Beyond Scapegoating

by

Special to United Methodist Insight

Regarding the never-ending battle in United Methodism over same-sex marriage and ordination of homosexuals, I am firmly in the progressive camp. There is no doubt in my mind that the extreme traditionalist plan as narrowly endorsed by the 2019 General Conference is wrong on many levels.

However, should any of this keep me from being in fellowship with those who are traditionalist in their views, but just not as rabid as the ones who’ll gladly show me the door out of the denomination?

Of course not.

There was an excellent piece posted on the Mainstream UMC Facebook page that describes the characteristics of a “centrist” Methodist. It was written by Tim Crouch, a layperson from the North Texas Annual Conference. It draws a vibrant portrait of a future Methodism that’s steeped in the best of our tradition. Our future depends on being able to hold differing views while learning from and loving each other.

However, if we are to live out such centrism, we have to be alert to a natural human tendency.

Father Richard Rohr, in his book The Universal Christ, notes a painful phenomenon that takes place when people polarize themselves on a hot-button social issue. He has described it as “scapegoating,” which is the fruit of extremism. When we view the other side as misguided, we imagine shortcomings about them that may or may not be true. This serves to make us feel better about ourselves, giving us the illusion that we have a corner on the truth. Unfortunately, when we exaggerate the faults of others, we blind ourselves to our own faults.

Is it possible to hold strong views while at the same time avoiding the trap of scapegoating? If we’re going to be a truly pluralistic denomination, then we’re going to have to learn a way. We will have to have open, non-defensive conversations with those with whom we disagree.

The prophet Micah wrote, “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8, NRSV) This remarkable verse lists three criteria that can spur a conversation regarding any hot-button topic.

DO JUSTICE. Are people being treated fairly and equally? Are human rights being violated? Are those whose rights are being violated given an impartial hearing?

LOVE KINDNESS. Are people being listened to and understood? Are people being treated with respect? Are people allowed to share their thoughts, concerns, feelings, life experiences?

WALK HUMBLY. Can people admit there could be more to the story than what they believe? Are they able to listen with an open mind to views other than their own?

The temptation is to answer these questions from your own stance, then prove the other side wrong. Both traditionalists and progressives will wonder why the other side doesn’t arrive at the same responses.

Is it too idealistic to think that people from opposing sides might temporarily suspend their judgments? That they might try to understand why their opponents arrive at different conclusions?

To do this takes honesty and humility. The reality is that none of us can have the final word on any complex social issue. Life itself is complex, with gray the predominant color, while our eyes most easily perceive black and white. We are incapable of taking in the whole picture accurately. When we’re honest with ourselves, we may discover that, in the words of Father Rohr, “there is no completely pure place to stand” (p. 150).

Being able to find that shared common ground of impurity may be the beginning of bridging our gaps.

The future expression of Methodism, without question, must affirm inclusivity. It must endorse the rights of pastors and congregations to perform/allow same-sex marriages and for annual conferences to remove sexual orientation as a qualifier for ordination. The very stones of Scripture, reason, experience, and tradition cry out for it.

However, that future expression also requires that those pastors/congregations who do not agree with same-sex marriage and ordination of homosexuals not be treated as second class Methodists. If they hold their views with the same integrity with which I try to hold mine, why should I judge them? As long as LGBTQ+ rights are secured, and as long as there is liberty within Methodism, should they not be free to believe as they believe?

Certainly the objection from my fellow progressives is that we must make a statement that exclusion of LGBTQ+ rights is wrong. Some would view not mandating inclusivity for all pastors/churches is similar to not abolishing slavery. However, realistically, aren’t we making that statement by safeguarding rights for pastors, congregations, and annual conferences to choose? And if I’m a traditionalist but I’m willing to stay in a denomination that affirms such rights, doesn’t that also affirm my openness to the Holy Spirit moving in new ways? Doesn’t that show a bit of openness that must define the future Methodist character?

Future Methodists will still have conflicting views. Maybe, though, it will be an informed conflict. Maybe we won’t scapegoat as much. Maybe we’ll become aware of the humanity of those with whom we disagree. Maybe we’ll even discover some flaws in our own assumptions. And perhaps we may even find new areas where we can join in the healing process.

We don’t need agreement in all things. Honesty and humility, though, are non-negotiable.

The Rev. Greg Weeks serves as Senior Pastor of the 3,200 member Manchester UMC in St. Louis. He blogs at RevGregWeeks.com.