Thoughts on the United Methodist General Conference...

The United Methodist quadrennial General Conference met in Portland, Oregon for 10 days in May, and rushed through hundreds of pieces of legislation, celebrated dozens of worship services, and experienced several demonstrations from groups protesting this denomination's current disciplinary stand, that states: "The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." (The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, 2012, para. 304.3) Almost 100 piece of legislation seeking to modify, strike, or strengthen this stand were submitted to the General Conference, including a piece written by me and perfected by the Northeast Jurisdictional Committee on Ministry, of which I am a part. Our goal was to have the prohibitive statement removed from the Discipline, along with penalties related to it in order to allow those pastors who felt called to minister inclusively to LGBTQI persons to do so without fear of jeopardizing her or his career. Our legislation would have left this decision up to the consciences of pastors, local churches, and conferences. In the end, none of the "human sexuality" legislation was addressed.

The reason was that, when asked to provide leadership on this highly volatile issue, our Council of Bishops put forth a proposal to declare a kind of moratorium for prayer, the formation of a study commission, and possibly a "mid-quadrennial" special session of the General Conference to deal specifically with this issue. Their suggestion was passed by the narrowest of margins, meaning that no legislation on sexuality would be enacted at this year's conference. Those with a conservative view celebrated that we didn't officially change our prohibitive position, and left all current penalties in place; those advocating the change were "comforted" by a statement in the bishops' proposal that, basically, stated they would try to find a way to proceed during this "ceasefire" without levying additional charges. So, that is where we are.

The prohibitive statement about the "practice of homosexuality" was added, as I understand it, at a very late hour in the 1972 General Conference, when this issue was being debated, and it appeared no cogent theological or doctrinal statement could be cobbled together in such short time. Bishop Jack Tuell, its author, expected that the church would deal with it with integrity at the 1976 General Conference, and when, instead, it was amplified, penalties added, and became the defect position of American Methodism, he was mortified.

Today, in a different era, when science, psychology, and human experience has enlightened us to understand that "homosexuality" (same-sex attraction) is just one element of a much more complicated "spectrum" of human sexual identity which we now know as LGBTQ, the language of our Discipline needs to be changed, at the very least. Because of what we now know about the realities of human sexuality, a growing number of scholars, pastors, and laity would like to see our position on this issue changed to include LGBTQ persons fully in the church, ministry, and even in covenantal unions (marriage). Others do not. Can both groups find a home under the "big tent" of Methodism? It remains to be seen.

"But, the Bible says..." is the argument most often used by those advocating for our continued prohibition of "the practice of homosexuality." However, throughout its history, the church has understood that biblical interpretation is far from an exact science. Even those who claim to take the Bible "literally," don't, otherwise there would be stonings happening all around us, and people would be put to death for adultery. People would be locked up for wearing blended fabrics. And those who are divorced? Not allowed to be church members or ministers. Even the "literalists" pick and choose what they will interpret literally and what they do not. What guides them? Feelings? Traditions? Prejudices? Fears? There others of us whose understanding of biblical interpretation fully respects the "authority" of scripture by interpreting it with the best tools of historical-critical scholarship, societal context, and under the illumination of human experience. This is our way to let the text "live" and speak to each generation. This allows us to partition the ancient Hebrew law codes and say they were for days-gone-by. We understand that, while a sad occurrence, divorce is not something that negates one's faith or ability to worship and serve God. When it comes to "homosexuality," we believe we need to go beyond the "clobber" passages to see what the larger witness of scripture says. Jennifer Wright Knust, in her book, Unprotected Texts: The Bible's Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire, makes a stirring attempt at this.

I believe this is a justice issue, frankly. I agree with modern knowledge that "homosexuality" is not a "practice" or a "behavior," but is part of that LGBTQ spectrum of sexual identity that is inherent to the human condition. We are all on that "spectrum," but between 2 and 3 percent of humans (last I read, anyway) find that their biological "identity" is in some way at odds with the heart and soul of how they see themselves. They aren't "practicing" anything, it is just who they are. And it is not a choice, unless they are forbidden to act on their sexuality, at which point it becomes a choice--someone else's.

This is where I--and many other "grassroots theologians" stand. However, at this point, I am not interested in being "right" about this, just to have my view respected and accepted, as I am willing to do for my colleagues and friends who disagree. At present, however, if I act on my position by performing a same-sex marriage or approving someone as a candidate for ministry, I can be charged. I hope that The United Methodist Church can find a way forward that moves this issue under the "big tent" that has housed our differing styles of worship, practices of biblical interpretation, and tastes in religious music since the birth of Methodism under John Wesley.