2016 Book of Discipline
The 2016 Book of Discipline contains the theology, policies and procedures of The United Methodist Church. Photo by Mike DuBose, UMNS
In the announcement that it is considering three options for a way forward out of the current impasse of the Church on the matter of how it will be in ministry with LGBTQ people, the United Methodist Council of Bishops has given us very brief descriptions of those options. I’m going to provide my take on what each of those options will likely involve, and I’ll do that in three separate posts. In this post I’ll analyze the first option, COB Option 1.
Here’s how the COB describes this choice:
1) One sketch of a model affirms the current Book of Discipline language and places a high value on accountability.
This is what I have called the Status Quo option, but, of course, the real truth is that status quo, as purely conceived, is not a possibility, since it is the dysfunction of the status quo that has brought the Church to its current position of having felt compelled to form a commission to study a way forward.
The utility of the name Status Quo for this option is that it means no change in the language in the Book of Discipline that labels homosexuality as incompatible with Christian teaching, that prohibits the ordination and appointment of LGBTQ people who are self-avowed, that prohibits pastors from performing same sex union ceremonies and prohibits the hosting of same sex union ceremonies in our churches, and that provides for charges to be brought against people who are LGBTQ and who officiate at same sex union ceremonies.
Our current reality is that large numbers of United Methodists are in open rebellion against this part of the law and covenant of the Church as expressed in the Discipline. For many years the rebellion was not as open, following a more or less generally understood policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But increasingly, United Methodists bent on full inclusion of LGBTQ people in the life and ministries of the Church have migrated to a policy of open defiance. This came sharply into focus when in several annual conferences the Board of Ordained Ministry announced that it would no longer discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation and practice when making recommendations for ordination. It came to a head in the election to the episcopacy in the Western Jurisdictional Conference of the Rev. Karen Oliveto, an elder who is married to her same sex partner.
It is clear to anybody paying attention that the status quo, as comprehensively conceived, is no longer working or viable, because there is no mechanism in place by which the law and covenant can be effectively enforced. The delegates to the Western Jurisdictional Conference knew full well that, as I said at the time, in electing Karen Oliveto they were declaring the independence of the WJC from the rest of Church. They had a closed session caucus to discuss the implications of the act.
The only way in which COB Option 1, Status Quo, will be viable will be for it to include the centralization of the enforcement mechanism for instances of disobedience to the law and covenant of the Church. Currently, enforcement is regional. For elders and deacons, the region charged with enforcement is the annual conference. For bishops, the region is the Jurisdictional Conference. As long as the region continues to be empowered as the enforcing agent, enforcement will be weak to nonexistent, and Status Quo will not function any more effectively going forward than it already does, a fact that brought us to where we are right now.
This reality is almost certainly what the COB had in mind in articulating Option 1 when it said, “…places a high value on accountability.” Without accountability, there is neither law nor covenant, and without law and covenant, there is no unity.
That means that if the COB presents General Conference 2019 with Option 1 as one of the choices, then it will have to include in it a proposal for the centralization of enforcement, and it will probably also have to include a proposal to change election of bishops from jurisdictional and central conferences to the General Conference, a reversion to original practice in the Methodist Episcopal tradition.
If COB Option 1 is adopted by GC19 complete with comprehensive enforcement provisions included along with centralization of episcopal elections, then there will be an exodus from the Church of those who are firmly and conscientiously committed to full inclusion.
Lonnie D. Brooks is a longtime United Methodist layman and leader in the Alaska Missionary Conference. This post is republished with permission from his Facebook page.