PRNDL...

DISCLAIMER: This post will be about my denomination's upcoming "special session" of the General Conference, being held in St. Louis, MO, beginning this Saturday. The issue at hand is what we will do with our practices concerning LGBTQIA+ individuals. If you don't want to read yet more thoughts on this topic, go to Facebook and click on a cat video.


With electric cars and luxury vehicles today, the old fashioned "gearshift" is disappearing, but most of us over 25 remember the letters PRNDL on the dash or steering stalk which stood for Park, Reverse, Neutral, Drive, and Low. Since the United Methodist Council of Bishops initiated a commission in 2016 to study and make recommendations about how our denomination would relate to LGBTQIA+ persons, and how we would "define" our understanding of human sexuality, naming the commission the "Way Forward Commission," I thought these transmission labels might be a good way to examine what could happen at the upcoming special General Conference.

The central issue is that some in the church want to hold to a mode of biblical interpretation and "doctrine" that believes only heterosexuality is acceptable to God, and that marriage must only be between a man and a woman. Others believe this question has been removed as one of biblical authority by virtue of an understanding that "normal" human sexuality is--like we are finding out about so many other things--on a "spectrum" that is more broad than binary. This understanding comes to us via the scientific, medical, and psychological fields, as well as by numerous studies of persons who identify somewhere along the LGBTQIA+ continuum, and who clearly testify that they never "chose" their sexual orientation, but as they grew and developed, it just emerged, like their molars or their pubic hair. So, the $64,000 question is, how will the church resolve this, theologically? Here are my skewed thoughts, with no apologies:

PARK: This is where we have been in Methodism since 1972, when a late night "compromise" statement got voted into the "Book of Discipline" that said: "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings." (An earlier version of the statement said "Christian doctrine," but that was considered too harsh, as this "place-holding" statement was meant merely to placate that Conference so it could adjourn and go home, fully expecting the issue would be better dealt with four years later.) We've basically been in PARK, ever since, with efforts made every four years to either remove or soften that statement, or to harden and codify it. This simple phrase has denied "homosexuals" (we haven't even had the balls to fix this to read LGBTQ) candidacy, licensing for ministry, or ordination in the United Methodist Church, and has, depending on the whims of a given pastor, even denied membership or leadership roles in local churches to them.

REVERSE: If the special session of the General Conference passes either the Traditional Plan or the "new and improved" Modified Traditional Plan, our church will be put into REVERSE. As civil rights are being enacted and recognized for LGBTQIA+ persons, these plans would send us in the opposite direction, denying them legitimacy, spiritual community and affirmation in a denomination that has historically been "big tent," and one of the first to welcome other marginalized groups into the fold. Not only is adopting one of these retrograde plans bad for our denomination, it is dangerous, as proponents of them are backing up without a decent rearview mirror. Excluding children of God for any reason is not biblical, nor is it anything Jesus endorsed. The few "anti-gay" Bible passages are locked into ancient contexts and history, and like some of the near superstitious Hebrew law codes of Leviticus, have been superseded by knowledge gained through human social evolution and a deeper theological and informed view of biblical interpretation.

NEUTRAL: If the General Conference does NOTHING, we will basically be in NEUTRAL, and powerless to move forward. How sad this would be for a denomination that has invested so much time and resources into an endeavor labeled the "Way Forward."

DRIVE: If the General Conference really gets caught up in the Spirit and adopts the Simple Plan, we would be shifted into DRIVE, and truly could move forward as an inclusive and diverse church. The Simple Plan would simply remove all prohibitions to LGBTQIA+ individuals being fully recognized by the church. They could answer calls to ministry, serve as pastors, leaders, and bishops, and could even be married to their partners in the churches where they are nurtured in the Christian faith. This truly WOULD be "a way forward."

LOW: Passing the One Church Plan would turn the wheels, but slow the forward progress of the journey toward full inclusion, in effect putting us in LOW gear. Churches, Conferences, and Pastors could still choose to reject LGBTQIA+ persons just for who they are. It would remove the "incompatible with Christian teachings" parking pall, but the resulting slow speed ahead would require LGBTQIA+ persons to painstakingly and cautiously "shop" for a church that was inclusive, and even if they were successful in finding one in their geography, God help them if they sense a call to ministry, as that particular Annual Conference may be one that chooses NOT to offer them candidacy, licensing, or ordination as  options. Still, the One Church Plan is being advanced as a possibly acceptable "compromise" the church could accept, and which could move us "forward." I've been promoting it as such, but I have to say that doing so makes it a bit harder to make full eye contact with my LGBTQIA+ friends.

Why, as we approach the special General Conference, do I feel like we do so with the EMERGENCY BRAKE stuck on? Maybe it's the short three days the Conference has to weigh the plan options and supportive legislation, or maybe its that the Wesleyan Covenant Association has done such an effective job of aligning the conservative minds--and votes--something we liberals have never been able to do well (get three liberals in a room and you'll get six opinions--maybe that comes from understanding that things are on a continuum or a spectrum, and not just binary?).

AND, in a final effort to stretch this contrived metaphor just a bit farther: We are living in the days of Tesla cars and plug-in hybrids where you just hit a little button that says "go," and yet our church is still shifting gears and depressing clutches. Maybe this is one reason so many "Millennials" view us as irrelevant? All of us are praying for the special General Conference, but we're not all praying for the same thing. My colleague in ministry suggests we should just be praying for "God's will," and while I know she is right, I fear that strong human forces (from either pole) could just win a late-night vote and CALL it "God's will." I, for one, cannot endorse any decision that tells a group of God's children, "Sorry, until you change to be like us, you are not welcome." So I'll pray the way I will pray, and I'm sure you will do the same. I just wish we could find a resolution that might create genuine unity, but since we haven't had that--ever--in Christendom, why should I believe it might happen now? If we were honest at this special General Conference, the first thing we would do is remove the "United" from our name, for we are not. Maybe we should go by the acronym, COM--"Confederation of Methodists."

Oh, I haven't even mentioned the Connectional Conference Plan, have I? Why? Because (to keep the driving metaphor alive) we can't build an engine powerful enough to tow the fuel tank necessary to keep it running. And, if ANYONE on the outside of a denomination organized in the manner of that plan actually CHOSE to join it, would we want to have someone like that as a member? (With apologies to Groucho Marx...)

By the time I write my next blog entry, the special General Conference will be over. I'm praying I will still be a Methodist. Stay thirsty, my friends...