Posts Tagged ‘Commission on a Way Forward’

Ruminating Again…UMC

October 24, 2017

II have been ruminating on the current state of our United Methodist denomination again, or maybe more accurate, still. In part because it is becoming a focus of my doctoral work and a possible final project. The other piece of it is I continue to be troubled by much of what I see in terms of the posturing of groups in preparation for the Special Called General Conference in 2019. Maybe troubled is not the right word; intrigued, interested, perplexed, curious, torn…perhaps these would be better descriptors of my current state.

To some degree I see the posturing and forming of statements and groups as a way of hopefully influencing the final outcome of how our denomination will respond to the role and place of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, and queer; LGBTQ members and clergy persons in the church. I understand the political nature of our denomination, it is what it is, and I confess I rather enjoy some forms of politics in terms of debate on the floor, bringing diverse voices together, and strategizing for change for the common good. I am a political junky.

In terms of the outcome possibilities from the Commission on a Way Forward and the special General Conference in February 2019 in Saint Louis, I see five basic possibilities. These five are just the surface possibilities and not meant to be an exhaustive list of outcomes nor processes and complications that may or may not result from the final decision. This is how I see it.

  1. The denomination become more discriminatory and punitive toward LGBTQ persons in the church and those who would be allies. This would perhaps describe to some degree the current group known as the Wesleyan Covenant Association. You can read more about where they are here – https://wesleyancovenant.org/

 

  1. The denomination would remove all discriminatory language from the Discipline of the United Methodist Church. I do not have a lot of information at this point on the group Toward an Inclusive Church, but what little I have read this second option could be a part of where this group would be. Here is an article to read – http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/new-group-aims-for-lgbtq-full-inclusion

 

  1. The denomination would create a “Local Option” compromise which would allow clergy, local churches, and conferences to determine to what extent LGBTQ persons would serve and be welcomed into the life of the church. This option would fall in one way or another with the group Uniting Methodists. You can read more about them here – http://unitingmethodists.com/

 

  1. The denomination would do nothing and continue with the status quo of the current Disciplinary language.

 

  1. The denomination would determine this issue is irreconcilable and bring for a proposal and plan for schism.

 

As I understand the Wesleyan Covenant Association, at minimum they would prefer to keep our denomination where it is regarding LGBTQ members and clergy in the church, and perhaps have stricter guidelines regarding times when the current guidelines are breached. If you are interested in this please refer and read the website, there is more information than my brief sharing here. I would not be in agreement with this group.

As I indicated above, the Toward an Inclusive Church movement is just forming, and while my assumption is perhaps they might be a group longing to remove all the discriminatory language from our denomination, I am not certain of that, it is yet to be seen. Let me say, as for me, if this group would promote the full inclusion of LGBTQ persons in our denomination and remove all discriminatory language from our Discipline, I would place myself fully in this understanding.

I understand the Uniting Methodist movement and believe it is perhaps the best scenario for maintaining the institution with the least schism. While I believe I could continue to serve, minister, and exist in this environment, my struggle is the continued discrimination and harm some of our churches may continue to practice toward LGBTQ members and clergy. I understand it is an attempt to focus on common ground issues and in essence “agree to disagree.” I know many of my colleagues, and members of the church I serve have signed this, and I understand and support that, I really do not want to see our church split more than it already is. This being said, I have not signed in support of this group for the above hightlighted reasons.

Just a few weeks ago a parent who has a gay child came to me distraught. They indicated a person in their church had told them, unless their child repented of being gay, they were destined for the fires of hell. “How can I stay in relationship with this friend who thinks this of my child?” they asked. Or to paraphrase a conversation I had with a friend some weeks ago, “How can I agree to disagree?”

Herein is in large part, what continues to be the gadfly in my struggle and journey. Would I have agreed to disagree rather than split in 1844 when we were torn by slavery? Would I have agreed to disagree rather than split in 1956 when we debated the ordination of women? Would I have agreed to disagree rather than split in 1964 when we our nation was struggling with civil rights? How can I draw a line in the sand when it comes to racism and other injustices and not draw a line in the sand when it comes to justice for all in our beloved UMC.

These are my current and continued ponderings and wonderings. Pray for our churches, pray for our bishops, pray for the Commission on a Way Forward, pray for our United Methodist Church. February of 2019 in Saint Louis, I have no doubt, will be a tenuous time.

Here, at least for today, is where I stand.

Peace and Light for Our Journey Together.

Rev. Kent H. Little

 

Advertisements