1 of 2
Illustration by Brad Gabriel
J Curve
2 of 2
Illustration by Brad Gabriel
U Curve
“Is there anyone here who, planning to build a new house, doesn’t first sit down and figure the cost so you’ll know if you can complete it? If you only get the foundation laid and then run out of money, you’re going to look pretty foolish. Everyone passing by will poke fun at you: ‘He started something he couldn’t finish.’ Luke 14:28-30 The Message
In a previous life I was an Urban Systems Analyst for the City of Memphis. That meant I was a planner. Planning involves anticipating changes and determining, to the best of one’s abilities, how to respond to changing conditions so as to sustain the existing organization and meet the organization’s goals. The time is ready for our church to plan for a way forward in light of the probable legalization of same gender marriage. For my part, I offer one chart, two graphs, and three questions.
One Chart
Nate Silver analyzes public opinion polls. His analyses have been accurate enough over time to take seriously his projections regarding the potential nationwide legality of same gender marriage. Silver’s chart from March 26, 2013 in his column, FiveThirtyEight, shows a relatively steady increase in public acceptance of same gender marriage since 1996. He shows that at the current rate of increase in acceptance, popular majorities in 32 states are likely to approve same gender marriage by 2016. That number is likely to reach 44 states by 2020. The increase comes as more young people enter the electorate and, significantly, as more of the older voters already in the electorate change their opinion on the matter from negative to positive. Silver’s chart makes clear that legal, same gender marriage is coming to America, either to the nation as a whole or to a large majority of states. Barring an unforeseen event that returns US citizens to attitudes of twenty years ago, this social change will be a part of our culture in a few years. The change means the church will face new challenges. That leads to two graphs.
Two Graphs: J Curve and Inverted U
In 1962, political scientist James C. Davis wrote "Revolutions are most likely to occur when a prolonged period of objective economic and social development is followed by a short period of sharp reversal. People then subjectively fear that ground gained with great effort will be quite lost; their mood becomes revolutionary.”* This is the famous “J Curve” that graphs a “revolution of rising expectations.” Have advocates within the church for same gender marriage experienced “…a prolonged period of objective economic and social development…” in regards their goal of marriage equality in the church? Consider the following cases:
A retired Bishop ignores a serving Bishop’s request to not officiate at the celebration of the wedding of two men in her Area. To date there has been no punishment.
Two clergy who officiate at a same gender wedding are punished with a 24 hour suspension without pay.
Two female clergy in Seattle marry with a District Superintendent officiating.
After Frank Schaefer is defrocked for officiating at the wedding of his son and his son’s male partner, Bishop Carcaño of the Cal-Pac Conference invites Schaefer to her Episcopal Area to engage in ministerial activities.
A retired elder and seminary President in Texas openly disobeyed the disciplinary prohibition on performing weddings of same gender people.
Thirty six percent of the UMC’s retired Bishops urge the end of the ban on same gender marriage.
The Rev. Thomas E. Frank, a historian of Methodism issued an open letter to the Council of Bishops asking the Bishops to cease church trials in this matter as counterproductive and harmful to church unity.
Rev. Thomas Ogletree officiated at the wedding of his son and his son’s male partner. The consequence is a requirement that he participate in a formal discussion regarding the future of marriage equality in the UMC.
There are more examples. There appear to be ever more clergy and congregations willing to ignore the ban, at least, and to be vocal about their decision. If, at this point, Bishops attempt to stop same-gender marriages through more trials, suspensions, or other actions, will we not meet Davis’ conditions for a revolution or insurgency within the church; perceived gains threatened by the perception of the loss of those gains? This leads to the second graph, the inverted U.
In his latest book, David and Goliath, + Malcolm Gladwell reviews, at one point, the limits of force to compel or prohibit certain behavior. Looking at the so-called “Troubles” in Northern Ireland, Gladwell discovered that the more the British Army attempted to end violence, disarm gun men, and enforce the rule of law, the more violence occurred after initial success. Imagine an inverted U on a graph. As force is first applied, unwanted behavior declines or desired behavior increases. Continuing punishment, especially when the law or its agents are seen as illegitimate, leads to a plateau in the change in behavior one wishes to compel or prevent. As punishments continue, the unwanted behavior actually increases. The result may be imagined by a graph that resembles an inverted U. Are we facing such a condition in the UMC? Consider:
The Council of Bishop’s formally requested that action be taken against retired Bishop Talbert for officiating at a wedding celebration of two men in Alabama.
A complaint against the Rev. Stephen Heiss, who officiated at a same gender wedding of his daughter, was referred to church counsel.
The traditionalist group, Good News, is increasing pressure for action to be taken against clergy who violate the ban.
Rev. Bill Bouknight, associate director of the Confessing Movement, said church trials are necessary to hold clergy accountable.
Rev, Rob Renfroe, president of Good News, says “When people choose to break the covenant that holds us together, there has to be some accountability.”
A new group, the Wesleyan Covenant Network, is forming to support theologically conservative Methodists who might otherwise leave the church, possibly resulting in trials over who gets the church property.
Bishop Scott Jones, of the Great Plains Conference, was asked his response to a hypothetical mass violation of this church law. Bishop Jones is reported to have said if 100 clergy violated the ban, he would suspend all100 as the supervisory response. Then there would be 100 trials.
Since 1972, the Book of Discipline, the UMC book of doctrine and church law, has said all people are of sacred worth but “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” There is no change in the church’s position.
We may well be approaching the time when advocates of same gender marriages perceive a sharp loss of ground previously gained. At the same time, we may be entering a period when application of institutional force through trials, suspensions, etc. is creating negative results regarding support for institutional norms. These two reactions will be particularly sharp if, as is likely, legal marriage equality for same gender couples expands in the states separately or the nation as a whole. What will be the church’s response? Before anyone mounts a barricade with the cry of no more “Constantinian Captivity” of the church to culture, we might consider three questions.
Three Questions
- Insurrection: If the UMC stays the course, denies the sanctity, validity, or acceptance of same gender marriage, and both Davis’ “J curve” and Gladwell’s “inverted U” behavior predictors prove accurate, are we prepared for some form of institutional insurrection? Are we prepared for Jurisdictions or Annual Conferences to act as though the Disciple does not hold in this matter, within their boundaries? Are we prepared to spend time and energy and money on suspensions and trials? Are we prepared to take such actions when we are already in need of increased finances to engage the mission field beyond the walls of our institutions?
- Implication: If civil society accepts same gender marriages, is the church ready to lose even greater numbers of Millennials and the generation after that? A church that is so far out of the culture as we would then be, risks the very real possibility of shrinking to sect size. Further, will civil society even continue to recognize our clergy as representatives of the courts? Will marriages conducted by UMC clergy be legal? Will the best we will be able to offer is a religious service after a legal proceeding? Certainly religious services are true and real, but will we be able to convince an already suspicious society of that?
- Institution: Is some form of local option a possibility? Can we or should we even consider an institutional structure that looks more like a commonwealth than a federal union? In such a situation can we stay together as noisy family who love each other and choose to remain as family in spite of one another’s obvious obtuse belief on this matter? Do we already have such a de facto situation and we are in actuality waiting only for the reality to be recognized by General Conference de jure?
*J. C. Davies: "Toward a theory of revolution") American Sociological Review 27(1962):5-19
+Malcolm Gladwell, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants (Little, Brown and Company) October 1, 2013
The Rev. Brad Gabriel is pastor of St. Mark’s United Methodist Church in Memphis, TN.