1 of 2
Closing Door
2 of 2
Philip Amerson
The Rev. Dr. Philip Amerson
It’s that season again. Eighteen months before the General Conference of the United Methodist Church. Each time the words swirl and the shadows gather. Like a solar eclipse it comes on schedule; unfortunately it lasts longer. Again we hear the church is at a crossroads, caught in a vortex of confusion and distress. Grave predictions over our disagreements regarding homosexuality are made.
Books are written, meetings held, strategies developed, threats announced and hand-wringing ensues. This autumn, 2014, seems typical, except this time there are a couple of surprising new twists. One of them I view as positive and the other is, well, deeply disturbing and misguided.
On the positive side let me affirm the “A Way Forward” proposal. Folks such as Adam Hamilton, Mike Slaughter, David McAllister-Wilson, Dan Johnson, Rudy Rasmus, Don Underwood, Deborah McLeod, and Donna Sokol top the list of signatories for these ideas. It is positive because it provides more than a simple statement about “agreeing to disagree.” This proposal captures the reality of where we are in actual practice in our congregations and annual conferences. There are contextual differences in our ministry settings and the proposal moves us beyond the ineffectual, punitive tactics offered by those who are opposed to any change.
One of the most impressive elements in my reading of A Way Forward is found in the list of signatories themselves. They represent a wide range of leaders from across the geographic, theological and contextual settings of North American United Methodism. Knowing the denomination as I do as a veteran of nine General Conferences, I have been deeply moved by the diversity of those who signed – men and women, large congregations and small, places in urban and rural settings. In the past, some of those who signed would have been in oppositional places over this issue. The proposal and those expressing support are indeed finding a way forward, together.
I am tenderhearted but not one who cries easily, say over grocery lists. However, upon reading the names of those signatories I was moved to tears. I thought, finally we can move on; finally there is a way to give our attention to the many things that unite us rather than one issue that divides. I noticed another thing in reading the list – it is overwhelmingly weighted with names of persons whose day-to-day work is in a parish setting. These are the frontline congregational leaders of our church. They seem to be saying in one voice “Enough already; let’s get on with making the main thing (sharing the transforming love of Jesus the Christ) the main thing.”
In contrast it should be noted that most of those who are most vocally opposed to the A Way Forward document do not come from local parish settings. This confirms for me one of the life lessons I have come to at this stage in my ministry. Among the top ten suggestions I would have for a healthier denominational future would be that those who are in elected leadership (and I include bishops, general board and agency secretaries, and seminary presidents) should be required to spend a year working in a local parish or mission setting after eight years of service in such leadership posts.
I know this from recent personal experience. After nearly fourteen years as a seminary president, I had the good fortune of serving as an interim pastor for a marvelous congregation in the Denver area. What a gift it was for me to have my perceptions and prejudices tested in a contemporary parish setting. Hopefully, I made some contributions during this interim; however, more significantly, I learned about emerging realities for our congregations and much more about “boots on the ground” ministry. Change comes quickly in our society. I believe those who are adamantly opposed to such things as the A Way Forward proposal would benefit greatly from a year in a new and different parish setting from one that is already familiar.
The second surprising “new idea” arriving before the 2016 General Conference comes in many forms. One expression is the so-called “amicable separation” offered as a permanent solution to our impasse. To be clear, schism has been threatened before, but never with the specificity as this idea that speaks of “generously” letting those who disagree simply go on their way, keeping property and pension benefits. I have written in other places about this theologically and practically flawed idea. Here I want to focus on a related suggestion that in some ways is even more stunning: Recently, some traditionalists have suggested that our General Conference should become a closed-door meeting that would allow only delegates to participate.
There would be no persons sitting on the sidelines to see “how the sausage was made” and no folks who might applaud or laugh at an “inappropriate” time. As I understand it, even the legislative committee sessions would be exclusive and beyond the scrutiny of “outsiders.” It is said that a benefit would be that there would be no “distractions,” no protests or demonstrations. The conference would just do the business of a pre-approved and unsullied agenda. One wonders about the ecclesiology behind this proposal. Really? Is the work of the Spirit limited to those who are elected in what is already the very messy and politically loaded process? Really? Does anyone really believe we can or should walk away from our differences this easily?
If this were not so absurd it would be laughable. I find myself wondering where does the exclusion stop? So should we close all annual conference sessions to outsiders, persons who hold different opinions, or strangers? Should each local church conference just be held behind security barriers? Perhaps we should just post signs on the front doors of our churches saying, “If you don’t agree on a list of particulars, do not enter.” So much for the denomination's vaunted tagline "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors."
Let’s be clear: Those who wish to “keep a lid” on our conversation, our debate, our dialogue are doing this out of a need to control the outcome. I guess it is fear-driven… or maybe this comes from a weariness with democracy (the worst form of governance in the world except for all the others). There is little room left for the Holy Spirit to lead in new directions. A hyper-Calvinism that would suggest that only some are among the elect has always been offered at the edges of our Wesleyan experience – this would seem to be a major shift toward exclusion rather than joining a beloved community.
There is an implicit message here that those who see the world differently are no longer worthy brothers and sisters in Christ. Let’s be clear, much of the so-called biblical basis used to inform those who oppose welcoming ministry with, by and for homosexual persons is based on a selective fundamentalism. The hermeneutic used is rigidly applied when it comes to a very few passages of scripture from Leviticus or Romans; however, there seems to be a much more open and flexible interpretation of scriptures when these folks deal with other matters like dietary restrictions, excluding women in ministry, supporting slavery, restricting the garments we wear or whether divorce can be accepted among our leaders.
Why this selective fundamentalism on homosexuality? Is it not a cultural captivity of those who use this contradictory hermeneutic? Are we really being told that unless your cultural worldview matches mine, then you are not welcome at “my” general conference or in “my” denomination?
I want to encourage my friends who are acting out of a selective fundamentalism to remember that from the earliest days there have been divisions in the church. This story is throughout the letters written by the apostle Paul or the story told in the Acts of the Apostles. I would invite a hermeneutic that comes from I Corinthians where Paul calls us to “a still more excellent way” – the way of love. Riding the train in my beloved city of Chicago one often hears the words “Please watch for the closing doors.” This my plea to us all – for us all – watch for the closing doors.
During this season, pre-2016, I have decided to speak more freely than in the past and at the same time reach out my hand to those who differ. I have been making phone calls and having email exchanges with persons with whom I disagree. I have no doubt that they are brothers and sisters in Christ even though we disagree. I don’t expect to change any minds but I do believe I can make it clear that I am not leaving the denomination. And I want to be clear that I will not allow disagreements to diminish my care and common purpose.
The General Conference in Cleveland in 2000 was a tough one for those of us who were delegates. The venue was difficult — a long and narrow conference hall that made seeing and hearing — and even voting — a challenge. There were protests and even arrests. Some of those arrested were bishops and other delegates. During one protest the session was suspended for several minutes. The invitation came for those of us who supported a more open church to stand in solidarity. I remember standing almost alone in my delegation. Hundreds of others on the floor were standing. I turned around to see another solitary delegate – a progressive who was soon joined by her bishop who was known as a staunch conservative. I heard him say to her, “Thank you for your witness … we are better than this.” They prayed together. Today she is an exceptional leader in the general church, a bishop. I watched that day as many of the bishops on the stage came down to floor and spontaneously many prayer gatherings emerged. We disagreed but we were brothers and sisters in Christ, amid our pain.
Upon leaving those sessions that day I noticed two college-aged young men on the street outside the hall. We struck up a conversation. “What did you think of all of this?” I asked. I expected them to talk about the protests, the singing or the arrests. Instead they talked about the power of seeing people who disagreed praying together. They saw the witness of persons who held strong divergent opinions standing together in prayer. This is my hope, my commitment, my tactic – to keep praying and to keep seeking A Way Forward.
The Rev. Dr. Philip Amerson served as president of United Methodist seminaries, Claremont School of Theology in California and Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Illinois. He retired earlier this year to a "farmette" in LaPorte, Ind. This article is reprinted with permission from UMC LEAD.