Hopeful Signs Emerge from Sexuality Panel

by

United Methodist Insight Editorial Analysis

Contrary to expectations, I found hopeful signs in the Nov. 1 panel discussion on homosexuality, "Finding Our Way," streamed over the Internet. Unfortunately, I also found too many signs of hardline entrenchment in Twitter responses that could undercut that hope through insistence on a "zero-sum" outcome, i.e., that one viewpoint must prevail over all in the denomination's ongoing debate.

The full two-hour discussion can be viewed online, but here are the high points I saw.

1. Spiritual discipline and discernment are tools to frame the discussion.

As a longtime observer and participant in the church, I haven't been alone in my contention that what ails us in our human sexuality debate is, at heart, a spiritual disease. I say this unequivocally because I have sat through too many proceedings of both wings of this discussion in which adversaries are painted as devils incarnate (often including me). I have heard much talk of either law or love, but little effort exerted in using both to discern prayerfully  appropriate behavior according to God's will.

Bishop Reuben Job, whose gift for faith development rightly makes him United Methodism's spiritual godfather, has wisely counseled: "Let it go." (And my hat is off to you if you can read that phrase without hearing the theme from a recent Disney movie).

This will be the hardest thing to do in the current round of debate: To take up the cross of granting our adversaries their dignity and worth as children of God, no matter how badly they may have vilified us in the past for our attitudes and actions, even for our very identity. We all share the blame for the current state of disunity and threat of schism, but we can all share in the hope of new life as well.

We know that there are some among us who won't be able to let it go. In all likelihood some will continue to try to disrupt overtly or to manipulate subtly through propaganda and politics. That's their choice, but it no longer has to be ours. Our calling can and should be to pray for all as we work at discerning God's path for us.

2. United Methodist bishops have finally acknowledged publicly that they disagree over the acceptability of homosexual practice as a legitimate expression of human sexuality.

Only those who've followed the bishops for years can appreciate how significant is this public acknowledgement, first issued last year. Bishop Gregory Palmer, one of the panelists, confessed that the statement of disunity was a "huge step." The Council of Bishops has cloaked its proceedings for decades, and woe betide any bishop who dared dislodge the mask of unity. In fact, when a group of 15 bishops publicly called for removal of the anti-LGBT stances from the Book of Discipline at the 1996 General Conference, the scandal of open dissent practically overshadowed conference proceedings. That was no small feat, given that the '96 session in Denver, Colo., included a keynote address by then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the dramatic arrival of Bishop Arthur N. Kulah of Liberia, who with his family had just escaped assassination in his country's civil war.

After all this history, we're watching hopefully to see if the bishops can model for the rest of us how to stay in community with one another despite our differences.

3. The Book of Discipline is being reshaped as a guide for covenant rather than a rule of law.

Bishop Mike Lowry (Fort Worth Area) said it bluntly: "People are asking, 'If the Discipline doesn't apply to others, then why should I have to follow it?' "

Retired Bishop Melvin Talbert just as bluntly stated: "The Book of Discipline is not God; it is created by humans. We need to take responsibility for the pain it has caused."

And they're both right. If our valued United Methodist connection is to have any meaning, we must find a way to come to consensus on the core of our being, and to agree to abide by it and accept the consequences of it. Two things are certain here: Our current "win-lose" parliamentary process won't produce a document conducive to unity, and our global denomination has too many sensitive missional contexts for much centralized law. Most of all, whatever our denominational policies become, using them to shame a Christian sister or brother is not an appropriate tactic for anyone of any persuasion.

4. United Methodists participated in the conversation by means of video witness, but not in person.

The Connectional Table issued an invitation for people to submit video comments in advance of the panel. Only four videos, all offering challenges to the current anti-LGBT stances, were received, according to the event moderator, the Rev. Amy Valdez-Barker. A video playlist is posted on the official UMC website. Contributors included a gay man, Jeff Holland-Lupton; a retired clergyman, the Rev. Douglas Asbury, who self-identified as gay; a laywoman, Julie Wood, whose gay son Ben killed himself some time after having been shamed for his sexual orientation by a youth minister; and the Rev. Sara Thompson Tweedy, a United Methodist clergywoman who has married her lesbian partner in New York where same-sex marriage is legal.

The video format made it possible for the panel to hear from those who have experienced the effects of the church's stances. The videos also make it possible for their witness to be viewed at other times in other venues.

However, as Rev. Thompson Tweedy pointed out, there currently is no direct engagement with people of LGBTQ orientation in the Connectional Table discussions. The last time United Methodists heard directly from LGBTQ people came during the 1989-1992 churchwide study on homosexuality. I was present for all but one of those meetings. The committee included several seminary professors, ethicists and other experts, but only one gay man and one lesbian woman. Challenged on this exclusion, the committee set up times to hear face-to-face from LGBTQ people about their experiences with the UMC.

Since that time, LGBT United Methodists have been sidelined again from the conversation. Inadequate as they are, the current videos help to redress this, but it's not sufficient. Nor is the third such panel sponsored by the Connectional Table, which will be held in Mozambique in February 2015, likely to change the situation. There are still annual conference sessions, general agency meetings and even the General Conference ahead, so opportunities to hear directly from LGBT people are available.

5. The Nov. 1 panel discussion was miraculous.

I consider it a genuine miracle that this conversation took place at all, and that it took place successfully across the entire denomination through the means of today's global technology. Heretofore, church authorities rarely bothered trying to explain the church's future course to anyone, clergy or laity. This time, not only could the discussion be viewed, but audience questions were accepted and answered (or not-quite-answered). The shift from hierarchical authority to equalitarian governance is nowhere complete, but this is still a significant movement directly related to the advent of social media.

Furthermore, the means through which the conversation was held marks a technological wonder that we too often take for granted these days. We're doing something we've never done before in history: Hold ecclesiastical discourse across thousands of miles in the space of seconds. SECONDS. And that includes the time it takes to send signals to a communications satellite orbiting above the Earth, and bounce them back down to receivers anywhere on the planet.

And finally:

6. The current anti-LGBT language in the Book of Discipline has to go. The key will be to find what will create space for opposing viewpoints to exist side by side.

Ever since talk of schism over homosexuality began to percolate in earnest at the 2004 General Conference in Pittsburgh, the prevailing image has been that the denomination would split into two parts, i.e., those who accept homosexual practice as legitimate within the bounds of covenant relationship, and those who don't accept it under any circumstances. However, the latest Connectional Table discussion has made it clear that a possibility now exists for the denomination to divide in three: those who accept homosexual practice unequivocally, those who oppose it unequivocally, and those who are willing to try to live beyond their stances on LGBT acceptance in a faith community that offers what Bishop Rosemarie Wenner called "gracious space" for diverse viewpoints.

This third option is likely to be anathema for both extremes, because it rejects the "zero-sum" model, i.e., in order for "my" view to be right (whether scriptural authority, LGBT acceptance/rejection or whatever), "yours" must be proven completely wrong. (See this writer's recent commentary). United Methodists will be faced with the kind of spiritual discipline of "letting go" that Bishop Job advocates. In fact, this option may even present an opportunity to adopt the rabbinic tradition of interpreting scripture through dialogue rather than individually. It's harder to demonize someone with whom one has struggled for understanding.

These are the impressions of one United Methodist who has observed the denomination's foibles for a generation. At the risk of being rebuffed again, since my last invitation to respond in discernment drew no takers (see previous link), I'd like to know others' impressions of the Nov. 1 webcast and Twitter responses. Short answers can be entered in Comments; all responses are moderated before publication, so they won't appear instantly. Try to bring light, rather than heat, to the conversation, because extremist remarks, tired old arguments and especially attacks on individuals, won't be published.

Please submit longer articles to our editorial mailbox: one.scribe56@gmail.com with "CT Talk" in the subject line.

Insight coordinator Cynthia B. Astle has reported on The United Methodist Church's debate over homosexuality since 1988.