LGBT rights
Marriage equality is now the law of the land. Those of us who are longtime supporters of this civil right for LGBT people couldn't be happier, while those who hold to the concept of marriage as a union of one man and one woman are angry and fearful. This reality brings us to the subject of United Methodist bishops' responses to the Supreme Court ruling.
The day after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, I began seeing a lot of social media discussion condemning United Methodist bishops for issuing statements upholding UMC stances against same-sex marriage. I, too, wish the bishops could be more supportive as a group of the historic SCOTUS decision, but I think it's time to cut the bishops some slack, for several reasons.
First, United Methodist bishops have no power to suspend church law, which can be changed only by vote of the General Conference, United Methodism's highest legislative body. Whether they like or dislike some part of our Book of Discipline, bishops are only permitted to interpret applications of church law, not to undo them entirely. Where bishops do have power is in how to administer penalties for infractions of the Discipline, short of a jury decision in a full church trial. Most United Methodists don't understand that, as with civil law, there are administrative penalties that can be applied well before a full-blown, expensive and divisive church trial convenes.
Second, the similarity of language in the bishops' statements clearly shows that they've been discussing for some time how to respond to the likelihood of the Supreme Court approving marriage equality. The more articulate and compassionate bishops have tried to balance the application of law with a large measure of grace for both perspectives on marriage equality – an issue about which few people are still uncertain. However strongly we support marriage equality as both a civil right and an expression of God's love, we must remember that we have kindred in Christ for whom a one-man-one-woman marriage model is deeply held both emotionally and intellectually. Bishops are required to minister to all United Methodists whatever their opinions. Some bishops can be compassionate to those of opposing theological viewpoints while remaining unthreatened by their differences; alas, others cannot, because bishops are humans, too.
Third, the success of any bishop's statement regarding United Methodist response to marriage equality depends a great deal on that bishop's ability to withstand criticism and live with ambiguity. Some bishops are comfortable enough with their theological interpretations to call for changing church law to match civil law. Others bishops, perhaps more sensitive to their non-legislative role, avoid such pronouncements because of the criticism it invariably engenders.
Finally, I believe that United Methodist bishops are looking ahead to the 2016 General Conference and its tremendous import for the denomination's future. By adopting a legitimate legal position tempered with respect for all sides of the debate, the bishops are, in fact, exercising leadership – a call for United Methodists to abide by our current mutual covenant, even though many of us believe it to be wrong regarding LGBT people, in order to preserve the integrity of our communal legislative process. For good or ill, our representative legislative process is one of the best ways to organize and enact our common life as a church. Only when the results of that process clearly result in harm to others – as many have found the UMC's anti-LGBT stances – can we justify risking the process itself. The alternatives to living under a rule of law are either anarchy or tyranny, neither of which makes for community. We must have order – but not too much order, as a venerable law professor once counseled a newly named Supreme Court justice.
For Christians, grace serves as the balancing counterweight to law, and it is to grace that we are called now. The next 11 months before the 2016 General Conference will be difficult in both church and society. Already backlash is building to enact local civil laws that preserve "religious rights" in the face of marriage equality. Personally I believe such laws to be unnecessary. No pastor has ever been forced, under American law, to perform a marriage for any couple that he or she deemed unfit for wedlock by whatever reason. That right remains. No one has ever been forced legally to contract or to dissolve a heterosexual marriage against his or her will. That right remains. Now that marriage equality is legal, same-gender couples have opportunities to legalize their unions in civil ceremonies and to sacralize them through rites in churches that accept same-gender marriage. For a majority of people, these options will be sufficient. For United Methodists who support marriage equality, the interregnum between now and General Conference will be a test of our faithfulness and creativity in ministry.
What matters now will be how we treat one another as marriage equality becomes commonplace. If anything, those of us who feel vindicated by the Supreme Court decision are called to even greater measures of grace and love for those who are dismayed and disappointed by the ruling. This is what I believe United Methodist bishops are trying, clumsily or skillfully, to say in their statements. Until we collectively change our minds on marriage equality, we can give thanks that United Methodist bishops are doing what God and the church have called them to do.
A veteran religion journalist and certified spiritual director, Cynthia B. Astle serves as coordinator of United Methodist Insight.