifically, it is fruitful to explore the opportunities available as The United Methodist Church moves into the future. Bishop Rueben Job and Neil M. Alexander published a series of positions articulated by Bishops in the UMC. Their book, Finding Our Way: Love and Law in The United Methodist Church, outlines four possibilities as the UMC moves into tomorrow. i Possibility 1: Enforce- The United Methodist Church may enforce its current position, continuing to disallow the ordination of practicing homosexuals, the performance of same-sex marriages by pastors, and the use of UMC churches and facilities to host such marriages. This possibility represents the maintenance of the UMC s present doctrine and practice. Possibility 2: Emend- Emend means to make a correction. This possibility suggests that the General Conference of The United Methodist Church may emend the Book of Discipline in such a way as to welcome pastors who are practicing homosexuals, empower pastors to perform same-sex marriages and allow UMC churches and facilities to host same-sex marriages. Possibility 3: Disobey- This possibility articulates it is more important to be in solidarity with a disenfranchised group than to be in compliance with the laws of the church. It suggests that congregations and pastors may take authority to break with the Book of Discipline and, in turn, shall bear the consequences of those actions. Possibility 4: Disarm- This prospect invites continued unity in The United Methodist Church while seeking ongoing dialogue regarding the practice of homosexuality. It suggests that rather than being forced to choose whether we are confessing or reconciling, we are called to be both. 5
SECTION 4: CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION With this issue so present for the UMC, is it possible to move forward together in mission and ministry even while disagreeing about the question of human sexuality? Some will say no. Based on perspectives of personal piety, scripture, social holiness or some other reason, some will say we cannot be together in mission and ministry unless the UMC holds a particular stance on human sexuality. Others may say yes, that in fact we have demonstrated it is possible to live in this tension since 1972 when the issue was initially raised at General Conference. Returning to the consideration of values for a moment, one pastor in the Virginia Conference noted that when it comes to this issue many of us participate in confirmation bias. We seek out resources that align with our positions and in so doing remain largely ignorant of the values, perspectives and beliefs of the other. Richard Stanislaw, former president of King College, noted we should not be afraid to turn over a rock somewhere in the universe for fear that something will come out and eat up our God. For if our God is God, that simply will not happen. What would happen if we genuinely sought to understand the perspectives and values of those who disagree with us on this issue? Should we envision the possibility of moving forward in mission and ministry together, which some may not, such a prospect is utterly dependent upon our ability to acknowledge that good and Godly people exist on each and every side of this doctrinal stance. Bishop Gregory Palmer, an outspoken proponent of maintaining the current doctrinal position of the UMC and author of possibility one above, has served the UMC faithfully since 1977. Similarly, Bishop Hope Morgan Ward, advocate of a new position and author of possibility two, has served the UMC faithfully since 1978. God s children, our episcopal leaders, our laity and pastors see this issue with great diversity. We value scripture, justice, and unity even if we understand them differently. We love Jesus Christ. And we have different opinions of the manner in which The United Methodist Church should move forward into the future. There are many in our denomination who perceive these issues of human sexuality as the greatest threat ever posed to The United Methodist Church. But would it be possible to see this issue as the catalyst for our finest hour? Perhaps, in the end, we shall experience an ecclesial divide, creating two or more denominations that will go forth to thrive as they make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Perhaps, unity will prevail, and God will demonstrate a way for The United Methodist Church to remain one body with many, diverse members. None of us know what tomorrow will hold. But there are steps we can, even must take today. Aware of how others understand this complicated situation, we must acknowledge that those who disagree with us are neither evil nor ignorant. Regardless of what tomorrow may hold, we are sisters and brothers in Christ, members of one universal Church. 6
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION: 1. What is one element of each perspective under Who Are We that resonates with you? 2. What can you learn from those who may disagree with you? 3. How do you understand the values of preserving Biblical integrity, justice and unity? 4. What did you learn about the way others understand these values? 5. What are two possibilities under the Where Could We Go section that you resonate with as possibilities for the future of the UMC? 6. How can the UMC move forward in mission and ministry while disagreeing on the issue of homosexuality? 7. How could the challenge in front of us lead to our finest hour in The United Methodist Church? RESOURCES FOR CONTINUED STUDY: 1. Job, Rueben P. and Neil M. Alexander eds. Finding Our Way: Love and Law in The United Methodist Church. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2014. 2. The Evangelical Fellowship of the Virginia Conference offers additional resources on its webpage: http://www.efumcva.org/ 3. The Reconciling Ministries Network offers additional resources on its webpage: http://www.rmnetwork.org/ 4. A Way Forward represents one possible centrist position and may be found at: http://awayforward.net/ i Job, Rueben P. and Neil M. Alexander eds. Finding Our Way: Love and Law in The United Methodist Church. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2014. 7