Reli 696 Researchpaper

Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors: Understanding
the Debate over the Role of LGBT+ Christians in the

United Methodist Church
Introduction
For the past forty years, the United Methodist Church (UMC) has struggled with
their doctrine, which states that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with
Christian teaching, and their prohibition of same-sex marriage and the ordination of
self-avowed, practicing homosexuals.1 Protests and defiance of this doctrine have
consistently kept the question of the role of LGBT+ Christians relevant and for the past
ten years, there have been calls for schism over the debate. A schism has far-reaching
implications for pastors, congregations, and families worldwide. However, why is the
role of LGBT+ Christians, who make up such a small percentage of United Methodists,
a question which threatens to divide the denomination?
As a United Methodist, Ive asked myself that many times. I grew up in the UMC,
prayed alongside LGBT+ Christians, and watched fellow congregants becoming more
and more frustrated with a debate no one wants to have and no one can escape. I
chose to study the debate partially because the UMC appears on the brink of schism,
and partially because I wanted to recognize the concerns of those whom I disagreed
with but did not entirely understand.
1 "Homosexuality: Full Book of Discipline Statements." The United Methodist Church. United Methodist
Communications, 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
1
The aim of this ethnography is to investigate the causes and nuances of the
current debate in the UMC over the role of LGBT+ Christians 2; it is a mixture of
assessing primary and secondary sources, observation, and ethnographic interviews.
The most prominent prior research on this debate is Amanda Udis-Kesslers book
Queer Inclusion in the United Methodist Church, which describes the debate in 2000
and her assessment of the debates causes. Throughout this paper, I will reference
Udis-Kessler and compare my research in 2016 to the trends present sixteen years ago.
My original research consists of my observations at the 2016 General Conference and
interviews with twelve United Methodist pastors from North Carolina.
General Conference is a global meeting of United Methodists held every four
years in which delegates update doctrine in response to worldly concerns. The
conference was held in Portland Oregon, and I attended the conference for one week. I
observed plenary sessions where all the delegates discussed and voted upon proposed
changes to the doctrine, and I attended Church and Society B, a sub-committee which
discussed proposals referencing same-sex marriage and LGBT+ ordination. During my
stay, I also informally talked to delegates and gathered material from prominent
organizations advocating for particular stances on these issues.
Each of the twelve pastors I interviewed was an elder 3 in the church, had
attended divinity school, and was currently employed. Eleven pastors were white, one
2 Usually I will refer to the debate over the role of LGBT+ Christians in the United Methodist Church
simply as the debate.
3 Elders are defined as A person ordained to a lifetime ministry of service, word, sacrament and order.
He or she is authorized to preach and teach Gods word, to administer the sacraments of baptism and
Holy Communion, and to order the life of the church for mission and ministry. "Glossary: Elder." The
United Methodist Church. United Methodist Communications, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
2
was African-American, eight were men and four were women. The ages of the
participants ranged from late twenties to late sixties, but most were middle aged. I would
call three progressive, two traditionalists, and seven moderates 4. I intended to interview
participants from demographics representative of the pastors in North Carolina as well
as from a spectrum of opinion. However, this topic is controversial, so most pastors
have not voiced public opinions and are not interested in being interviewed. As a result,
my choice of participants was a mixture of direct contact and snowballing 5, and relying
on participant willingness to conduct interviews. The interviews themselves were semi-
structured, recorded, and transcribed. I included prepared questions concerning the
participants early life, education, call to ministry, view of culture, beliefs about marriage,
and experiences concerning the debate. Using Atlas.ti, a qualitative research analysis
software, I coded the transcripts and produced common themes presented by the
pastors.
From my research, I was able to define a theory of the debate on the global and
local level. The global situation closely matches Udis-Kesslers research from 2000
which I will discuss later. While the group of United Methodists supporting LGBT+
ordination and same-sex marriage has grown and become more vocal, there has been
little change to the existence and general beliefs of the political camps at General
Conference. The most notable change is the UMCs demographic makeup. United
Methodist membership is increasing in the African continent and decreasing in North
4 The definitions of traditionalist, progressive and moderate are different than the definitions for a
political context. To see the definitions of these terms, go to page 9 of this paper
5 Snowballing is a sampling method where initial participants are used to recruit other potential
participants. I asked each pastor who they thought might be interested in sharing their story for this
research and used some of their suggestions to find other participants.
3
America and Europe6; as a result, changes to doctrine are more likely to follow
traditionalist lines as African delegates combine with delegates from the American South
to achieve a delegate majority at General Conference. However, while General
Conference acts as a guide for the debate, it often obscures important nuances. In the
context of North Carolina, these variations are visible again. Within the church, personal
relationships with LGBT+ Christians are the most obvious and powerful influence in the
debate, but fostering personal relationships cannot resolve underlying theological
disagreements. The debate stems from a combination of discomfort with discussions of
sexuality, differing beliefs about the purpose of marriage, different ideologies about the
influence of secular culture on religion, and the tension between pastors upholding their
covenant vows or following their conscience to defy church policy.
Most of these findings confirm that the debate is much more complicated than
asking Do you believe in same-sex marriage and the ordination of self-avowed,
practicing homosexuals? Understanding the debate lies in isolating these fundamental
disagreements and asking whether these theological, ideological, and cultural tensions
can exist within one denomination.
A Word About Language
Choosing the language to use in this research was a difficult decision, primarily
because of the research topic: The UMC only specifically references practicing
homosexuals in their doctrine, so only lesbian, gay, and bisexual Christians are directly
affected. The UMC also only specifies restrictions on LGB Christians with regards to
6 Hahn, Heather. "U.S. Church Sees Numbers Slide in 2015." The United Methodist Church. United
Methodist Communications, 18 Nov. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
4
marriage and ordination. However, because of the strength of identity politics and
American perception of those with non-majority sexual orientation and gender identities,
the debate in the UMC affects the whole LGBT+ community and every aspect of their
lives within the church. For example, participant Rev. Simpson described having to
decide whether or not to allow a lesbian woman to work with youth at his church. A
delegate during General Conference made a statement intimating that they did not
understand the concept or existence of transgender people. The debate and historic
marginalization of LGBT+ Christians encouraged me to treat this debate as studying the
role of all LGBT+ Christians in the UMC.
Second is the choice of language referring to Christians of non-majority sexual
orientation and gender identity. I deemed all United Methodists under this classification
part of the debate which I researched, including those which have not been officially
recognized or discussed at General Conference. During my research, I have read and
listened to people call this group anything from homosexuals to the gays to
LGBTQIA. To maintain a neutral but open approach to this group of Christians, how
they identify, and how they are recognized, I will refer to them as LGBT+, except for
when I refer to the Book of Discipline or the specific terms used by interviewees.
Background
In order to understand the debate over the role of LGBT+ Christians and its
unique manifestation in the United Methodist denomination, a short history and
overview of the churchs government is required. The United Methodist Church (UMC) is
a mainstream Protestant sect created in 1968 when the Evangelical United Brethren
5
and the Methodist Church merged. Today the church has 12.8 million members,
organized in five American Jurisdictional Conferences and seven Central Conferences
in Africa, Europe, and the Philippines; within these larger conferences are Annual
Conferences7. For example, the North Carolina Annual Conference is in the
Southeastern Jurisdictional Conference which is overseen by General Conference.
The top-level of the UMC is organized similarly to the American three-branch
system of government. The executive branch is the Council of Bishops. Bishops
oversee Annual Conferences and facilitate General Conference, although they do not
have a vote. General Conference is the UMCs legislating body. General Conference
defines the proceedings of the church and authorizes religious texts. Lastly is the
Judicial Council, a group of nine laity and clergy who interpret church doctrine 8. The
religious texts specific to the UMC include the Book of Resolutions and the Book of
Discipline9. The Book of Resolutions is a teaching document, containing policy
statements on a variety of issues, but is not legally binding 10. The Book of Discipline
outlines the doctrine of the church. Only General Conference can alter the Book of
Discipline. The Discipline is binding, and those who violate church law may be subject
to punishment by the judiciary11.
7 "Organization: The Church as Connection." The United Methodist Church. United Methodist
Communications, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
8 "Constitutional Structure." The United Methodist Church. United Methodist Communications, n.d. Web.
23 Mar. 2017.
9 Often I will simply refer to the Book of Discipline as the Discipline
10 "Book of Resolutions, The." The United Methodist Church. United Methodist Communications, n.d.
Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
11 "Glossary: Book of Discipline, The." The United Methodist Church. United Methodist Communications,
n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
6
The debate concerning the role of LGBT+ Christians began shortly after the
denomination formed in 1968. Before 1972, the UMCs view of LGBT+ persons stated
that everyone needs guidance but should have their rights ensured. During the 1972
General Conference, a delegate asked what ensuring rights to homosexuals actually
meant12. Out of that conversation came this statement: The United Methodist Church
does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice
incompatible with Christian teaching13. Over the next forty years, other General
Conferences added language to the Book of Discipline that prevented same-sex
marriage, ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals, using church funds to
quote promote the acceptance of homosexuality, and made conducting a same-sex
wedding a chargeable offense for clergy14. While the UMC made it clear that no person
should be denied civil rights, those rights did not apply to the church. However, as early
as 1996 petitioners were asking General Conference to admit there was disagreement
over church doctrine surrounding human sexuality. Protests at General Conference,
unauthorized same-sex weddings, and LGBT+ ordination throughout the UMC has
steadily increased.
In 1997, Rev. Jimmy Creech was one of the first United Methodist pastors who
officiated a same sex-marriage; two years later, he was defrocked by the UMC for
violating church law15. Rev. Allen Bingham, a participant in my research and a friend of
12 Gilbert, Kathy L. "GC2016 Tackling 44-year Stance on Homosexuality." The United Methodist Church.
United Methodist Communications, 27 Apr. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
13 Gilbert, Kathy L. "GC2016 Tackling 44-year Stance on Homosexuality." The United Methodist Church.
United Methodist Communications, 27 Apr. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
14 "Homosexuality: Full Book of Discipline Statements." The United Methodist Church. United
Methodist Communications, 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
15 The Associated Press. "Pastor Defrocked for Holding Gay Marriage." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 17 Nov. 1999. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
7
Jimmy Creech, believes Creechs trial was a turning point in the debate in the church.
Here Rev. Bingham describes Creechs argument before the United Methodist Court:
Initially most of our teaching about homosexuality was in the Book of
Resolutions... the teaching document of the church...And when Jimmy was first
charged he said, Wait a minute. When we were coming along and we raised
issues about race and women, our Bishops said, Oh, thats all in the teaching
document so we dont have to follow those as a course of discipline. So, his
[Creechs] initial defense was, Homosexuality is in the Book of Resolutions, so its
a teaching document but its not required.
Creech argued that since the Book of Resolutions was a teaching document, he
hadnt broken church law by officiating a same sex marriage. The court was not
convinced and still defrocked Creech. However, Rev. Bingham argues that Creechs
point caused a shift in the doctrine of the UMC. Here Rev. Bingham explains the
significance of the change:
Then it slowly got put into the Book of Discipline that you couldnt marry
persons and it was a chargeable offense. Initially the chargeable offense was
teaching doctrine contrary to the United Methodist Church. Now it became an
offense to actually do the act. And Jimmy's situation... brought that aboutI
understand why people have done it. People did it out of objections raised by
people like me who said, Well wait a minute, you said this is the teaching
document. Now youre insisting we have to follow everything in the teaching
document? Okay, that means you cant drink if youre United Methodist. No
8
alcohol. Because abstinence is the teaching position of our church. Not
moderation, abstinence. Because thats where we were when we first adopted
that stuff in 1908 or whenever the temperance movement got a hold of our Social
Principles.... And no ones bold enough to stand up on the floor of General
Conference and say, I move for moderation!. And so, we dont do it. So, weve
moved into a more legalistic rendering of it which is to move it into discipline and
to make it a chargeable offense.
However, the move of General Conference to increase repercussions for such
acts did not solidify the UMCs position. Just over ten years later, in 2014, Frank
Schaefer was defrocked and then re-instated for officiating a same-sex marriage; the
appellate Methodist court confirmed that while the official statement of the UMC bans
same-sex marriage and officiation of such marriage, United Methodist members and
clergy have diverse views related to human sexuality16. This change in ruling shows the
level of internal debate which has risen in the church. In the past two years, there have
been thirteen complaints against clergy for practicing homosexuality or officiating
same sex weddings, compared to a mere nine complaints in the previous forty years.
During the 2016 General Conference, several protests directed at the doctrine
concerning LGBT+ Christians interrupted proceedings. Shortly after the Conference
ended, the first married, openly gay clergy was elected bishop in the Southwestern
Jurisdiction of the United States, a blatant challenge to the existing doctrine 17. Schism is
16 Gilbert, Kathy L., and Heather Hahn. "Update: Frank Schaefer Reinstated as United Methodist
Pastor." The United Methodist Church. United Methodist Communications, 24 June 2014. Web. 23
Mar. 2017.
17 Gilbert, Kathy L. "Western Jurisdiction Elects Openly Gay United Methodist Bishop." The United
Methodist Church. United Methodist Communications, 15 July 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
9
now routinely discussed as an option to resolve the controversy, and as the UMC nears
fifty years of unsuccessful conversation, it appears the time for division is at hand.
Udis-Kesslers Research and the 2016 General Conference
Between 2000-2004, Amanda Udis-Kessler observed the debate over the role of
LGBT+ Christians at General Conference and described her results in the auto-
ethnography Queer Inclusion in the United Methodist Church 18. Although Udis-Kessler
acknowledges her progressive bias, the ethnography is a comprehensive account of the
2000 General Conference. Udis-Kessler organizes her strategies for understanding the
debate in four major topics: culture wars, homophobia and heterosexism, social closure
and contradictory institutional logics.
Culture Wars
Culture Wars is an expression taken from James Hunters book Culture Wars:
The Struggle to Define America19. The book describes the conflict between traditionalist
and progressive values and applies well to the Methodist debate over the role of LGBT+
Christians. Progressives, also known as inclusionists and liberals, wish language
prohibiting same-sex marriage or LGBT+ ordination to be removed. They consider truth
to be subjective, the Bible a holy source to be understood in context, and culture as a
form of progress. Progressives see Christ as a social justice champion, who loves all
people regardless of identity. As such, progressives are prepared to protest or break
church rules until justice for LGBT+ Christians is achieved. Traditionalists, also referred
18 Udis-Kessler, Amanda. Queer Inclusion in the United Methodist Church. N.p.: Routledge, 2015.
Print.
19 Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2001. Print.
10
to as evangelicals or conservatives, wish to keep the current doctrine. They favor
tradition over personal experience, view the Bible as objective truth from God, and see
secular culture as threatening to religious holiness. They view Christ as a redeemer who
accepts all people, but requires movement away from sin. As such, traditionalists revere
covenant and will not permit change to the Discipline unless they are sure it is in line
with apostolic teaching. Moderates maintain a neutral stance. They dont appear to have
a unifying theology, but look for compromise between the two camps. While they
appreciate the experiences of LGBT+ Christians and might agree with progressives,
they value devotion to covenant too much to break church rules. These three camps
might simply be stereotypes, but alternate North Carolina delegate and research
participant Rev. Laura Ledford describes them well:
You have the people on this side of the debate who would say, Hey,
Scripture says it. Scripture says its incompatible, its an abomination, or whatever
language theyre going to use. And then youve got the people on this side of it
that say, Yes, but look at our experience, look at our reason, look at the world,
look at relationships between LGBTQ people who are bringing glory to God
through those relationships .... And once you put on the brakes in those ways, it's
really hard to imagine a way forward.
These camps were alive and well at the 2016 General Conference. The
traditional camp is led by Good News, the Confessing Movement, the Institute on
Religion and Democracy (with publication UM Action), and other advocacy groups 20.
The progressive camp can be exemplified through the Love Your Neighbor Coalition, of
20 These advocacy groups can be reached by goodnewsmag.org, confessingumc.org, and theird.org,
respectively
11
which the Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN), Love Prevails, the Methodist
Federation for Social Action, and many others are a part 21. The moderates do not have
an official group, which fits with their characterization. Moderates may subscribe to
either the traditional or progressive group, but they do not publicly join either. Good
News, UM Action, the Confessing Movement, and RMN were all represented by booths
at General Conference. I visited the Good News, Confessing Movement, and RMN
booths during my observations; I collected information pamphlets and talked briefly with
the people staffing the booths. At the Confessing Movement table, the conversation I
had was directed mostly at Scripture and what it says about human sexuality; at the
RMN table, the woman I spoke with talked mostly about what traditionalists dont
understand about sexuality, as well as the debate as an issue of social justice. Both
these conversations fit neatly into the traditionalist and progressive categories
respectively. Although all the groups are well-established, the RMN appeared to be the
most active during the conference. The RMN handed out rainbow stoles and pins so
that progressive supporters might distinguish themselves from other delegates. The
RMN also organized the protests during the conference, including one which combined
with the Black Lives Matter movement; through this protest they were petitioning
General Conference to address both the concerns of LGBT+ and African-American
communities facing discrimination and violence.
Traditionalist and progressive camps also come into play when the delegates of
General Conference vote. I spoke with an American delegate, who was also part of the
leadership of a subcommittee who explained the process. According to him, the camps
21 The Love Your Neighbor Coalition and associated organizations can be reached at lyncoalition.org
12
form coalitions that review proposals sent into General Conference and send out
recommendations for voting on each proposal to the delegates. In this way delegates
can easily vote in ideological blocs on any issue, sometimes without reading the
proposal itself. In fact, the delegate said one of the best ways to get an unexpected
voting result is to drastically alter the proposal in a subcommittee, so that when
delegates see it on the General Conference floor they cant refer to their pre-set
recommendation sheet to know how to vote. This bloc voting is especially effective for
traditionalists. The American delegate I spoke with said that at any point throughout
General Conference, the highest number of votes the progressive coalition got was 278
votes, not including moderates; the lowest number of votes the traditionalist coalition got
was 325. Even with the progressives performing at their best and the traditionalists at
their worst, the traditionalists have more power, which means they can control a lot
more of the doctrine shaped at General Conference. I will speak more about how this
situation came about and where moderates fit into this strategy, but it is clear that
camps still very much affect the outcome of legislation related to human sexuality.
Unfortunately, the debate has grown so large that it has begun to affect proposals
which dont relate to human sexuality. Rule 44 is a great example. Rule 44 was a
proposed addition to the General Conference rules which provided the option to use a
small groups discernment approach on particularly controversial issues 22. This
technique is quite different from the parliamentary debate style used in the plenary
sessions, and proponents hoped it would help the conference build consensus around
22 Authorized By The Commission On The General Conference., and Printed And Distributed By
The United Methodist Publishing House. "Rules of Order." Daily Christian Advocate. Proc. of General
Conference 2016, Portland. Vol. 1. N.p.: United Methodist House, 2016. 93-94. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
13
difficult subjects23. However, most delegates assumed if Rule 44 was passed it would be
applied to the debate over the role of LGBT+ Christians and it might produce a change
in the UMCs doctrine. Therefore, the speeches discussing Rule 44 on the plenary floor
were often not about whether small group discussion is the best method of lawmaking,
but how the rule might sway the current debate.
The war between the traditional and progressive ideologies has been ongoing
for at least sixteen years and appears to have no end in sight. Such camps are so
ingrained and politically effective it seems naive to hope that they can be removed any
time soon. This camp structure is an immovable but crucial element of the debate which
must be acknowledged and accounted for in any discussion of the debate or its
potential solutions.
Homophobia and Heterosexism
However, Udis-Kessler argues that ideological difference is not enough to
account for the traditionalist view of LGBT+ Christians and their reasoning for their
theological doctrine limiting marriage and ordination. She goes on to name homophobia
and heterosexism24 as major contributors to the debate over the role of LGBT+
Christians in the United Methodist Church. Udis-Kessler points out the functioning of
homophobia and heterosexism in several forms. First, she describes what she calls the
ick factor --the discomfort heterosexual and cisgender people experience when
contemplating the experiences of LGBT+ people. Another aspect of heterosexism
23 Hahn, Heather. "GC2016: The Debate about How to Debate Sexuality." The United Methodist
Church. United Methodist Communications, 15 Apr. 2015. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
24 Homophobia is defined as dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people, and heterosexism is
defined as discrimination or prejudice against homosexuals on the assumption that heterosexuality is the
normal sexual orientation.
14
manifests in master status, where an LGBT+ persons identity is perceived by other
Christians primarily as LGBT+, not as primarily Christian. This implies that the faith of
LGBT+ people is somehow overshadowed or made less valid by their sexual orientation
or gender identity. Third, is a concept Udis-Kessler calls moral alchemy, which means
that concepts have different moral implications when applied to different people. The
potentially most powerful example is how some people refer to LGBT+ peoples
relationships as a lifestyle, while heterosexual people who get married are building a
life together; the former is seen as a cheap imitation of the latter. Finally, LGBT+
identity is generally seen as a deviance from the norm, and implicitly the correct way of
being. This symbolism consequently makes LGBT+ Christians symbolic of corruption,
loss of boundaries, and selfish individualism 25.
These concepts are still fully functional in the UMC, although the relatively recent
legalization of civil same-sex marriage and increasing visibility of LGBT+ persons in a
positive light has diminished them slightly. I did not witness any overt discrimination
against LGBT+ Christians or allies during the 2016 General Conference. The
expressions of homophobia and heterosexism I observed stemmed from a general lack
of understanding or desire to understand LGBT+ identity and experience.
First, the UMC affirms that all people are of sacred worth regardless of gender or
sexual orientation, but it doesnt specify what genders or sexual orientations it
recognizes theologically26. Only those who engage in same-sex and heterosexual
sexual activity are mentioned in the Discipline. The UMC has no language describing its
25 Udis-Kessler, Amanda. Queer Inclusion in the United Methodist Church. N.p.: Routledge, 2015. Print.
26 The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, 2012. Nashville, TN: United Methodist
Pub. House, 2016. Cokesbury, 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
15
understanding of transgender, bisexual, asexual, intersex, or any identities other than
male, female, gay and straight. This lack of theological foundation is problematic
because what is used to make decisions is cultural perception of these identities rather
than doctrine about the existence or treatment of such Christians.
Second, the delegates themselves did not have educated cultural perceptions to
change the Discipline in a meaningful way. In the subcommittee I observed, Church and
Society B, several delegates asked for the definition of gender identity and
transgender. One delegate asked something to the effect of, How can a boy think hes
a girl? It doesnt make any sense. They were discussing a proposal to add a resolution
protecting transgender people from violence and discrimination. However, even after an
explanation of transgender identity, the delegates didnt seem to use the information to
ask theological questions about gender identity and how it fits into current United
Methodist understanding of morality. It felt as though the proposal had become pointless
to discuss. If some delegates dont understand the concept of a transgender person,
how can they be expected to vote on proposals to include them? However, I dont know
the experience or knowledge of the delegates in the committee and it is possible there
was no in-depth theological discussion because of time constraint or the fact that there
was no petition specifically addressing including more identities in the Discipline.
From my point of view, many delegates were not comfortable or prepared to
discuss identities other than homosexual. That mixture of ignorance and discomfort
seriously hindered the legislation made at General Conference. In essence, no one was
willing to argue the theology behind the negative emotions and ideas associated with
LGBT+ Christians and their involvement in faith, relationships, and family-building.
16
However, the debate is also not reducible to homophobia or heterosexism.
United Methodists do not condone any civil discrimination based on gender or sexual
orientation, and consider LGBT+ Christians of sacred worth 27. Yet none of these
inclusive statements negate the theological belief that God restricts sexual activity in
certain ways, including same-sex relationships. The UMC can certainly improve the way
it reacts emotionally to LGBT+ Christians on many levels, and education can help
delegates develop theological beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity; yet
there remains a fundamental disagreement over the theological validity of the
restrictions around marriage and ordination.
Social Closure
Next Udis-Kessler draws from sociologist Max Webers concept social closure,
the process whereby one group monopolizes advantages by closing off rewards and
opportunities to another group defined as outsiders 28. In this case, traditionalist United
Methodists close opportunities for marriage and ordination to LGBT+ Christians.
Most of the elements Udis-Kessler describes as a functioning of social closure
were present in both the 2000 and 2016 General Conferences. For example, part of the
definition of social closure includes designation of a group as second-class citizens 29.
The Book of Discipline singles out homosexuality as the only thing considered officially
incompatible with Christian teachings. This elevates the sin of sexual activity outside
heterosexual marriage to something worse than all other actions described as sinful by
27 "Paragraph 161: The Nurturing Community." The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist
Church, 2012. Nashville, TN: United Methodist Pub. House, 2016. 110-19. Cokesbury, 2016. Web.
23 Mar. 2017.
17
the UMC. Even celibate LGB Christians are considered at risk, because any action
toward their natural sexual inclination would be considered sinful. Admitting to an active
sexuality other than heterosexual means the denial of the marriage and ordination rights
available to all other Christians. No other identity has such social or emotional
repercussions. Since the language has not changed since 2000, the second-class
citizen problems have also remained unchanged. Several pastors I spoke to mentioned
the potential hypocrisy of singling out same-sex relationships. Rev. Paul Stallsworth
considers the language hypocritical, but wants to add more stipulations:
My problem with that section of the discipline is that it points out that homosexual
practice is incompatible with Christian teaching. There are a lot of things in the
realm of human sexuality that are incompatible with Christian teaching: the
carrying on of affairs, premarital sex, masturbation, the use of pornography...Why
is it that only homosexual practice gets lifted up? Now Im not making the
argument Sarah, as you well know, that we should do away with that stipulation.
What I'm saying is that we should have more stipulations, as the attorneys would
have it. You know, I think the deal is that Methodists like to make as few people
mad as possible... I think it's a terrible principle, but I think that's where we are
today. It was the homosexual community, because it was more vocal, that got
picked on... I'm going to say we should intend to make more people mad in what
we teach. Why would a pastor say such a stupid thing? Because I think God can
use offense and anger for divine purposes. And so, strangely enough, we should
increase the number of people who are alienated by the church's teaching in the
hopes that God will use that alienation to claim men and women.
18
Rev. Bingham considers the language hypocritical, but wants to remove the stipulations:
Why are we picking one? I mean theres other things I can come up with as a
chargeable offense. It seems to me that pastors whowell I dont need to pick
another fight, but there are some other things that we could do. My thing there
was that we were never willing...to stand up and argue the doctrine, the doctrinal
question. They wanted to make it a simple offense on the action and not to
wrestle with, what is it we say about persons? If we are made in the image of God
and male and female God creates us, what does that mean? ...And theres a
tension in all that between how I am created and the life I choose to follow after I
choose to follow Jesus. If I sounded like I would go to adding it Im just saying
no, I have a longer list of things I might consider incompatible. How do we get to
deciding what that list is, and having a deeper, fuller understanding of
incompatible rather than staying focused on a very narrow slice? For me the point
is, if you're conservative and you argue that no more than one or two percent of
the population is gay, then so why do you spend so much time obsessing over the
one or two percent when the other 98 are sinful people in just different ways?
Please. Why? Because its easier to talk about them. Its easier to talk about
them. I dont know if we need to have a longer list of chargeable offenses. I think
we need to have a more grace filled way of looking at how we live and work
together.
19
Pastors on both sides of the debate over the role of LGBT+ Christians in the
UMC acknowledge the shortcomings of the current doctrine. However, removing the
phrase describing homosexuality as incompatible with Christian teaching appears like
a weakening of traditionalist commitment, so the language has become more firmly
entrenched than ever. Social closure is also marked by the powerful group maintaining
and sometimes increasing the barriers present to the less powerful group 30. For
example, traditional groups wish to maintain the language of the Discipline or
strengthen language stating that the UMC does not support same-sex relationships 31.
The entire concept of schism is also arguably a closure strategy, because the result is
that the traditional group successfully removes progressives on this issue from their
group.
However, there have been some changes to this atmosphere in 16 years. Udis-
Kessler described proposals in 2000 which sought to remove sexual orientation from
the class of people the church thought should have protected civil rights 32. In 2016, it
appears General Conference has fully accepted that LGBT+ people should receive civil
rights and are of sacred worth to God. Udis-Kessler also described how there was
almost no representation of LGBT+ Christians at the 2000 General Conference 33. This
situation has improved. Although it is impossible to know how many delegates at the
General Conference were LGBT+, there were several openly LGBT+ delegates who
made speeches and advocated for a change in language. As I mentioned before, in
31 Lambrecht, Thomas A. "Petition 60836." Petition Text. United Methodist Church, 14 May 2016.
Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
20
2016 the first openly lesbian, married woman was made a bishop 34. The Reconciling
Ministries Network as well as Love Wins and other progressive organizations had a
visible, active presence at General Conference.
My assessment of this component of Udis-Kesslers analysis is very similar to her
analysis of homophobia and heterosexism. The issue of social closure is a crucial and
current part of the debate, but it also does not ultimately remove theological beliefs
about the moral restrictions on sexual relationships.
Contradictory Institutional Logics
Finally, Udis-Kessler drew on a concept called contradictory institutional logics.
She describes it as the conflict in a person or organization between two ideologies, for
our purposes between democracy and religion 35. This concept is a fundamental part of
the debate over the role of LGBT+ Christians in the UMC and is present in the 2016
General Conference as well.
The main problem is that traditionalist and moderate United Methodists appeal
more to religious logic such as holiness and Scripture, while progressives appeal to
democratic arguments like equality and social justice. The difference in ideology was
already partially addressed in the culture wars section, but it causes more conflict in the
political context of General Conference. Traditionalists usually outnumber progressives
in votes at General Conference, which means traditionalists control what can be
changed in the Book of Discipline. This gap forces progressive Methodists to enact their
34 Gilbert, Kathy L. "Western Jurisdiction Elects Openly Gay United Methodist Bishop." The United
Methodist Church. United Methodist Communications, 15 July 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
21
democratic logic of social justice. Progressives wear rainbow stoles, protest conference-
wide sessions, and engage in acts of disobedience to keep the debate relevant in
unorthodox ways. However, not all democratic concepts are created equal. Moderates
perceive traditionalists as using the democratic system appropriately while progressives
are intruding on the process with protests and stalling tactics. Ironically, progressives
alienate the only moderates who could give them enough votes to change the Discipline
by protesting to raise the issue in the first place. What you end up with is traditionalists
using conventional politics to justify their beliefs, and progressives using their beliefs to
justify their unconventional politics; moderates find the progressives unsettling and so
side with traditionalists and keep the doctrine the same.
Global Nature of the Church
All four of these elements are within the wider context of the global church. The
UMC has 12.8 million members in six continents. Although Methodism first began with
John Wesley in England, the UMC is overwhelmingly American in its foundations and
leadership. American United Methodists account for 7.2 million of the members, and
make up a majority of the delegates present at General Conference. The debate over
the role of LGBT+ Christians in the UMC is also the most powerful in America, where
strong opposing views of the debate clash. However, the denomination is growing in
Africa and the Philippines and shrinking in Europe and America 36. Over the past ten
years, the membership of the Africa Central Conference increased by 329 percent,
while the Northern Europe and Eurasia conferences decreased by 30 percent 37. Along
36 Hahn, Heather. "U.S. Church Sees Numbers Slide in 2015." The United Methodist Church. United
Methodist Communications, 18 Nov. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
37 Barker, Rev. Amy Valdez. "Commentary: Numbers Matter, but so Do Mission and Ministry."The
United Methodist Church. United Methodist Communications, 6 Apr. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
22
with the shift in demographics, the UMC is increasing the representation of the growing
Central Conferences. This plays out in two important ways. First, the African Central
Conferences, which are the largest, tend to follow traditionalist lines; this means
traditionalists will grow more powerful politically. Second, the African Central
Conferences view human sexuality differently. The LGBT+ rights movement in Africa is
very small, and in some countries, there are legal punishments for homosexual activity
or same-sex weddings38. In addition, one African delegate in Church and Society B said
they believed polygamy was a more relevant human sexuality concern in their context.
This difference makes resolving the debate universally nearly impossible, because what
some Methodists are calling for in American jurisdictions is either unwanted or
potentially dangerous in African Central Conferences. This demographic shift has been
occurring slowly, and the full consequences of such a shift on the debate remain to be
seen.
Conclusions from the Comparison
I learned from comparing the 2000 and 2016 General Conferences that although
time has changed demographics and made the church slightly more inclusive of LGBT+
Christians, sixteen years of debate over the role of LGBT+ Christians has not changed
the political structure, stereotypical beliefs, excluding practices, or the doctrine of the
UMC.
My observations at General Conference are useful for understanding the overall
components of the debate, including the main ideological differences and how they play
38 Directorate, Global Legal Research. "Laws on Homosexuality in African Nations." Laws on

Homosexuality in African Nations. The Law Library of Congress, 01 Feb. 2014. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
23
out on a larger political scale. However, observation on a denominational level often
obscures important differences, as well as the way these differences came about. For
example, the traditionalist and progressive camps are important groups to understand,
but no pastor fits in one perfectly. For example, Rev. Newman feels he has been forced
into a camp to maintain his core theological beliefs:
I said, If we can just backup, if you could draw some lines, you would find
a lot of people to be supportive. If we could talk just about same-sex
weddings...you would find a lot of support from the people youre alienating
because weve got to talk about bisexuals and the transgenders...but apart from
that we keep adding more, and that's where I said, Ive got to check out of the
debate, because I can't go all the other letters. Ive found myself pushed further
and further and further towards the more traditional orany word I use here is
going to be polarizing and not helpful. I don't know the better language to say the
traditional view of the church. I have been pushed further and further, and part of
that I resent because Ive had to kick in my heels. But youve got to draw a line
somewhere
In this case, the pressure of choosing a course of action on a denominational
level forced Rev. Newman to subordinate his own nuanced view in favor of a narrower
camp that most similarly reflected his beliefs. In the same way, General Conference
describes how social closure and heteronormative culture functions in the church, but
not how those concepts are created and reinforced in individuals.
Research with NC Pastors
24
In order to understand how the overarching concepts at General Conference
originate in individuals and the nuances of the debate over the role of LGBT+ Christians
on a smaller scale, I chose to conduct interviews with twelve North Carolina pastors
about their personal experiences and the debate in their communities.
Pastors are uniquely positioned to discuss the debate. On the one hand, pastors
understand the theology and politics behind the doctrine of the UMC. Each pastor I
spoke to went to divinity school and is in regular contact with the higher-level
organization of the church. Four of the pastors I interviewed attended the 2016 General
Conference, three as delegates and one as an observer. On the other hand, pastors
serve local congregations; they hear a wide variety of opinions and lead according to
their best understanding. Outside of the strict methods of decision-making at General
Conference, individual pastors can express the nuance of their beliefs, although not
always publicly.
During my conversations, I discovered several themes described by many of the
pastors which I believe contribute to the debate on a congregational and global level.
Some of these explain more fully the phenomena described at General Conference,
while others account for a wider variety of beliefs which cannot be given voice in a
larger setting.
Early Experience/ Silence
The first trend the pastors mentioned is a near total silence in their early years
concerning human sexuality and LGBT+ experience. In this section I will describe the
extent of this silence, the negative implications of silence for LGBT+ Christians, and the
25
connection between this silence and the homophobia and heterosexism described by
Udis-Kessler at the General Conference level.
A majority of pastors I spoke to described human sexuality, including LGBT+
identity as something taboo, an issue not to be spoken of and simultaneously given a
negative aura. An anonymous pastor who wished to be named Bocephus described the
majority experience:
Growing up I don't remember ever hearing something explicitly against
the practice or the life of homosexuals. You know that there must've been
something, because somewhere in there I got the impression that it was wrong.
So, it's a weird, somehow it was there but I don't remember ever hearing it
explicitly stated.
This silence is not neutral towards LGBT+ Christians. Silence can occur because
it is the experience of the majority. For example, few people are concerned by the
number of men in Congress when the US is half female because men have historically
exercised greater power in political representation. Yet silence can also stifle a minority
experience. For example, the way textbooks used to, and to an extent still do, gloss
over the oppression of Native Americans as a part of the foundation of the United
States. LGBT+ Christians are subject to the second kind of silence. To voice their
concerns, they must break the silence around human sexuality in the church, but in
doing so they challenge comfortable norms. They draw attention to themselves as
LGBT+, making their sexual or gender identity the most visible thing about them, when
the whole point is that their gender or sexuality shouldnt matter.
26
As such, larger silence around human sexuality creates a vague, negative
concept of LGBT+ identity. Nine of the twelve pastors described learning early that
LGBT+ identity was something negative, four of which remember terms like gay or
queer being used as insults. LGBT+ persons were also understood to be less than the
ideal of their gender, and probably promiscuous. Here is Rev. Stallsworth, an
experienced pastor from Whiteville, North Carolina describing an early episode:
And there were rumors of, particularly adults, or one adult in particular,
who was an alleged practicing homosexual. Very odd in the southwestern Kansas
town where I grew up. That particular man was not well respected by the boys
that I grew up with. His name was used in derision. And again, the church said
nothing. It wasn't an ideal situation, and when I look back on this, it was shameful
what those boys and young men were doing with regard to this man.
What results from experiences like these are generations of Christians
absorbing negative stereotypes surrounding LGBT+ identity while at the same time
understanding sexuality as a topic not to be discussed or challenged.
Because silence creates negative stereotypes of LGBT+ Christians, this
congregational level silence contributes to the homophobia and heterosexism described
by Udis-Kessler at the General Conference level. United Methodists who do not usually
discuss human sexuality and implicitly view LGBT+ Christians negatively bring those
feelings with them late in life in the form of discomfort and restricted conversation.
Indeed, most of the pastors I spoke with had not attempted explicit conversations
27
surrounding LGBT+ identity or the debate in their churches out of the desire to maintain
a positive and unified faith environment.
The trend of silence around human sexuality in the UMC is crucial to understand
because it discourages discussion in the first place. Silence obscures the experience of
LGBT+ Christians and makes those who wish to bring up the subject appear to be going
against tradition. United Methodists challenging this barrier might consider intentionally
teach more about sexuality, and describing it as relevant to all United Methodists rather
than the concern of minority group.
Culture
The second trend I gleaned from the responses of pastors was a correlation
between their beliefs about the debate over the role of LGBT+ Christians in the UMC
and their overall belief about how culture and the church should intersect. In this section
I will describe a framework for understanding different views about culture and provide
quotes from pastors on a spectrum from certainty to ambiguity.
Ten of the twelve pastors acknowledged that culture influences religious beliefs;
however, they all interpret this understanding differently. Participant Rev. Stallsworth
informed me of the book Christ and Culture by H. Richard Niebuhr, a theological work
describing how Christians attempt to live under the authority of Christ while interacting
with the culture around them. Christians may see religion and culture in opposition as
Christ against Culture, in agreement as Christ and Culture; the two can also be a
mixture of both as Christ above Culture where Christ might be a fulfillment of culture,
28
in tension with culture, or a converter of culture 39. I didnt ask each pastor about
Niebuhrs ideas, but his outline of this tension provides a helpful framework. The rise of
LGBT+ rights in America is largely a result of cultural change; the internal debate over
the role of LGBT+ Christians in the UMC started when that cultural change was applied
to the church. What pastors believe about the relationship between Christ and culture
informs how they react to the cultural change in LGBT+ roles being used to change
church doctrine. Some, like Rev. Stallsworth, see Christ as a converter of culture:
My argument is that the body of Christ, church, is a culture. I think Christ
works through precisely that culture in, as we Methodists say and as more
importantly Jesus said, making disciples. So, the churchs culture is what
determines. The larger culture I think has an input and an impact, no doubt about
it, but what's formative is the church as culture.
Rev. Stallsworths view is that Christ as a converter should not be affected by the
cultural changes of the world; the church can safely ignore the LGBT+ rights movement
happening in America because it is not theologically relevant. Rev. Stallsworth does not
believe the restrictions around same-sex marriage or LGBT+ ordination should change
with cultural perception. Rev. Newman, father and pastor of a church in Holly Springs,
takes a slightly different approach, but with a similar conclusion:
Well if I was quoting Niebuhr, I would probably be Christ against culture.
The culture I see is moving in a direction opposite to biblical values... Our cultures
become more secular and hostile towards religion...in any shape, form, or
fashion.
39 Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001. Print.
29
Rev. Newman feels threatened by culture and is more likely to consider it a
negative rather than a positive pressure. As such, the LGBT+ rights movement is
interpreted as a dissolving of Christian moral values. Rev. Bergland, an experienced
pastor and three-time General Conference delegate, describes a view in which Christ
works in tandem with culture:
I think culture has a tremendous impact. I think the message of the
Gospel and what God is doing in human life remains the same. I think it's
expressed a little differently in different places. Sometimes, real different.
Rev. Bergland in other parts of the interview is very concerned with upholding the
standards for clergy and marriage, but those standards appear flexible with context,
similar to the UMCs alcohol policy, which ranges from complete temperance to beer
and hymns. While Rev. Bergland may or may not support changing the doctrine, he
acknowledges that the church does and possibly should respond to cultural shifts.
Lastly, it seemed Rev. Yebuah expressed Christ and culture as something mysterious,
especially to humans who are stuck in their own cultural context:
A lot of people underestimate just how deeply, how deeply, we are shaped
by cultural milieu...We just think when you're in that culture, you just think this is
just the way it is, but you dont realize youre actually functioning or operating out
of something, until you are faced with another...culture that may navigate the
world differently.
30
Rev. Yebuahs statement reflects a view in which understanding of Christ is
always reflected through a cultural lens. Without taking culture into account the UMC
cannot accurately understand the will of God.
A pastors relationship to culture will influence their view of concerns they see as
emanating from culture. The connection between a pastors views about culture and
their views about the debate are incredibly important, because the former variation is
considered acceptable while the latter is not; the UMC allows different beliefs about
culture to exist in the church, but not different views about the role of LGBT+ persons.
United Methodists may want to consider whether or not differences in belief about
culture, and the consequences of those differences, are allowable within the UMC. If the
answer is yes, then the church must negotiate the conflicts which arise from this
ideological difference.
The Holy Purpose of Marriage
There is also a correlation between a pastors theological understanding of the
holy purpose of marriage and their views on the debate over the role of LGBT+
Christians in the UMC. In this section I will describe how the structure of the UMC
allows many different beliefs on one defined topic, outline pastors beliefs about
marriage on a spectrum from clearly defined to ambiguous limitations, and show how
biblical interpretation makes these variations nearly impossible to avoid.
To understand these nuanced views, it is important to understand how the UMC
creates doctrine. When doctrine appears in the Book of Discipline, there is not always
theological reasoning provided. For example, the doctrine regarding marriage in the
31
UMC is as follows: We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in
love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a
woman. We believe that Gods blessing rests upon such marriage, whether or not there
are children of the union. We reject social norms that assume different standards for
women than for men in marriage. We support laws in civil society that define marriage
as the union of one man and one woman. There is a later a phrase, sexual relations
are affirmed only within the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage. 40 The
language in the doctrine concerning ordination is that self-avowed, practicing
homosexuals cannot be ordained41. Nowhere in that doctrine is a theological
explanation for the statements. On the one hand, this creates a big tent, with room for
lots of variation in belief and practice. United Methodists, including participant Rev.
Cheryl Lawrence, often quote St. Augustine: in essentials, unity; in nonessentials,
liberty; in all things, charity. Not providing an explanation avoids requiring uniform belief
while maintaining unity. However, not legislating belief about marriage results in different
definitions of marriage which have conflicting gender and sexuality limitations. For
example, Rev. Thomas Simpson describes what he calls the Biblical model of
marriage:
I think Scripture to me clearly mandates a biblical type of marriage. If you
look into Genesis where male and female were created and then he created
Adam and Eve and put them together to procreate...Does that mean that that
40 "Paragraph 161: The Nurturing Community." The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist
23 Mar. 2017.
41 "Paragraph 304: Qualifications for Ordination." The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist
23 Mar. 2017.
32
other people can't have a committed relationship where they love one another and
all of that? No.... it's not, in my opinion, it is not biblical.
In Rev. Simpsons case, marriage is strictly following the biblical account and
includes procreation. Rev. Newman describes marriage within the Gods natural design
of the world:
God created a natural order.... And the further we step outside of God's
natural order, the more hardship we bring on ourselves...Germane to the question
you asked, when it comes to human sexuality, we are created man for woman,
and woman for man...So with that in mind, the original plan for us was to be
natured heterosexual, and those who are not natured heterosexual, outside the
bonds of a traditional marriage, may need to consider lifelong celibacy.
Rev. Newmans definition described marriage as something fundamental and
possibly biological, deeper than a social convention. Again, the restrictions are one man
and one woman in a heterosexual relationship. Rev. Lawrence describes Duke Divinity
professor Stanley Hauerwas slightly different view:
He believed that the purpose of marriage was to provide a safe
environment to raise children. I would say that if you framed marriage within that
in order to provide a safe place to raise children that you would not exclude gays
from that. He was very against the idea that you fall in love and get married,
because if that's the reason that you get married then when you fall out of love
that gives you a reason not to be married. So, if you reframe marriage based on it
33
being safe place to raise children then you have to have a different conversation
when you talk about divorce.
Professor Hauerwas definition turns the Western idea of love and marriage
upside-down, and has far-reaching implications for the way Methodists currently
describe and live out marriage. This description of marriage also has no gender or
sexuality limitations. Rev. Bocephus outlines still more nuance:
We talk about the rings in the marriage, but we don't actually affirm it as a
sacrament, but we talk about it in a sacramental way. So, if that's what it is, it's a
way of showing something external for us that we can see and see inside God's
personhood. Sexuality is included in that the marriage is not about procreation,
which is sometimes what folks can argue that, Oh well the reason its wrong as
you cant make babies, but the moment you do that you exclude anyone who is
heterosexual and just maybe biologically can't have children. So, you don't want
to say that. But if you go with it's a sacrament, then you can affirm at once that
sexuality in a marriage covenant can reveal something deeper about God's love
and grace in the way that maybe a non-marital sexuality might not. So, the act
itself doesn't matter if it's homosexual or heterosexual for the fact that it's a sign.
Just in the same way that you can use Kings Hawaiian bread and grape juice or
crackers and real wine. What it is isn't so much as important as what it can
convey.
In this definition, marriage is more spiritual than biological or social. Bocephus
definition also does not have gender or sexuality limitations.
34
Depending on what pastors believe the holy purpose of marriage is, the gender
and sexuality limitations change. The reason for difference in beliefs about marriage are
differences in Biblical interpretation. Some people argue that the language in the Bible
condemning same sex practice is unclear, and the words used to condemn same-sex
relationships in the Bible dont refer to the present-day definition of a same sex
marriage. However, even when Methodists do have a clear picture of marriage practice
in the Bible, they dont always follow it. Polygamy is present in the Bible, as are
arranged marriages, but most American Methodists dont consider these normal
religious practices.
I am not a biblical scholar and this research was not directed at the theological
evidence pastors provide for their beliefs. As such, I will only say that different biblical
interpretations are phenomena as old as the Bible itself, and is unlikely to end any time
soon. However, the differences in the belief about the purpose of marriage might be
regulated more than they are currently. Unless the UMC legislates reasoning for this
doctrine, the problem is unresolvable. There does not appear to be a way around the
predicament where each pastor is allowed to have their own belief about marriage but
some are not allowed to practice that belief.
Personal Relationships
I found another correlation between a pastors personal relationships and their
views of the debate over the role of LGBT+ Christians in the UMC. These can be split
into relationships with mentors and relationships with LGBT+ persons, although the
categories are not mutually exclusive. In this section, I will show some of the most
35
powerful relationships pastors described and the influence of these relationships on
their beliefs. However, although these relationships are certainly important, I will also
show they are limited in their ability to describe or resolve the debate.
When I asked pastors about what formed their view of the debate, most of them
pointed to friends or mentors rather than academic or theological study. For example,
Rev. Stallsworth described his relationship with Rev. Richard John Neuhaus as
formative:
I took a summer school class at Princeton Theological Seminary. Richard
John Neuhaus was the professor who had just written a book entitled Freedom for
Ministry. And at that point I was captured. When I saw Richard in front of our class
lecturing, leading, encouraging, critiquing, I believe that I said yes to God. That
was galvanizing to meNeuhaus might've been the one who mentioned it first in
the classroom as far as I was concerned. Of course, Richard was never married.
He was a single man. It was very odd, Richard was associated with the anti-
Vietnam War movement, and he was associated with the Civil Rights Movement.
When it came to matters related to Christian morality on a personal level he was
one who believed very much in the Methodist understanding of holiness. He
called people to the highest standard without apology. I was always fascinated by
that, and I think that's just what we pastors should do.
Rev. Stallsworth worked with Neuhaus later as an editor and pro-life advocate in
the abortion debate. Stallsworth considers Neuhaus life and principled stand against
abortion and same-sex marriage as faithfully upholding Christian values. It does not
36
seem to matter to Stallsworth that his interpretation of the Bible and his choices are so
influenced by knowing one person. In another example, Rev. Allen Bingham describes
his relationship with Jimmy Creech, the pastor who was defrocked for officiating a
same-sex marriage:
Jimmy Creech was one of the first United Methodists who married a
lesbian couple...We lost an effective pastor at that moment, and squelched the
calling of others who probably would have been just as effective. Not because of
Jimmys orientation, but because of Jimmys stand with others of homosexual
orientation. Easily one of the most effective pastors Ive been around, if not the
most. His first Sunday at Fairmont he greeted everybody at the back door when
we came in. When we came forward for Communion he called us each by name.
First Sunday. No small thing. He conducted our marriage without a book of
worship. It was in the bulletin, it was all there, but he didnt need it.... When it
comes to living that life hes one of the best Ive ever seen, and exemplified it in all
kinds of ways. Those are just the little things. So, Ive seen what happens when
you step out. And its probably made me more cautious, more careful.
In a similar way to Rev. Stallsworth, Rev. Bingham admires Jimmy Creech and
his actions. Creech is for Rev. Bingham living proof of the consequences of the churchs
doctrine--obviously gifted and spiritual people are excluded from the church and the
whole ministry is weakened because of it. Again, Rev. Bingham sees his relationship as
informative of his belief about the role of LGBT+ persons in the church rather than
something to be controlled for.
37
Aside from mentors there are personal relationships with LGBT+ persons and
allies. Only one of the six pastors who mentioned having such a relationship advocated
against same-sex marriage. These pastors consider the effects of the relationships on
their beliefs the most powerful influence toward inclusion. For example, Rev. Cheryl
Lawrences relationship with a child in her neighborhood gave her a theological
foundation to support LGBT+ persons:
My daughter was in fourth grade and befriended a boy who lived behind
us, and I can tell you that my husband and I knew that little boy was gay long
before he did. So, through that little boy I came to believe that he was born that
way. It wasnt a choice that he made, because as he grew up he was treated
horribly...the meanness got worse in middle school and high school, and so I don't
believe it was a choice that he ever made. If God created him that way, what God
creates is good. So, I keep that in mind, and in my experience, limited experience,
as a pastor of gay people, has been that most of them were similarly treated as
children and growing up and maybe even as adults, and that it is not a choice that
people would make.
Rev. Ben Williams discovered the ability of LGBT+ persons as clergy through his
friendship in divinity school:
This guy has been one of my closest friends. I don't care, Ive got to the
point where, I mean, I care more that youre my friend, I care more about the life
that weve shared together all of those things...He pulls me aside and he says,
38
So, Im gay. Im like, okay. Hes like, No, I mean like, I want to tell you that and
I want you to hear that, and Im like I hear that, okay. Hes like So does that
hurt our friend and Im like No, youre one of my great friends, like, no!. But,
what it did was it suddenly made, and youve heard this refrain, it made the issue
very personal for me, very quickly. Then journeying with him as we both went
through the ordination process...the pain he went through and the life he had to
live. For me to sit here and go, that guy, I know he's phenomenally gifted. I know
was called of God. He can preach circles around anybody Ive ever met. I watch
how he leads his congregation. That guy is called of God to preach and teach,
and what do I do with that?
Rev. Williams case is similar to Rev. Binghams in that knowing an LGBT+
Christian highlighted for him the costs of exclusion and the potential LGBT+ Christians
have to serve in the clergy faithfully. Rev. Williams acknowledges that his experience is
a common one, and reiterates the idea that being in relationship with LGBT+ Christians
is one of the most powerful ways to sway opinions in the debate.
However, it is worth mentioning the exception to this rule. Part of my reason for
conducting this research was that I perceived a belief in my community that if only
traditionalists on this issue were in relationship with LGBT+ persons or allies their mind
would change. In essence, many progressives consider the ignorance or hard-
heartedness of traditionalists the core of this debate. However, Rev. Thomas Simpson,
the pastor who supports the biblical model of marriage, said this about his relationship
with an LGBT+ person:
39
I met a guy in college I was good friends with who turned out to be gay. At
the time, it I guess I made it a bigger deal than I thought it was. Over the years
looking back at it, I regret telling him, because basically I told him once I found out
that we cant be friends anymore. I didnt understand why, just that all of the
sudden he had this stigma that was there. My appropriate reaction as I had been
taught was that I dont need to associate with this guy. Over the years, I'm sorry
that I had done that, because I think we could have still been good friends and
come to recognize that just because someone has a certain preference to gender
or sexuality doesn't necessarily mean some of the things that socially we are
conditioned or told that this is going to mean.
Rev. Simpson grew in his understanding of LGBT+ persons, lifted at least some
of the homophobia and heterosexism he grew up around, and came to view LGBT+
persons as part of the community. However, his commitment to an interpretation of the
Bible encourages him to maintain his position against same-sex marriage.
Relationships with LGBT+ persons and mentors are powerful indicators of a
persons views and have enormous consequences in both the congregational and
global setting. However, relationships in themselves do not resolve the underlying
theological disagreements present in the debate.
Covenant
Lastly, I will discuss the presence of covenant vows and acts of defiance against
church doctrine, and how they shape a pastors understanding and actions in the
debate over the role of LGBT+ Christians in the UMC. In this section I will describe the
40
state of mind of progressive, moderate, and traditionalist pastors when viewing their
vows and those who defy the church doctrine by performing same-sex weddings or
ordaining LGB clergy. From these personal relationships, I will then show the political
repercussions of breaking covenant in the church and its effect on the debate as a
whole.
Nearly every pastor I spoke to referenced their covenant vows and how those
vows influence their views. Before all pastors are ordained, they are asked to swear that
they understand and will uphold the Book of Discipline while they are clergy. They are
also asked to hold themselves to the highest standard of living to serve as an example
for others. Every pastor I spoke to who mentioned covenant reiterated how important it
was to keep their vows; indeed, they each cited covenant as a reason not to conduct
same-sex marriages or challenge the churchs doctrine in other ways. The more
emphasis a pastor places on the role of covenant in the church, the less likely they are
to support methods of protest or defiance to advance the progressive agenda. Even
those less emphatic about covenant would not break their vows except in very special
circumstances.
However, progressive pastors consider expanding the role of LGBT+ Christians
to include marriage and ordination is a special circumstance. Many progressive-leaning
pastors consider changing the doctrine to be a social justice issue, much like the
movements for the increased inclusion of women and people of color in the church.
Rev. Bocephus describes his understanding:
41
I do believe that it's a social justice issue and that for me causes some
anxiety in my own mind. Because growing up in Alabama, and the civil rights
being social justice issue, and the folks were, folks were, MLK was accused of
being sort of an extremist, like, Why are you, just wait, let's kind of work this out,
and the point was, no, people's rights are being denied. People are being killed.
And whether folks recognize it or not, members of the LGBTQI they are being
beaten, they are being abused, and theyre in many cases being killed. So, it's not
just simply a theological issue for someI'm very much torn between
understanding it as a social justice issue and also trying to say, but we need to
stay together. It's easy for straight white male to say, Well, lets hold on, lets try to
get this together, when I've got friends who have been denied ordination because
of their own God-given gift. That's it.
Pastors who identified LGBT+ inclusion in marriage and ordination to be a social
justice issue were more likely to favor acts of defiance or more vocal protests of the
current doctrine. Many, like Rev. Nash, view protesting the current doctrine to be a
matter of conscience:
One might equate it to the time of draft. Would you be willing to be a
conscientious objector? Would you go to jail? What would you forfeit for the
rightness of what you believe this to be when it is in contradiction with
organization or the covenant that youve agreed to participate in? ...Would I risk it
all to do that? Id like to think that I would... because I think that is the right side of
this to be on. Im convinced of it with my heart and soul... I'm not seeking it out,
Im not trying to advertise Please let me do this so I can prove a point. I havent
42
felt that call personally, but I know how I vote, and I know where I would stand,
and I would hope that if God said, This is what Im asking you to do, that I would
be willing to do that.
As evidenced by the increasing numbers of same-sex weddings officiated by
United Methodist pastors, and the recent election of a lesbian bishop in the United
States, more and more pastors are breaking their vows to achieve what they perceive to
be social justice. However, defying church doctrine and breaking vows makes moderate
and traditionalist pastors frustrated with the debate. First, pastors like Rev. Bergland
take issue with acts of defiance because they devalue the covenant all pastors make:
The very first sentence [of a paragraph in the Book of Discipline] says that
the ordained clergy face all the pressures and human frailties that are part of
society, but we are expected to live to the highest ideal...I think to erase all of that
means we dont stand for anything.If we begin to do that and we strike that, how
do I ask people who come to be baptized, do you renounce the spiritual forces of
wickedness and reject the evil powers of this world and repent of your sin?... And
if I don't live to that because I say I dont have to live to any ideal, that doesnt
mean anything.
Pastors who break their vows are essentially claiming that the changing beliefs of
some members of the UMC are stronger than their vows and the authority of the
General Conference. The second concern is the denominational fallout of some pastors
disregarding covenant vows. Rev. Newman explains:
43
Now the notion of covenant is secondary to some of the polarizing sort
ofeven to the point of the absurdity of [progressives] saying, We want to honor
the lifelong covenant of marriage with homosexual peoples, and in so doing were
going to break the covenant that we made when we were ordained to support the
discipline of church. Were going to subvert the conversation, the discussion.
Were going to jump to the end that we think is best and do what we want to do.
Which is a breach of covenant. There is no way to look at it other than a breach of
covenant when youre breaching the discipline. At this point its just total anarchy.
Weve got whole Annual Conferences, Jurisdictions, bishops being elected, that
its just not compatible. Our denomination has already split, and it's a matter of
acknowledging that and how do we divide assets? I feel like we need to go to
divorce court.
There is very little theological point in having a denomination if pastors are not
obligated to uphold the teachings of the church. Allowing pastors to break their vows
would delegitimize the church that pastors of all beliefs claim to be a part of. However,
without a clear path to change, breaking covenant vows is one of the only options to
achieving the goal progressive pastors want to see in the UMC. As long as the debate is
unresolved and the UMC is united the church will continue to struggle with this balance
of covenant and defiance.
Conclusion
As I have shown, discomfort with discussions of sexuality, differing beliefs about
the purpose of marriage, different ideologies about the influence of secular culture on
44
religion, the influence of personal relationships on theology, and the tension between
pastors upholding their covenant vows or following their conscience to defy church
policy are all major points of contention within the debate over the role of LGBT+
Christians in the UMC. Some of these concerns, like discussions about sexuality or the
influence of personal relationships can be altered with time; others, like the purpose of
marriage, require change to the doctrine. Still others, like views about culture and the
tension between covenant and social justice are ideological, and to some extent cannot
be resolved. The UMC and its pastors are currently negotiating which of these tensions
can be allowed to exist simultaneously in the church and which will force a schism.
My findings suggest the debate at the General Conference level is very similar to
the environment described sixteen years ago. General Conference is very politically
complex, but simplistic in its reduction of the varied cultural, political, and theological
views about human sexuality into two opposing camps. The major changes are seen in
the increasing representation of LGBT+ Christians and progressive views in church
leadership and the shift in demographics towards African membership. The increased
representation of LGBT+ Christians has kept the debate at the forefront of the
denomination and has somewhat reduced the homophobia and heterosexism described
in the 2000 General Conference. The demographic shift appears as though it will
solidify the current language stating the role of LGBT+ Christians does not extend to
marriage or ordination.
However, my findings at the local level both reiterate and complicate the trends
described at General Conference. The homophobia and heterosexism described at
General Conference is partially explained by the silence surrounding human sexuality in
45
the church. Several pastors describe struggling with this atmosphere when facilitating
discussions. The disagreement on the denominational level about the doctrinal
definition of marriage can be explained by the fact that the doctrine does not mandate
uniform reasoning behind the definition. Therefore, pastors have different theological
beliefs about the purpose marriage which leads them to different beliefs about who can
and cannot be married. The difference in ideology described by Udis-Kessler as culture
wars is also represented on a local level by how pastors view pressure on the church
they see as originating in outside culture. Pastors who view culture as threatening or
separate from religion are less likely to support same-sex marriage or LGBT+ ordination
than those who see cultural influence as a natural part of religious belief. Although
personal relationships were mentioned less at General Conference, I found that
personal relationships with either mentors or LGBT+ Christians had an enormous
impact on pastors view of the debate. Pastors tended to emulate, or at least deeply
respect, the views of their mentors, and relationships with LGBT+ Christians made
pastors much more sympathetic to the inclusion of LGBT+ Christians. Although personal
relationships are no guarantee of changing a pastors view, they appear effective in
reducing prejudice against LGBT+ persons and a creating openness to LGBT+
Christians in other aspects of church life. Finally, the clergy in the debate balance their
respect for their covenant vows with the acts of defiance committed by progressive
pastors. Pastors who most value covenant are frustrated with the defiant pastors who
do not share those values; they also fear that once pastors set a precedent for defying
doctrine they dislike the unity of the UMC on all kinds of issues will fall apart. On the
other hand, pastors who feel the inclusion of LGBT+ Christians in marriage and
46
ordination is a matter of conscience feel compelled to protest despite the risks; in turn,
these progressive pastors are frustrated with those who do not protest, as they are
perpetuating perceived injustice. How a pastor feels about the concept of social justice
applied to same-sex marriage and ordination as well as their commitment to covenant
vows will influence their actions and their feelings towards pastors who feel differently.
The debate in the United Methodist Church over the role of LGBT+ Christians is
far from over. In the next two years, the UMC will host a special session of General
Conference where the debate will be discussed further and perhaps a change in the
doctrine might be made to resolve these disagreements and preserve the
denomination42. However, regardless of the decisions made then, it is important that
delegates, pastors, and members of the UMC acknowledge the common phenomena
which are influencing their view of the debate. In doing so, all United Methodists can
open their hearts to one another, their minds to different understanding, and their doors
to all people without compromising the principles which define the denomination.
42 United Methodist Communications. "Council of Bishops to Call for 2019 General Conference."
The United Methodist Church. N.p., 2 Nov. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
47
Works Cited
Authorized by The Commission on The General Conference., and Printed and
Distributed by The United Methodist Publishing House. "Rules of Order." Daily Christian
Advocate. Proc. of General Conference 2016, Portland. Vol. 1. N.p.: United Methodist
House, 2016. 93-94. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Barker, Rev. Amy Valdez. "Commentary: Numbers Matter, but so Do Mission and
Ministry."The United Methodist Church. United Methodist Communications, 6 Apr. 2016.
Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
"Book of Resolutions, The." The United Methodist Church. United Methodist
"Constitutional Structure." The United Methodist Church. United Methodist
Directorate, Global Legal Research. "Laws on Homosexuality in African Nations." Laws
on Homosexuality in African Nations. The Law Library of Congress, 01 Feb. 2014. Web.
23 Mar. 2017.
48
Gilbert, Kathy L. "GC2016 Tackling 44-year Stance on Homosexuality." The United
Methodist Church. United Methodist Communications, 27 Apr. 2016. Web. 23 Mar.
2017.
Gilbert, Kathy L., and Heather Hahn. "Update: Frank Schaefer Reinstated as United
Methodist Pastor." The United Methodist Church. United Methodist Communications, 24
June 2014. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Gilbert, Kathy L. "Western Jurisdiction Elects Openly Gay United Methodist Bishop."
The United Methodist Church. United Methodist Communications, 15 July 2016. Web.
23 Mar. 2017.
"Glossary: Book of Discipline, The." The United Methodist Church. United Methodist
Hahn, Heather. "U.S. Church Sees Numbers Slide in 2015." The United Methodist
Church. United Methodist Communications, 18 Nov. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Hahn, Heather. "GC2016: The Debate about How to Debate Sexuality." The United
Methodist Church. United Methodist Communications, 15 Apr. 2015. Web. 23 Mar.
2017.
"Homosexuality: Full Book of Discipline Statements." The United Methodist Church.
United Methodist Communications, 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001.
Print.
49
"Organization: The Church as Connection." The United Methodist Church. United
Methodist Communications, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
"Paragraph 304: Qualifications for Ordination." The Book of Discipline of the United
Methodist Church, 2012. Nashville, TN: United Methodist Pub. House, 2016. 225-226.
Cokesbury, 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
"Paragraph 161: The Nurturing Community." The Book of Discipline of the United
Methodist Church, 2012. Nashville, TN: United Methodist Pub. House, 2016. 110-19.
Cokesbury, 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
The Associated Press. "Pastor Defrocked for Holding Gay Marriage." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 17 Nov. 1999. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, 2012. Nashville, TN: United
Methodist Pub. House, 2016. Cokesbury, 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Udis-Kessler, Amanda. Queer Inclusion in the United Methodist Church. N.p.:
Routledge, 2015. Print.
United Methodist Communications. "Council of Bishops to Call for 2019 General
Conference." The United Methodist Church. N.p., 2 Nov. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
"UM Data Home." UM Data. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
50

Reli 696 Researchpaper

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Reli 696 Researchpaper

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors: Understanding

the Debate over the Role of LGBT+ Christians in the

self-avowed, practicing homosexuals.1 Protests and defiance of this doctrine have

a question which threatens to divide the denomination?

with but did not entirely understand.

assessing primary and secondary sources, observation, and ethnographic interviews.

My original research consists of my observations at the 2016 General Conference and

interviews with twelve United Methodist pastors from North Carolina.

General Conference is a global meeting of United Methodists held every four

years in which delegates update doctrine in response to worldly concerns. The

discussed proposals referencing same-sex marriage and LGBT+ ordination. During my

organizations advocating for particular stances on these issues.

participants from demographics representative of the pastors in North Carolina as well

as from a spectrum of opinion. However, this topic is controversial, so most pastors

on participant willingness to conduct interviews. The interviews themselves were semi-

structured, recorded, and transcribed. I included prepared questions concerning the

Methodist membership is increasing in the African continent and decreasing in North

to achieve a delegate majority at General Conference. However, while General

debate, but fostering personal relationships cannot resolve underlying theological

disagreements. The debate stems from a combination of discomfort with discussions of

covenant vows or following their conscience to defy church policy.

asking Do you believe in same-sex marriage and the ordination of self-avowed,

practicing homosexuals? Understanding the debate lies in isolating these fundamental

can exist within one denomination.

A Word About Language

marginalization of LGBT+ Christians encouraged me to treat this debate as studying the

role of all LGBT+ Christians in the UMC.

Second is the choice of language referring to Christians of non-majority sexual

recognized or discussed at General Conference. During my research, I have read and

unique manifestation in the United Methodist denomination, a short history and

organized in five American Jurisdictional Conferences and seven Central Conferences

Conferences7. For example, the North Carolina Annual Conference is in the

Southeastern Jurisdictional Conference which is overseen by General Conference.

The top-level of the UMC is organized similarly to the American three-branch

system of government. The executive branch is the Council of Bishops. Bishops

Discipline9. The Book of Resolutions is a teaching document, containing policy

to punishment by the judiciary11.

General Conference, a delegate asked what ensuring rights to homosexuals actually

Conferences added language to the Book of Discipline that prevented same-sex

marriage, ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals, using church funds to

quote promote the acceptance of homosexuality, and made conducting a same-sex

over church doctrine surrounding human sexuality. Protests at General Conference,

Initially most of our teaching about homosexuality was in the Book of

document so we dont have to follow those as a course of discipline. So, his

[Creechs] initial defense was, Homosexuality is in the Book of Resolutions, so its

a teaching document but its not required.

significance of the change:

teaching doctrine contrary to the United Methodist Church. Now it became an

document. Now youre insisting we have to follow everything in the teaching

moderation, abstinence. Because thats where we were when we first adopted

Principles.... And no ones bold enough to stand up on the floor of General

to make it a chargeable offense.

However, the move of General Conference to increase repercussions for such

been thirteen complaints against clergy for practicing homosexuality or officiating

concerning LGBT+ Christians interrupted proceedings. Shortly after the Conference

Udis-Kesslers Research and the 2016 General Conference

acknowledges her progressive bias, the ethnography is a comprehensive account of the

and contradictory institutional logics.

Christians. Progressives, also known as inclusionists and liberals, wish language

prohibiting same-sex marriage or LGBT+ ordination to be removed. They consider truth

to be subjective, the Bible a holy source to be understood in context, and culture as a

people regardless of identity. As such, progressives are prepared to protest or break

participant Rev. Laura Ledford describes them well: