Many in the United Methodist Church in the United States and in many European countries will not go along with the General Conference’s votes related to homosexuality. Despite the right wing’s political successes since 1972, they have not been able to reign in those who feel the Disciplinary language against the practice of homosexuality is oppressive and not Christian. So the right has used a number of means to resolve the dilemma of being unable to find agreement.
The right’s appeal to church law has failed, as shown by the numbers of pastors willing to openly violate the Discipline and the difficulty of enforcing the rules by means of church trial and appeal.
The right’s appeal to Scripture has also not succeeded because both sides have verses and context of the Bible but neither side accepts the other’s choices.
The right’s appeal to tradition has failed because the right assumes it has tradition on its side and the left keeps asking, “Can you show us which of the dozens of lines of tradition (ancient church, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Wesleyan, Calvinist, et al) within Christian history has consistently made an issue of homosexuality?”
The right does not have to appeal to science because the left, while having several possible bases, has not brought forth conclusive proof about the nature of homosexuality because biological science has not yet nailed it down.
In order to be relieved of the stress of disagreement, the right offers one solution acceptable to them: separation (preferably amicable). In separating, the right sees both sides being able to have their own church life function with integrity
The right looks back to the split of 1844 as grounds for separation. But they would have two problems to solve now compared to then. First, they would have to be patient with the years of litigation that would be required to separate the various institutions and resources. Secondly, they would not have on their side the geography that existed in the United States when the split over slavery occurred. In 1844, the north and the south were far more homogeneous than they are now. Now the split would divide jurisdictions, conferences, congregations, and families all over the country. Most important, even if they successfully resolve those two problems, the dilemma of the right would not be buffered by common cultures or geography.
The dilemma would remain: what to do with disagreement.
Presuming they succeed with amicable (or not) separation, once the right settles in after establishing their institutions, conferences, jurisdictions, administrations, and congregations, their bond will be agreement about practicing homosexuality. That agreement will be based on Scripture. And that is where the dilemma will come in.
How will they settle disagreement over divorce? How will they settle disagreement over infant baptism? How will they settle disagreement over the place of women in the church?
For better or worse, the left has no dilemma. They agree to disagree if they cannot come to a mutually satisfactory resolution.
But the right cannot agree to disagree. That would be counter to their understanding of Scripture. That would be counter to their understanding of how to respond to authority. That would be counter to their understanding of integrity.
How long before the denomination formed by the right would face a major controversy over something else, like the powers they grant to their bishops? Would they be forced to split as their form of resolution, in order to maintain their integrity, their understanding of Scripture?
Without a common culture, without a singular locality, especially in this milieu of the worldwide church, will it be possible for the right to overcome its dilemma? Is that a good basis for its own future?
That is the dilemma of the right.
The Rev. Jerry Eckert of Port Charlotte, Fla., is a retired clergy member of the Wisconsin Annual Conference.