UMC Theology Officially at Odds with Supreme Court Decisions

A United Methodist Insight Editorial Analysis

by

More than politics has put thoughtful, educated United Methodists at odds with recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. From its core beliefs through its Christian living guides known as the Social Principles, the denomination stands opposed to the legal, political and even religious philosophies behind the high court's most recent decisions.

United Methodist laypeople may be unaware of the unified theological grounding contained in the UMC's Book of Discipline, its collection of church doctrine and policies, that bears on the Supreme Courts recent rulings affecting abortion, church-state separation and environmental regulation. Yet the denomination's theological grounding, carefully worked out by decades of General Conferences, forms the United Methodist identity that underlies its activism.

In relation to government, these beliefs begin with Article XVI of the church's constitution:

"We believe civil government derives its just powers from the sovereign God. As Christians we recognize the governments under whose protection we reside and believe such governments should be based on, and be responsible for, the recognition of human rights under God. ..."

The denomination's way of thinking through life's thorny spiritual questions is found in the Discipline section titled "Our Theological Task." Often termed "the Wesleyan Quadrilateral," the method originated by founder John Wesley consists of interpreting and applying scripture to daily life through the lenses of tradition, experience, and reason. United Methodism's theological process is considered so crucial that candidates for ordained ministry are specifically asked, "How do you intend to affirm, teach, and apply Part III of the Discipline (Doctrinal Standards and Our Theological Task) in your work in the ministry to which you have been called?"

A section called "The Present Challenge to Theology in the Church" frames United Methodist response to social issues:

"Of crucial importance are concerns generated by great human struggles for dignity, liberation, and fulfillment — aspirations that are inherent elements in God’s design for creation. These concerns are borne by theologies that express the heart cries of the downtrodden and the aroused indignation of the compassionate."

Social Principles enact theology

A collection of guidelines for Christian living called the Social Principles carry out these aspirations. The Social Principles have longed proved controversial, so much so that the most recent General Conferences have required two legislative committees to take up all the petitions seeking to change them.

Some United Methodist clergy and laity view the Social Principles as an authoritative framework to be scrupulously followed, while others consider them to be only guidelines that can be discarded by personal preference. Some more conservative United Methodists disdain the principles entirely as evidence that the denomination has a liberal bent which values social action over saving souls – a valid criticism when the spiritual underpinnings of the Social Principles get lost in zeal for public advocacy.

However they're received and followed, the Social Principles have been carefully crafted by General Conference delegates to carry on Wesley's "social holiness" tradition. They represent the denomination's best attempt at embracing a "big tent" community that respects varied perspectives -- even when views are diametrically opposed to one another.

Here are summaries of the official United Methodist positions that pertain to recent Supreme Court rulings.

Separation of Church and State: Two of the court's recent rulings, Carson v. Malkin and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District clarify that its six conservative justices are disposed to tear down the wall of separation between church and state first elucidated in Thomas Jefferson's 1801 letter to Danbury Baptists that referenced the First Amendment's right to religious freedom. In contrast to the Supreme Court's decisions, Book of Discipline Paragraph 164 (C) states:

"The United Methodist Church has for many years supported the separation of church and state. ... Separation of church and state means no organic union of the two, but it does permit interaction. The state should not use its authority to promote particular religious beliefs (including atheism), nor should it require prayer or worship in the public schools, but it should leave students free to practice their own religious convictions. We believe that the state should not attempt to control the church, nor should the church seek to dominate the state. The rightful and vital separation of church and state, which has served the cause of religious liberty, should not be misconstrued as the abolition of all religious expression from public life."

Environmental Regulation: United Methodists' care for God's creation begins in its section "Our Theological Task:" "Misuse of natural resources and disregard for the fragile balances in our environment contradict our calling to care for God’s creation." This belief directly opposes the Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, in which the high court stripped EPA of its authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide. The UMC has a lengthy section, Paragraph 160 titled "The Natural World," that asserts "All creation is the Lord’s, and we are responsible for the ways in which we use and abuse it."

Regarding the West Virginia case, Paragraph 160 (B) spells out United Methodism's stance: "... We strongly advocate for the priority of the development of renewable energies. The deposits of carbon, oil, and gas resources are limited and their continuous utilization accelerates global warming." Additional concerns about the West Virginia decision's effect on U.S. participation in alleviating the worldwide climate crisis are addressed in section 160 (D) titled "Global Climate Stewardship:"

"... Rampant industrialization and the corresponding increase in the use of fossil fuels have led to a buildup of pollutants in the earth’s atmosphere. These 'greenhouse gas' emissions threaten to alter dramatically the earth’s climate for generations to come with severe environmental, economic, and social implications. The adverse impacts of global climate change disproportionately affect individuals and nations least responsible for the emissions. We therefore support efforts of all governments to require mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and call on individuals, congregations, businesses, industries, and communities to reduce their emissions."

Environmental care marks one issue where United Methodism puts its money where its Social Principles are. All church units are required to follow guidelines for sustainable investment outlined in Discipline Paragraph 717: "All United Methodist institutions shall endeavor to seek investments in institutions, companies, corporations, or funds that promote racial and gender justice, protect human rights, prevent the use of sweatshop or forced labor, avoid human suffering, and preserve the natural world, including mitigating the effects of climate change."

Wespath Benefits and Investments, United Methodism's pension and insurance agency, takes this principle to its fullest through a Sustainable Economy Framework. Using a trifold set of actions – invest, engage, avoid – Wespath says it believes "investors must create and support a sustainable global economy — one that promotes long-term prosperity for all, social cohesion and environmental health." Thus the West Virginia decision, which freed fossil fuel companies from EPA's carbon emission regulation, directly contradicts United Methodist goals for investing its roughly $29 billion in clergy pensions, let alone the millions of assets held by annual (regional) conferences and local congregations.

Abortion: Aside from its opposition to homosexual practice, the United Methodist stance on abortion found in Discipline Paragraph 161 ranks as the church's most carefully nuanced social policy. United Methodists recognize "tragic conflicts of life with life" that may justify abortion, such as saving a mother's life or relieving a victim of a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. At the same time, the church laments high rates of abortion and unconditionally rejects the procedure as a means of birth control or gender selection. In other words, the UMC formally grants what the Supreme Court has just taken away in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: the right of a woman to control her own body.

In practice, United Methodists are as divided over abortion as are their fellow Americans.

Paul Stallsworth, a North Carolina pastor who edits Lifewatch, the newsletter of the unofficial Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality, told UM News that he views the ruling as an opportunity for the church to protect "the most vulnerable," meaning "the unborn child and the mother of the unborn child." Stallsworth's group long has organized a worship service that coincides with the annual anti-abortion March for Life demonstration.

In contrast, United Methodist units most concerned with the welfare of women and children decried the Dobbs decision. The General Board of Church and Society, the General Commission on Status and Role of Women and United Women in Faith (formerly United Methodist Women) all issued statements condemning the Supreme Court ruling.

Unless the high court takes up other recent decisions as Justice Clarence Thomas has threatened, abortion probably will be the most visible issue in which United Methodists will defy the Supreme Court ruling, even to the point of breaking local or state laws. United Methodist pastors and laypeople in Texas already have declared publicly that they will assist women seeking abortions despite the legal liability imposed by the state's ban enacted last fall. The Texas law allows anyone to sue a person who aids a woman to get an abortion, so pastors and other spiritual counselors are legally at great risk for even mentioning abortion, let alone assisting a woman to go out of state for the procedure. Nonetheless, citing the Social Principles, some United Methodist pastors in Texas have said they will challenge the state's ban both in the courts and in practice.

Unfortunately, many rank-and-file United Methodists are unaware of the denomination's theological stances and its Social Principles on current issues. Denominational leaders have bemoaned the fact that few pastors actually teach the Social Principles, along with the UMC constitution and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, to people in the pews. Centrists and progressives often cited this ignorance as a factor behind church members' anger upon discovering that the UMC formally opposes many of the religious, political and legal philosophies now in play. Dissident forces long have stoked these adverse reactions to divide the denomination, and they've succeeded.

In contrast, upholding United Methodism's tradition of social holiness has become one of the primary reasons that many clergy and laity are proclaiming they will stay in the denomination. United Methodists dismayed by the Supreme Court's recent rulings find plenty of theological support for their opposition in the church's official doctrines. Future efforts will show whether that knowledge will spur new activism to restore what the high court has taken away.

A veteran journalist who has covered The United Methodist Church since 1988, Cynthia B. Astle serves as Editor of United Methodist Insight, which she founded in 2011. A version of this analysis appeared first on Baptist Global News. To reproduce this version elsewhere, please email Insight for permission.