The Connectional Table (CT) of the United Methodist Church met today in Nashville and among its agenda items was a proposed resolution for the 2016 General Conference. This proposed resolution passed by a margin of 26-10 with one abstention. The CT leadership calls this a “third way” and a “compromise” between the exclusion of gays and lesbians, which is essentially what we have now, and the absolute full inclusion of gays and lesbians. This proposal will recommend the following:
- Performing same-sex marriages will no longer be a chargeable offense according to the Book of Discipline.
- It removes the language in the Book of Discipline that states that the United Methodist Church does not “condone homosexuality” and that homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teachings.”
- Ordinations of gays and lesbians would be decided at the annual conference level.
- It also claims that clergy would be allowed to decided whether or not to perform same-sex marriages.
CT chairperson Bishop Bruce Ough stated, “Our hope is that it will provide an alternative for the General Conference to consider that helps strengthen the unity of the church and allows us to move forward together as a denomination so that we can focus on our mission.” (Emphasis mine) Well with all due respect to Bishop Ough, he is either being intellectually dishonest or he truly does not understand the meaning of the word “unity” because this proposal is the polar opposite of unity.
According to the United Methodist Reporter, the Connectional table focused on three theological assertions in making this proposal; “The centrality of our mission, our claim to unity for the sake of mission, and our identity as Christians and as United Methodists.” Notice that faithfulness to Scripture, tradition, or any of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral was not included as a focal point. That is telling.
Here are some serious problems I see in the Connectional Table proposal. First, removing the central legal standing of homosexuality and gay marriage from the Book of Discipline leaves annual conferences, Boards of Ordained Ministry, bishops, clergy, and local churches alike in a kind of legal limbo. If an annual conference votes against ordaining gays and lesbians, but resides in a state which sexual orientation is a protected status, does this open that annual conference to a discrimination lawsuit? Likewise, if a church within an annual conference allowing the ordination of gays and lesbians refuses to accept a gay or lesbian pastor are they vulnerable to a discrimination lawsuit?
Similarly, if a pastor residing in a same-sex marriage state refuses to marry a same-sex couple will he or she be vulnerable to a lawsuit? Yes, there are protections for religious freedom, however with the recent ruling in Oregon over a baker refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian couple I am not so sure how this issue plays out in the courts. It might vary state to state and with no denominational stance either way there is no ground for a pastor or a church to stand on.
This proposal will simply move the rancorous debate from General Conference and every 4 years to the annual conference level and every year. Each annual conference will decide for themselves how to approach this issue. So, what happens when this is challenged to the Judicial Council? What happens when an annual conference votes to allow same-sex marriage, but not ordination of gays and lesbians? Can one annual conference who allows for full inclusion do ministry with another annual conference? Could a church switch memberships to another annual conference who aligns with their viewpoint on this issue? This proposal creates more questions than it answers and more divisions than it attempts to resolve and to call this a move toward unity is laughable at best.
Honestly, I see this as a salvo towards schism. I think this weak attempt toward “unity”, if passed, serves as a kind of high road for those in the more progressive camp to stand on and to say to others “Well, this is our compromise and if you can’t deal with it then leave, but we’ll keep your church building and property thank you every much.” Granted, this proposal has a long way to go before it is passed by General Conference in 2016 and I think that it has less than a snowball’s chance to pass, but if this is what some call middle ground and a move toward “unity” then we are truly further apart than I ever imagined.
Oh, and P.S. Unity means we are united together under a common theological and doctrinal framework. (Yes, I know that Central Conferences can change the Discipline but only as it is needed to adhere to their local laws.) If we have different annual conferences with different doctrinal understandings then can we truly call ourselves United.
The Rev. Brad Smith is United Methodist pastor in rural Tennessee and a graduate of Vanderbilt Divinity School. He blogs at Love Radically.