CRISIS IN THE CHURCH
A Position Paper
By Steve Rogers
I am not an alarmist. Some people are predicting that our denomination is headed for a schism. Some even seem to welcome the idea. I have always avoided dire predictions like that. It is true that the United Methodist Church is facing a crisis, but I do not believe it is time to panic. We are engaged in a period of theological discussion. Even though it is sometimes conducted with more heat than light, the discussion is not a bad thing. Ultimately it will prove to be a blessing. God is leading us as a Church to clarify what we believe. We should not be afraid of controversy and disagreement – these have always been the crucible in which deeper understanding is forged. I offer this paper in an attempt to help our thinking grow. At the end, I outline how I believe we should respond to the crisis. I welcome discussion and feedback. Please send your comments to Steve Rogers, 3605 76th, Lubbock, TX 79423 or e-mail to steve@steverogers.org.
The crisis I am referring to has to do with our doctrinal stance, what we teach and believe on the subject of homosexuality. Our doctrine is spelled out clearly in the Book of Discipline, and it reflects the traditional view of most Christian churches through the centuries. We respect the dignity and worth of every human being, and we advocate protecting the civil and human rights of all persons, including those who identify themselves as homosexual. But we believe the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Church funds may not be used to advocate pro-homosexual causes. We do not allow self avowed practicing homosexuals to be ordained or appointed as ministers. At the last meeting of the General Conference, we added a prohibition which says services of union, joining homosexual persons in a covenant parallel to marriage, may not be conducted by our clergy or in our churches. I agree with this doctrine. It is true to scripture and tradition, and it reflects Christian compassion.
Central to this doctrine is the distinction between people and behavior. Persons who identify themselves as homosexual are welcome as members of our Church. They need the grace of God just as we all do. We accept the person. We do not accept the practice of a homosexual lifestyle. In that sense, we respond to homosexuals just as we would respond to anyone with a behavioral problem, such as a compulsive gambler or an alcoholic. We accept and love the person as they are; we do not approve of their behavior. We provide support for them as they seek to change. We all sometimes make choices which are incompatible with Christian teaching. Homosexuality is not the only behavior we reject – we need to be reminded of this. Our doctrine does not single out this one thing as somehow worse than any other kind of sinful behavior. Every time I find an area where I am behaving outside of God’s will, I am called to repent. The church expects me to turn away from my shortcomings as fully as I am able. The Church holds me accountable and leads me on toward perfection. As long as I am engaged in this struggle, the Church accepts me in grace. People are precious, and we can love the person without condoning their behavior.
There is a group within our Church which disagrees with this doctrine. They say that when we speak of homosexuality, we cannot separate the person from the behavior. They hold the belief that homosexuality is not a choice to behave in certain way, but rather is a part of who that person is. It is very important to understand this point of view. Homosexuality (according to this teaching) is not a choice. A homosexual is born, or develops, as a homosexual. It is impossible for them to change. If that is true, then we can’t reject their homosexual behavior without rejecting them as a person. It would be comparable to rejecting someone who is left handed. They didn’t choose to favor their left hand, their brain is wired that way. In the same way, homosexual advocates believe that homosexuals have no choice in their orientation. They are not immoral, only different. The only way they can express their sexuality is in a homosexual relationship. Because it is not a choice, they say, the Church is wrong to treat it as a sin. We need to accept these people as they are, fully integrate them into the life of the church, and encourage them to express their unique sexuality in healthy ways. Heterosexual people believe that their sexuality is a gift from God. Logic goes that if God made homosexual people the way they are, then that is God’s gift too. God must intend for them to live out the way they are in authentic, lasting relationships. The Church needs to adapt to this new understanding of reality and stop discriminating against these people.
This teaching may seem strange to many of us, but it is a belief which grows more common every year. Those who believe it are committed to it. Some clergy who believe the church’s teaching is wrong have conducted services of holy union for homosexual couples. They draw a comparison with the civil rights movement of the 1960s when people were protesting discrimination laws and bringing about equal rights for racial minorities. Committed Christian people participated in civil disobedience as way to draw attention to what they considered unjust laws. Eventually the laws were changed, and that is exactly what the pastors who participated in the union services hope will happen to the rules of our Discipline.
If we are going to understand the crisis this issue is bringing, we need to understand why these people believe as they do. I have had many people ask me the question, "How can they believe that? The Bible seems so clear." I have read some of their writings, and I have listened to people who believe this way. I have thought carefully about it, and I think I understand how their logic works. I don't agree with it, but I think it is important to honestly understand their point of view. In the following section, I am going to try to outline their argument as if I were trying to convince you it is true. I think this will help us understand "how they can believe that".
First, they point out that every time we want to know what the Bible says about something, we have to interpret what we read to see if it applies to us. That is true. Not one of us takes the Bible absolutely literally. We interpret some passages as not applying in this situation, some as figurative language. For example, Jesus said that if your right hand causes you to sin you should cut it off. I don’t know anyone who has actually done that, and yet all of us have sinned with our right hand at some time. We don’t actually cut our hand off because we interpret those words to be figurative language, not an actual command. This is a correct interpretation. Jesus didn’t intend us to take that literally. The Bible clearly commands us not to do any work on the 7th day, Saturday. This is one of the 10 commandments. How can we ignore that commandment the way most of us do? We have interpreted it in a spiritual way, with the result that it has very little impact on our lives. Perhaps we are justified in this. The point is we have to interpret scripture, and sometimes our interpretations change the plain meaning of the text. We have to agree with this point. The pro-homosexual group claims we should go one step further and do the same thing with scripture passages which condemn homosexuality.
The Church has done this sort of thing before. One example would be women in pastoral ministry. Paul clearly says that women are not to have authority in the Church, not even to speak in Church. There was a time when we followed that Scripture much more literally than we do now. Even today in the Roman Catholic Church, women are not ordained, based on scripture and longstanding tradition. But in many Protestant churches, women are ordained. Our official doctrine allows women to serve as pastors, district superintendents and bishops. How are we able to do that in light of the clear teaching of the Bible? We have reinterpreted Paul’s instructions in the light of modern experience. We have done similar things with issues like divorce, slavery, and polygamy. I believe that God has led the Church to make these changes. Women in our culture have access to education and work at the same jobs as men – unlike in ancient Corinth. Women who serve the Church as pastors are just as effective as men, showing evidence of God’s calling and gifts. God has led us to change our tradition in this matter.
Is God leading us to change our stance on homosexuality in the same way? Our culture has changed. Outside the Church, homosexuality is more and more accepted as a valid lifestyle. In the areas of our country where the holy union services were performed, openly homosexual couples are not at all uncommon. They even make up a majority in some of those communities. Also, according to the pastors performing these services, the couples involved are sincere, committed Christian people who exhibit the fruit of the Spirit. Their relationships exhibit a level of commitment comparable to the best heterosexual marriage. Just as when women prove effective in ministry, the argument goes that some homosexuals exhibit the blessing of God.
Many of us live with a negative stereotype of homosexual persons which is not entirely accurate. The fact is, many homosexual people are good people, good neighbors, and outstanding creative employees. They have gifts to offer society. Some may be promiscuous, and practice pedophilia – and even advocates of change agree this is inappropriate. But not all act that way. Some heterosexuals are promiscuous, pedophiles, aggressive and violent as well. I have talked with people who have children or close friends who have come out as homosexual. Many of those advocating change have this kind of experience. They have shared their struggle in coming to grips with the reality. They realize that their children are not dirty, bad, or disgusting. They still love them, as they should. They have come to believe this is just the way they are.
I believe this is a fair summary of what the pro-homosexual lobby believes, based on two major points: that homosexuality is not a choice, and that God is leading us to reinterpret Bible. I disagree with both these points. The first is an assumption which can be studied with scientific research. That research does not convince me that a homosexual orientation is completely determined by biology. Some studies seem to imply a link. The brains of homosexual men operate differently on the chemical level. But whether these physical factors actually cause the orientation is not clear. They may be the result of other things. Not all those who show the chemical markers exhibit the behavior. Other studies have failed to find any link with biological factors. Many case histories can be found where formerly homosexual persons have changed their orientation through counseling or prayer. It is hard to find an unbiased review of all existing studies to reach a purely "scientific" conclusion. Most people who quote research are attempting to prove their point, so naturally they disagree about which studies are most valid. There is probably some truth on both sides. There may be some biochemical foundation which predisposes some people to develop a homosexual orientation apart from a conscious decision. But clearly there is also a component of choice involved. The scientific jury is still out.
Let’s take this discussion a step farther. Ultimately, the question of whether homosexuality is morally right cannot be resolved by science. Suppose that some people really are oriented as homosexuals at a deep biological level and can’t change their feelings no matter how much they try. This is probably not always true, but suppose it is for some. What would it mean? Morality is not determined by chemistry. Because I am inclined to do a certain thing does not make right for me to do it, even if my inclination is totally beyond my control. The question of right and wrong must be answered from some other source. We seem to be assuming that if a person is biologically driven to do something, they must do it. We are accused of being intolerant if we suggest that homosexuality is "wrong" when it seems "natural". This is nonsense. If a behavior is wrong, then it is wrong whether I am genetically inclined to do it or not.
I personally am not oriented in a homosexual direction I have never experienced the desire and have no idea what it would feel like. But I think I can empathize with how a homosexual person might feel because I have other orientations and desires which I imagine must be very similar. Each of us is naturally attracted to some form of sin. For some it may be pornography, or gossip, or overindulgence in food. Some people are naturally more prone to anger than others. Scientific studies have shown chemical differences in the brains of violent people. Whatever my own orientation may be, it is not chosen. Perhaps a violent temper is genetic. Perhaps pornography is "natural" – it is certainly becoming more and more accepted in society. Does that mean I should go ahead and indulge in it? No it does not. There has to be another basis.
The decision of whether something is morally acceptable has to come from outside me, independent of what I am inclined to want to do. In the final analysis, our standards of what behavior is wrong are based on what God says about it. Homosexuality may be a deep unchosen orientation for some, but the behavior is still a choice. I am not making light of it or being insensitive or violating their civil rights. When we disapprove of a kind of behavior, we do not reject the person who does it. The comparison to rejecting left handedness or racial intolerance does not apply, because we are talking about behavior, not being. I am still a person of value, even though I face my particular temptations. So is a homosexual person who is unable to change. In this respect our stance is akin to what we would say about alcoholism or compulsive gambling. Some people seem to be naturally susceptible in these areas and they cannot change. There may be chemical or genetic or developmental reasons for their inclination. But orientation does not justify behavior. That is the point.
We love and accept the person who is inclined toward a particular sin, but we do not change our moral standards to accommodate them. There are lots of areas where this principle is true: you may have an orientation to gossip, or to gluttony, or to consumption of material goods at a level which keeps you from helping the poor. All these behaviors are called sin in the Bible. That’s right, Sin. Are you justified to indulge in these behaviors because you feel like doing them? No. We hold no different standard for homosexuals. Read that last sentence again. If you feel an indignation toward those who are caught in this particular sin greater than the revulsion you feel for your own sin, you are wrong. It is absolutely not appropriate for us to stand in judgment and point out the sawdust in a homosexual’s eye while we ignore the log of gossip or bitterness or anger or pride in own eye. Jesus is very clear about that. Many of us are guilty and need to repent. Violence toward gays is absolutely wrong and we need to stand against these unloving acts just as firmly as we stand against any sin. All sin is equal. Homosexual behavior is one such sin, no greater than mine, but no less a sin because it is becoming socially acceptable.
Which leads us to the other major part of the pro-gay argument, how we are to interpret the Bible. Most of us are familiar with the Scripture texts which condemn homosexuality as a sin. Do they apply in our culture? I believe the kind of reinterpretation we examined earlier cannot be applied to the morality of homosexual practice. I have tried to look at the texts without preconceptions or bias. (I recognize my human frailty in being able to do this, but I think I have done reasonably well.) I see a clear difference. In the case of women in ministry, there are examples and principles in Scripture which open the door to our current understanding. Women like Deborah and Priscilla and others served leadership roles with God’s blessing. Paul’s statement in Galatians that in Christ there is no male or female points to our essential spiritual equality. The fact that spiritual gifts are given as God wills makes us look openly at the results of a woman’s ministry and see evidence for these gifts. Because these principles exist in Scripture, it is possible to interpret Paul’s instructions as applying only to his culture.
No such overriding principles of tolerance can be found in regard to homosexual practice. Our culture has changed in a similar way, but the Bible does not leave the same kind of room in this case. There is not one example of a homosexual relationship with God’s approval in Scripture (as there are examples of women in leadership). Friendships like that of David and Jonathan cannot be viewed as a homosexual attraction, since both were married. If a significant part of the human population since creation were actually designed and "gifted" by God as homosexuals, then God has been very slow to reveal that truth to us. Are there underlying principles which open the door to a new understanding of specific texts? I have honestly searched for one, and I cannot find it. We sometimes hear "It is the relationship of love that matters, not the specifics of behavior." That sounds good, but to look for this understanding in Scripture one must grasp at straws. The Biblical principle which lies at the foundation of all Biblical teaching on sexuality is found in Genesis 1:27. Humanity was created by God as male and female, both together reflecting His image in a way that neither can do alone. This is the reason for marriage. The fact that my wife is different from me is both the source of our frustration and the heart of our fulfillment in each other. The union of opposites is deeply part of the mystery of creation. I cannot find any justification for dismissing it. God condemns homosexuality because He created us human beings male and female, designed for each other. He is not leading us to abandon that.
The motives of those who want to reinterpret Scripture and condone homosexuality are good. They want to appear relevant to the culture in which we minister. This is important. How can we best minister to the increasingly vocal homosexuals in our society? There is a time to bend the Church’s traditional ways of doing things to better reach out to the unchurched. But there is also a time to stand firm as a witness to the truth in contradiction to the prevailing norms of society. When we adopt modern worship styles, dress codes, and language patterns to be more friendly to the unchurched, we are right to change. When it comes to high moral standards, racial equality and financial integrity, we must resist changing to accommodate cultural values. Morality is not determined by majority opinion. The Church must take a prophetic role and witness against changing social values when they contradict the eternal truth God has revealed. We must take that stand with overwhelming compassion for those who suffer, but we must not compromise the truth. In the end, unbelievers are better served by a Church which stands firmly for truth than by a Church which allows the whims of a changing society to dictate its standards.
I am under no illusions that what I have written here will convince anyone who does not already agree with me. Neither do I expect that anyone will be convinced to accept homosexuality on the basis of the other side’s arguments. That is why this issue is such a crisis. Both sides sincerely believe they are teaching the truth. Theology is full of things about which we can simply agree to disagree. It doesn’t really matter how much water we use for baptism, or exactly when Jesus is coming back. The disagreement over homosexuality goes deeper than that. It is much more significant because the two points of view are mutually incompatible. Either God wants us to accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle or He doesn’t. There is no middle ground of compromise we could all live with. One side or the other is wrong. Some people call for more dialogue, and dialogue is good. But after we have all said all there is to say, what then? We are still as far apart as ever. Can we just agree to disagree about this? I wish we could, but the United Methodist Church is a connectional Church. If one pastor in one area conducts homosexual unions, we are all part of it. I am not willing to be part of that, as a matter of conscience. Likewise, I would not expect those who disagree with me to violate their conscience by living under a Discipline they believe to be morally wrong.
What does the future hold for our Church? I don’t know. I do not believe that General Conference can fix the problem. It is a theological problem, not an institutional problem. Stronger institutional rules will not stop those intent on seeing our theology changed. The Discipline is clear. Its clarity should be maintained, but that will not change people’s deeply held convictions. Would a schism help? Should we agree to split into two different Churches? I do not believe that would solve the problem either. That would be a human solution and it would be doomed to fail, as attempts to purify the Church through schism have always failed. I am convinced that God intends to purify His Church. This is something only God can do. I believe that God will move to resolve this crisis over time. We will have to be patient and wait for God to do it His way. What does that mean in practical terms? Here are my suggestions
We must repent of our own sin. It is much easier to point at the obvious errors other people are making than to fearlessly examine our own hearts. To miss this is a deadly error. Jesus really did mean what He said about the log in our own eye. We must first lay down every vestige of pride, prejudice, greed and ambition before we can justify condemning another’s error. We do not have to be perfect, but we must be earnestly striving for it. Those of us who advocate for high moral standards in other people will find our witness rendered ineffective to the extent that our own moral standards are less than exemplary.
We must be faithful to the truth we know. Once we are sure that our own hearts are clear, we have the authority and obligation to stand firm on the clear moral teachings of the Bible. We will be asked to compromise our standards in the name of tolerance and diversity. We cannot. We must continually reaffirm our commitment to love all people and extend God’s grace to everyone. But we do not blur the distinction between right and wrong. Our Discipline’s prohibition against homosexual behavior must remain intact. Where it is ambiguous, it needs to be clarified. Where groups wish to soften it, they must be resisted. In this cause, legislative action may accomplish some good. But we cannot expect resolutions and laws and church trials to finally solve the problem.
We must trust God to lead the whole Church to embrace the truth. Whichever side of this debate is wrong must be convinced of its error. Dialogue alone will not accomplish this, only God’s revelation can do that. Therefore, we must double and triple our commitment to prayer that God will enlighten us. I believe that God will answer these prayers. If advocates of change are wrong, their agenda will not succeed. If they are right, God will show us, and we must be willing to hear Him. Over time, God will lead those who are in error to see the truth, just as He has done throughout Church history. I expect this issue to be resolved within 20 years as those who are now advocating change slowly leave or retire or change their minds. It will not happen overnight, but it will happen. God has not finished with the United Methodist Church. It is His Church and He will lead us to the truth.
We must not give up. The temptation many of us face is to abandon ship prematurely. We become so disgusted with the pronouncements of the opposition that we look longingly at other, greener pastures. This is a mistake. If the Discipline were to be changed and homosexual practice officially accepted (I do not expect this), then we might have no choice but to leave the Church. But why should we leave a Church which is officially teaching the truth? There is no better Church, even if we formed a new one. Those who are out of harmony with our teachings are the ones who should leave. Until they leave, we should simply make it clear that they are out of line and that we represent the Church. Those who disobey the Discipline will be tried and convicted. The truth will be upheld. This may be the difficult road, but I believe it is the right way to deal with the crisis we face.