Photo Courtesy of Jeremy Smith
Discipline Wesley
A UM Insight Editorial Analysis
(c) United Methodist Insight 2014
Since the time of Jesus, his followers have struggled with the tension between law and grace. The recent decision of Bishop Martin D. McLee of the New York Conference to opt for grace over law in the complaint against the Rev. Dr. Thomas Ogletree for presiding at his gay son's wedding is bound to ignite a firestorm of new legislation for the 2016 General Conference. There could hardly be a worse place than the United Methodist Book of Discipline to try to decide such issues.
John Wesley preached a threefold vision of God's grace within a set of spiritual rules that came to be known as the Discipline. In truth, I doubt that Wesley would recognize today's Book of Discipline. Where Wesley set down practices for the spiritual nurture of his followers, today's Book of Discipline reads like a law library – which it has become. A disjointed, inconsistent library of chaotic laws focused on the mechanics of administering a worldwide denomination rather than the spiritual question of how it is with our respective souls.
And therein lies the rub. Just as the scribes and Pharisees demanded that the Jews of Jesus' time keep the Law (including all their priestly interpretations), we United Methodists have fallen into the collective sin of trying to use church law to mediate grace. The worst part is, we don't seem to be learning that using law as a substitute for grace isn't working. It hardly ever has.
The latest evidence for this truth comes via Connections, a monthly newsletter published by United Methodist author and lay theologian Barbara C. Wendland. Mrs. Wendland interviewed the Rev. William B. Lawrence, current president of the United Methodist Judicial Council and dean of Perkins School of Theology, a United Methodist-related seminary at Southern Methodist University. To my mind, and that of many others, Dr. Lawrence lays his finger on the nub of the conflict between law and grace in United Methodism today. I quote from Connections' January issue:
"In his view, the UMC's main difficulty in resolving disagreements is that it tries to make theological decisions primarily through legislative acts. Yet in order to be worthy of the name 'church,' Bill Lawrence believes, a church must conduct its activities through theological endeavors."
In other words, as Dr Lawrence says in the next paragraph of Connections, "everything must be reduced to legislation." Dr. Lawrence told Mrs. Wendland that he believes United Methodists don't wish to discuss their conflicts theologically because there's no mechanism within our church structure for doing so. General Conference is, by the church's Constitution, a legislative body. It has no power to discuss theological issues unless those issues can be rendered into legislation. Yet every four years General Conference is the battlefield on which are waged the latest campaigns for and against the acceptance of homosexual practice.
However, the Perkins dean added that there is one body within the denomination that has the power to think and act theologically: The Council of Bishops. Bishop Martin McLee invoked the bishops' responsibility for spiritual and temporal leadership when he announced the "just resolution" in the complaint against Dr. Ogletree. Instead of convening a church trial that could have – probably would have – stripped away Ogletree's clergy credentials, Bishop McLee exercised a kind of grace. He agreed to set up theological conversations about the current realities of the United Methodist conflicts over homosexuality, including the fact that same-gender marriage is now legal in 17 states and the District of Columbia, with three more state appeals pending. Furthermore, Bishop McLee required that Dr. Ogletree participate in these discussions as part of the complaint resolution, and Ogletree agreed.
This "just resolution" isn't what many United Methodists – especially the complainants, the Revs. Randall Paige and Roy E. Jacobsen – either expected or wanted. They were awaiting another law-bound verdict like that rendered against Frank Schaefer of the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference, who lost his clergy credentials in December 2013 for doing exactly what Thomas Ogletree had done: preside at the legal wedding of his gay son to a gay partner. Paige himself has termed the "just resolution" agreement to be "unjust" because it doesn't adhere to the cut-and-dried requirements of the Book of Discipline. And from Paige's perspective, I'd have to agree. The New York decision doesn't match up to the Discipline at all.
Yet we have to acknowledge that a new discussion is emerging out of Bishop McLee's choice for grace over law. No doubt Bishop McLee had the help of bishops and clergy within and beyond the New York Conference in crafting his statement. However, the fact remains that Bishop McLee could have opted to proceed with a trial against Dr. Ogletree. He would have been completely within his episcopal authority to do so.
Instead, Bishop McLee chose to say, "Time out." He recognized the same reality that Dr. Bill Lawrence sees: the question of the acceptability of homosexual practice, which includes same-gender marriage where it is legal, is an issue of theology, not of church law. Truly, as evidenced by the 2012 General Conference, the United Methodist law system is broken and should no longer be used to decide crucial theological issues. Some other way must be found.
The New York decision will continue to reverberate throughout the denomination until the 2016 General Conference rolls around. Not only are we facing the question of law versus grace in the Ogletree case, we face a discipleship challenge in how we treat one another depending upon whether we agree or disagree with New York Conference's alternative. This is especially important now, as some annual conferences, including my own North Texas Conference, have opted to elect their General Conference delegates this year to give them more time to prepare for the 2016 event. No doubt many delegates will be elected or defeated depending upon whether they agree or disagree with the New York decision.
In the end, however, those elections may matter less than we think in the long run. A space has been made in New York for listening for God's will about how The United Methodist Church relates to its LGBTQ sons and daughters. We await the outcome with hope.
Cynthia B. Astle is project coordinator for United Methodist Insight.