Illustration Courtesy of Chris Ritter
Spokespeople of the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) like Chris Ritter like to put United Methodists into theological boxes to push his perspective that most United Methodists fit into WCA thinking. I challenge that notion.
One of the most recent assumptions made by Dr. Ritter is that: “The majority of United Methodists believe what the Book of Discipline teaches about human sexuality whether they are vocal about this or not.”*
Who says? It’s a perception without any factual basis.
From my own experience of more than four decades, I would venture to say the majority of United Methodists don’t even know there is a Book of Discipline or if they do know, only know it is a book of law for the denomination. I also observe that most United Methodists don’t live their lives on a denominational level but on a congregational level where they learn about and exercise their Christian faith far from any Book of Discipline.
Dr. Ritter states that he has “to abandon hopes for a lasting structural peace that uses our current definition of Connectionalism AND includes all the players currently in the UMC,” due to the election of the openly lesbian Rev. Karen Oliveto to the general superintendency AKA episcopal office – bishop. Continuing – progressives in the church “decided that acceptance of same-sex marriage is a fait accompli in order to have a future.” I love how people think for me without asking and then even speak for my viewpoint.
A fuller understanding
My own decision to accept a fuller understanding of human sexuality as experienced in the lives of LGBTQ United Methodists was in getting to know them personally and coming to an understanding that they were not “practicing homosexuality” (as stated by church discipline) but living out who they are as loving, caring human beings. The same-gender couples, whom I have come to know, are committed in a lifelong relationship with each other based on a deep-seated love while living out their faith as committed United Methodist disciples. I did not come to this understanding by the sway of U.S. culture, but through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
As a United Methodist clergyperson, if I were asked to perform a same-gender wedding, I would need to respectfully decline because I do accept the authority of the church in performing only different-gender weddings. However, at the same time, I believe the church is wrong on this issue and has been wrong since it had a mind and vote to say that “homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” That statement depends on which Christians you ask.
The neo-orthodox United Methodists, who retain this wording, state Scripture and church tradition are their authority. For decades, I have hoped for the enlightenment of my fellow colleagues who are conservatives, but find them dogmatic, unwilling to talk about this issue in civil discourse and willing to try any political maneuver possible to block my voice and vote. My authority is the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the interpretation of Scripture and the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit.
I love how people think for me without asking and then even speak for my viewpoint.
Dr. Ritter goes on to say that “the absolutism of the far left tends to dash hopes for a stable settlement” of this issue. But then admits: “Traditionalists have the votes at General Conference to keep the language in the Discipline as it now stands...” By “traditionalists” I think he really means uncompromising conservatives, for many progressives, including myself, believe themselves to be traditionalists in the sense of being Wesleyan, but dislike how many conservatives tend to pick their titles to defend their superiority as United Methodists true to the tradition. In reality they are more in tune theologically with Free Methodists and Wesleyan Methodists.
Few kind words
Dr. Ritter has few kind words for the centrists, both pastors and bishops, who seek for unity, a coming together of an institution that embraces a wide theological spectrum. He writes: “Watch for people elected to high positions of leadership or those whose position is dependent upon the status quo. Some are institutional loyalists in denial of what we actually are facing. Like faithful Sears shoppers, they don’t want to hear how things are soon going to irrevocably change.” In bold terms, Dr. Ritter warns that we need to beware of centrists and their meetings. Beware of “some sort of Local Option to break us away from the influence of the global church. If they get the rules changed, they can apply pressure to pick off hold-out conferences one by one. Their crusade can continue unabated.”
In simplest terms, this is fear mongering – projecting something into the future that probably won’t happen. But then again, Dr. Ritter is appealing to his WCA audience, telling them you can’t trust the future of our denomination to the centrists. You can only trust people who follow the WCA. And you can’t go for the Local Option and let United Methodists in various geographic regions of the church determine their own future and still call themselves United Methodists. So where does he mention the movement of the Holy Spirit in all of this?
His argument comes down to parading what he calls “Traditionalist Incompatibles,” in answer to a term coined by the Rev. Tom Berlin, but given a new name, a new spin. A grouping that, according to Dr. Ritter, is the largest grouping in the church. It’s also, according to Dr. Ritter, the most ethnically diverse, “high church,” “low church,” evangelical, members of the Order of St. Luke, Holiness folks, charismatics, even from Africa, the Philippines, Asian and some Europeans. And low and behold: “The Wesleyan Covenant Association also fits securely into this category.” What I hear him yelling is, “we’ve got the votes. We are bigger and better than the centrists and/or the progressives.” So now it’s in progressives’ court “to come up with a compelling rationale for why and how they should be allowed to carry the UM banner even though they reject the discernment process of the UMC.”
Misrepresents progressives and process
Dr. Ritter misrepresents both progressives and process. I accept the discernment process. However, I don’t believe church theology and discipline should be determined within a political process that he labels “discernment.” I understand discernment as coming to a like-minded solution to a problem under the guidance of the Holy Spirit through prayer. Dr. Ritter speaks of a winner-take-all-mentality in a church that encompasses many theologies beyond his own theology or the theology of a seminary, and gives the crumbs of such a move to the minority jurisdictions who encompass a diverse theology.
After all this, Dr. Ritter finally states: “I think the best way forward is to formalize the autonomy these conferences have demonstrated and negotiate in good faith for their customized participation in the general agencies of the denomination.” I can accept that, but believe he did not need to set himself and his viewpoint as superior to all others. I see his explanation as one of divide-and-conquer and distribute the spoils so that the losers can share in the general agencies of the church, who, ironically, are currently led by a many centrists and progressives.
In the spirit of the church’s unity, as prayed by Jesus, according to the Gospel of John chapter 17, why can’t Dr. Ritter and the WCA accept that LGBTQ United Methodists, as faithful followers of Jesus Christ, should have the equity he enjoys, the equity that I enjoy? I believe our United Methodist Church is large enough and strong enough to encompass “making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.”
I don’t intend to leave. It’s my church, too.
The Rev. Dr. Daniel R. Gangler of Indianapolis, Ind., is a retired United Methodist clergyperson, religion communicator and social justice advocate.
* “Why are ‘Traditionalist Compatiblists’ so hard to find?” Wesleyan Covenant Association email, May 12, 2017.