On homosexuality, the future of the United Methodist Church, and Adam Hamilton – An Interview with Dr. Bill Arnold

Bill Arnold, Professor of Old Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary

What should the church teach and practice regarding homosexuality? Our debates have been escalating for decades and have reached a fever pitch. Several denominations have already split because of their disagreements. The United Methodist Church is threatening to be next.

Dr. Bill Arnold, a United Methodist professor of Old Testament, is one of the most recent voices in that debate. He makes some strong and unique arguments in his new book, Seeing Black and White in a Gray World: The Need for Theological Reasoning in the Church’s Debate Over Sexuality.

Among other things, the book serves as an extended response to Adam Hamilton’s 2008 book, Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White: Thoughts on Religion, Morality, and Politics. Hamilton’s view has been championed as the “middle way,” the agree-to-disagree view, the gray area between polarized black-and-white camps. Arnold argues that no such middle way is possible in this case (or in many of the other cases Hamilton discusses).

I’ll share my review of the book next week (NOW AVAILABLE HERE). But for now, Dr. Arnold has allowed me the privilege to interview him about his book, the church’s debate about homosexuality, and the future of the United Methodist Church.

Thanks for your time, Dr. Arnold.

On the surface, this is an unusual book. It’s a book-length review of something that came out six years ago. It’s an Old Testament professor writing about modern theology and ethics. So why did you think this book was needed in the first place? Why choose Adam Hamilton’s book as your “conversation partner”? And why is an Old Testament professor writing this kind of book at all?

While the book engages Adam’s, I prefer to see it as a collegial discussion over coffee. We happen to disagree. As I explain in the Preface, I only read his book in 2012, on my way to General Conference in Tampa. But I also hope my readers will see the book as more than an extended review. In reality, the first two chapters attempt to critique and deconstruct what Adam has proposed. Then in chapters 3-6, I reconstruct a different way of looking at the debate in the church over human sexuality. These are chapters in which I hope to offer something original and genuinely helpful to the church, rather than merely interacting with Adam’s proposals.

I chose Adam as a “conversation partner” frankly because he is so influential in our church. Most of what he has accomplished is laudable. I celebrate the way God has used him in his ministry, and continues to use him. But I also believe that because of his success, our church has not thought critically enough about his proposals related to same-sex practices.

And, Yes, I’m an Old Testament teacher. One reviewer said it was odd that an OT scholar/professor should engage in dialogue with a pastoral theologian, and another friend has privately scolded me for coming down out of the “ivory tower” to address “real life” problems I don’t understand. I find this whole thing interesting. We academics get slammed for being “ivory tower” and not writing or speaking about things people care about. Then when we do, we get slammed for writing or speaking about things people care about. I admit in the book that I stepped significantly out of my comfort zone to write this book. I often imagine what it would have been like to stay in my world of Hebrew exegesis and the book of Deuteronomy. Safer, to be sure. But the story I tell in the preface about my experience at General Conference 2012 emboldened me to step into the public arena, to clear my throat, to express my views. I think of my interaction with Adam as a mutual engagement of ideas, an exchange of differing opinions, and the power and value of that engagement lies in the ideas and truths expressed, regardless of the source.

Have you talked directly with Adam Hamilton about the disagreements you list in the book—either before or since its writing? How have those conversations gone?

Yes. I had met him a few times, but we had never talked about these issues. As I say, I was not fully aware of his views until I read his book in April 2012. And to answer your question more fully, I need to explain the process I went through to write the book. I had the ideas, basic outline, and general plan for the book on the airplane back from Tampa. I wrote the first chapter that fall, but then I placed the book aside. I frankly didn’t want to continue it. Gradually, during the Spring Semester, 2013, I felt convicted that I should return to the manuscript and keep writing. So during the summer, I placed aside several other writing projects, which I still consider to be my primary calling, in order to write this book for the church. All along the way, I argued with myself (or with God) about whether or not I was really going to publish this.

Once I came to realize that yes, indeed, I was really going to offer this for publication, then I contacted Adam. I explained to him what I was planning, and we engaged in an email discussion. I wish it could have been more substantive and in person. But this was the best we could do. You asked how the conversations have gone. I suppose they have gone as you might expect. We are simply not going to agree on this issue, even if we are together on many other issues. We’re always collegial and gentlemanly, if that’s what you mean. In some ways, I hope we can model how Christians can disagree, and do it in a Christian manner.

Your approach surprised me. I expected a biblical studies person to do a deep-dive into some of the biblical passages on homosexuality. Instead, your book taught me a lot about logical fallacies (I counted 29 uses of the word fallacy), theological method, and myths in the contemporary ethical debate. Why’d you choose this approach?

I suppose it’s about the needs I perceived in the church. We have several extensive treatments of the biblical data related to same-sex practices. I especially benefitted from Richard Hays, Robert Gagnon, William Webb, Richard M. Davidson, and others. I also took the opportunity to engage the counter arguments represented in the works of Sylvia Keesmaat and Luke Timothy Johnson, although my critiques of their work will not appear until this fall in another publication. The point is, I didn’t need to rehash all that work. Besides, the church isn’t listening to the scriptural evidence anyway. I spent quite a lot of time on hermeneutical method and explaining why scripture is important. But in general, the church needs to be reminded today, in my opinion, about “theological reasoning” as I say in the subtitle.

You say, “We don’t need a newly reformed Christianity. We need instead a Methodism that is renewed and empowered to continue the social work of spreading scriptural holiness across the land, as the early Methodists did.” Could you say more? What’s the difference between “reformed” and “renewed”? And what does the UMC lack for the kind of renewal and empowerment you mention?

That quote comes from a larger critique of Adam’s approach, which proposes a new generation of Christians of the middle-way should combine parts of both extremes (Falwell or Spong) into a new Christianity. He believes this reformed Christianity will be created by people who see more gray than black-&-white. This call for a new reformation borrows a theme from the Emerging Church, which I think is trendy and already waning in influence. I think this call for a new reformation is overreaching, and what we really need is renewal of what we have in Wesleyan theology. A fresh proclamation of our theology is what the world needs. I really believe that. But we’re distracted and torn apart by conflict. We need renewal and empowerment, not new answers to controversial debates.

You argue that there is no middle way on the issue of same-sex practices. It’s a fork in the road. Either we approve them, or we don’t. But some people will say we don’t have to force everyone down the same path. We don’t require all of our pastors to remain in lock-step on our beliefs about creation, or our stance on tobacco use, for instance. So why enforce conformity on this issue?

Our statement on sexuality emphasizes the sacred worth of all persons, and is clear that we do not condemn individuals for experiencing same-sex attraction. The pressure on our church today is on the specific questions of ordination and the nature of Christian marriage. And how these relate to same-sex practices presents the church with the single most important social issue of our day.

The pressure to address the question would not be as great for congregationalist denominations. They have mechanisms for letting each congregation decide. But Methodism defines itself as connectional, and sees this as one of the most important ways we participate in the one, catholic, universal church. Of course, we don’t all agree on every issue. But as a connectional church, our Social Principles offer the world our best theological thinking on every aspect of life in the modern world. How can this not include official statements embraced by the connection on human sexuality?

You had a great section at the end of the book, debunking myths in the current debate. This quote stood out to me:  

“The church’s teaching about sex is not the problem, and liberation from that teaching has not provided healthy freedom. On the contrary, it can be argued that the church failed to influence culture in the 1960s, losing its voice and failing to condemn nonmarital sexual practices of all kinds.”  

You suggest that the church lost its voice on sexual issues fifty years ago. Might it be hard for people to respect a stance on same-sex intimacy from a church that has, as you say, “failed to condemn nonmarital sexual practices of all kinds”? Have we lost the right to speak on sexuality? Or are we starting in the wrong place by making same-sex practices our focus?

Yes, in one sense we are starting in the wrong place. We’re here because North American culture is driving the UMC quickly toward becoming another example of “cultural Christianity” rather than biblical Christianity.

That quote is part of a discussion of the “myth of liberation” in the current debate. My point is that the church lost the battle during the sexual revolution of the 1960s, in which “liberation” was a central theme. And once the church lost its influence in the culture, we simply grew quiet on sexual promiscuity generally, whether we’re talking about multiple marriages without just cause for divorce or premarital cohabitation. The church has grown silent on those topics and is now unfortunately fixated on same-sex practices. But you’re right, the church exists to teach the world and offer the world a higher way, a more excellent ethic that is ultimately satisfying to God and more fulfilling as human beings in this created order. The church extends grace and care to persons experiencing same-sex attraction. It’s vitally important that the church find new and creative ways to do that. But we also offer everyone in the church, no matter our sexual experiences or preferences, a way of holy living that ultimately fits our souls for communion with God.

Two of the most prominent violations of the UMC stance on same-sex marriages involve UM pastors who officiated the weddings of their gay sons. I’m sure situations like that would cause someone to do a lot of soul-searching. If you’ll indulge a hypothetical—a gay son comes to you and says, “Dad, I’m getting married. I hope you’ll be at the wedding. I’d really like you to officiate it.” What do you say?

Great question. As I say in the preface to the book, I had long talks with two of my three sons about this topic while I was writing the book. (Our youngest son was on deployment with the Marine Corps in Afghanistan at the time.) They were helpful chats because they don’t all agree with everything I’ve said here. But this is something that never came up. I think and hope my first impulse would be to assure him how much I love him, and how much I will never allow anything to break our relationship. I think my sons know me well enough, have gone through enough with me to know, I would probably grab him and hug him first, and then start talking about it. Of course the next part of my answer is hypothetical, so I can only say this is what I hope I would do. But I hope I would say I would attend the ceremony, and express my unhesitating love for my son, but that I could not perform the ceremony. I think any of my sons would understand this. A wedding ceremony is God’s stamp of approval, acknowledging that God honors and blesses, and approves of love between two people, and finally, that God approves the sexualization of that relationship. When I perform wedding ceremonies, I’m an instrument of God’s grace to approve and bless that union. I would hope my son would love and respect me enough to understand my position, and welcome my presence in attendance at the ceremony, but accept my decision not to perform the ceremony. That would be incredibly difficult and painful. I don’t want to minimize the pain others have gone through in making this decision. But just as they say it’s a question of pastoral integrity that leads them to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, I respond that indeed, it’s integrity that drives me to say I simply cannot perform them. I think my sons would understand that.

A lot of different proposals are coming out right now regarding the impasse in the UMC. Another group just recently issued a press release through Good News Magazine that essentially said it’s time to acknowledge our differences and work toward an amicable split. If you had to propose or endorse a way forward for the UMC, what would you say right now? To get more realistic, what do you think is most likely for our future?

Well, those are two different questions. Because I’m basically a pessimist, I need to say I don’t have much hope for keeping us together. But I’m also not part of those groups calling for a split or amicable separation. I prefer staying together as a denomination, but finding ways to hold bishops and annual conferences accountable to the “sacred trust,” as the Book of Discipline says, that binds us together. We’re in this mess because some have chosen deliberately to break faith with the connection, which they consider biblical disobedience. I consider it schismatic.

I also don’t favor proposals circulating just now that favor allowing the local congregation to decide the question of marriage/civil unions, and annual conferences’ Boards of Ordained Ministries to decide the question of ordination. I don’t support those proposals for two main reasons. First, on the authority of the local church to decide the question of marriage/unions, I believe this would make us congregationalists. Our connectionalism is one of the hallmarks of Methodism, which also locates us squarely in the one, catholic, universal Church. The idea of turning to local congregations to settle this important and sensitive issue reconfigures Methodism significantly. Second, on the ordination question, I cannot image the confusion and chaos created at the conference level. I make no claim to be an expert on the appointment system. But this strikes me as “everyone doing what is right in their own eyes” chaos (you might have expected an Old Testament allusion).

And just for fun… You’ve been a delegate to the past two General Conferences. You were the second person nominated in the Kentucky Conference last time, and the person who was nominated before you is now a bishop. If nominated for the episcopacy, will you run? If elected, will you serve?

No, and no.

Thank you, that is all.

——-

Dr. Arnold’s book is Seeing Black and White in a Gray World: The Need for Theological Reasoning in the Church’s Debate Over Sexuality. For anyone in the United Methodist Church, or anyone with an interest in this debate, it’s worth picking up.

I’ll be writing more about the book. Sign up to receive free updates.

The coming church budget crunch

This is a revised version of a post from last year. I thought it appropriate as churches are beginning to budget for 2014.

I just asked a friend to run a quick analysis for me: “How much of your church’s contributions come from people age 55 and over?”

His number was 70%.

My friend was unflinching. “Isn’t it always that way? That’s the group that has the most to give, so they give most of the money.” His church looks healthy. The UMC would consider it a “vital congregation.”

But I wasn’t convinced, so I asked him to try a second analysis, if his software could do it. “How much of your church’s contributions 10 years ago came from people age 55 and over?”

This time, my friend came back concerned. Ten years ago, only 50% of contributions came from ages 55 and over. In ten years, giving from people age 55 and over went from 50% to 70%.

A few reasons I had this hunch:

If your church is at least 10 years old, it’s probably older now than it was 10 years ago. You may have anecdotal evidence to argue otherwise (that booming parents’ Sunday School class, the three infant baptisms last week…), but unless you can show me the numbers to prove it, I bet you’re older. The average age in the American UMC has gone from 30 in the 1950’s to 57 in 2008.
Most churches – even ones that look healthy – have been living off the leadership and giving of the Baby Boomers for a long time. The Baby Boomers are now ages 48 – 66.
The Older Boomers (those who were draft age during Vietnam) are all now 56 and older. They’ve been stronger leaders and contributors than the Younger Boomers.
The Silent Generation (whose youngest are now 67) were loyalists, committed to the Church, and committed to supporting it with their money.

This shows a fundamental non-shift taking place in our churches. As the Boomers and Silent Generation age, the younger generations aren’t shifting to handle more of the church’s financial burden. There are no signs they plan to fill that void.

We’re living off the fumes of earlier periods’ growth. Meanwhile, we have increased our debt, enlarged our campuses (and their accompanying maintenance and utilities costs), and inflated our staffs and salaries.

If giving from ages 55+ went from half of a church’s giving to 70% in the last ten years, what will happen in the next ten? Unless we experience major change, we’ll see a lot of budget reductions.

What I expect in the next ten years… Since we can’t reduce debt and building maintenance costs without serious consequences, the coming budget crunch will hit staffing, programming, and missions the hardest.

In the UMC, I expect many churches will cut their apportionment payments as they try to preserve ministry locally. Politics will ensue. I would be especially concerned if I were a Wesley Foundation or camp that still relies on money from the conference. Look at your recent conference budgets — what’s going up (e.g. directors’ salaries) will plateau, what’s already going down or plateaued will be decreased or eliminated.

I don’t write this to scare, but I do write it as a wake-up call. Most churches and conferences budget as if giving is going to increase in the next decade. They give raises, take on debt, and defer maintenance because they assume they’ll have enough money in the future to support these items. You might want to do more research before making those assumptions. Budgeting on hope and faith sounds nice, but plenty of churches have had to close after they spent their money on hope/faith rather than reality. Some of those churches even hosted Dave Ramsey courses…

Why part-time local pastor?

I’ve been surprised by the number of messages I’ve received from people asking why I’m a local pastor — and why part-time. They want to know why I’m not pursuing ordination as an elder in the United Methodist Church. Or if not elder, why I wouldn’t be ordained as a deacon.

For me, making the decision to stop the process at licensed local pastor was a very intentional, theological, values-laden decision. Especially for those who are trying to discern their own place in this system, I’ll share some of my reasoning.

Why local pastor?

When Paul writes to Titus about appointing elders (presbuteroi — note that it’s plural) in every town, and when Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in each church, I suspect that those elders they appoint are existing members of those communities. What are the apostles doing, then? It appears that they are recognizing some of the people in those communities for their gifts and their calling to leadership within the community. Then they’re appointing leaders from within them.

I’m in a unique situation. The church I serve is the church I grew up in. That’s not really a coincidence so much as it’s an intentional decision. I’d go so far as to call it a very particular calling. As a lifelong member of First UMC Lexington, so much of my own understanding of ministry and calling has been to lead within my community. Not as a professional outsider, but as someone who might be similar to those presbuteroi whom Paul and Barnabas appointed.

Because of this understanding of calling and ministry, I haven’t been able to pursue ordination with integrity. Itineracy is at the heart of elders’ orders in the UMC’s current practice. For anyone who becomes an elder, it’s emphasized that they’re taking a vow to go wherever their bishop sends them.

I can’t vow with integrity to go where the bishop sends.

If the bishop came to me tomorrow and said, “I’m sending you to Owensboro,” I don’t think I would go. Yes, I’d pray about it. But that kind of role — going as an outsider to serve as a temporary chaplain — while it may be appropriate for many, just doesn’t fit my understood calling or function in ministry. Moreover, it doesn’t fit our family’s values.

Now I’ve heard more than a few dozen times that itineracy is a “consultative process.” As in, the bishop wouldn’t just call me tomorrow and tell me I’m going to Owensboro. There would be several conversations — with me, with the church where I am now, with the church in Owensboro. And I’ve seen that in action. I believe that’s (mostly) true. But at the end of the day, it’s still the decision of the bishop. And if I say no, it’s me who broke my vow. I can’t deal with that kind of breach of integrity. The truth is, even with a consultative process, I’m just not sure I can vow to go where a bishop sends me.

My District Superintendent was quick to remind me that local pastors are still appointed and can be moved, too. My response: “But if I choose not to accept that move, I won’t have broken my vow.”

The question that follows: “Is this an issue of submission? You’re unwilling to submit to the bishop?”

No, that’s really not it. I do submit to my bishop. But my submission is about whether or not I’m allowed to lead my community. My bishop can come at any point and remove me from my position. I know that. And I submit to that. I’ve been reminded by several people that one of the downsides to being a licensed local pastor is that you can have your appointment removed at any time.

So in a peculiar way, I see my submission to the bishop as opposite that of ordained elders. An ordained elder with guaranteed appointment submits to where (s)he will serve, but not whether (s)he will serve. My submission is more similar to what I think was happening in those communities where Titus and Paul and Barnabas appointed elders. I don’t think Paul would have ever gone into Ephesus and told one of its elders to go be an elder in Corinth. But he may have gone in and removed an elder. So I’m submitting not to where, but to whether I will be an authorized pastor in my community.

And the one other question that I hear: “Why not be ordained as a deacon? Deacons don’t itinerate.”

No, they don’t, but their ordination is also quite different. Deacons are ordained to word, service, compassion, and justice. Elders are ordained to word, sacrament, and order. I understand the latter to be my primary calling. I find the sacraments and ordering the life of the church for ministry right at the heart of my calling, so to be ordained as a deacon just doesn’t work. Fortunately for me, the UMC recognizes the licensed local pastor as one licensed to word, sacrament, service, and ordering the life of the local congregation. That fits.

To be clear in all of this, I believe the UMC’s system of itineracy and appointment is workable and faithful. It’s not that I don’t believe it’s a right way. I just don’t believe it’s the only way – or that it’s the way for me and my family. Serving as a local pastor has allowed me to find a place in the UMC.

(I’ve written a lot about the distinct roles of pastor and itinerant in Scripture and Methodist history. See “related articles” below.)

One final reason for being a licensed local pastor is that I’m able to be classified as “part-time.” That proves to be a big deal…

Why part-time?

A number of others have asked why I’m designated as part-time. (My job description lists me as full-time, and I work full-time, but I’m listed with the conference as part-time.) This is a much easier question to answer: I’m part-time because of money.

If I were declared full-time, it would cost my church $19,000 to bring me up to the minimum required for full-time local pastors (the minimum in the link is for elders – it’s $4,000 less for local pastors). My church would do that. I have no question about it. They have never pressured me not to be listed as full-time and have even pressured me to take salary increases at times in the past. But if you’ve read anything I’ve written about pastors’ salaries, you know I believe there’s a more faithful way to use the church’s collection. My wife works part-time, so we have other income, and we have never worried about meeting our needs. Perhaps that situation will change some day, but for now, I can’t justify taking any more from the church than I have.

For any of you who have shared my concerns about the church’s use of money, this could be a way for you to do something different. Our conferences set minimum requirements, and the only way to avoid them is through part-time status. I’m told some bishops use their appointive power as a way to make churches keep raising salaries: “If you don’t give him/her a raise, I might need to make a change.” The part-time designation can also avoid some of those politics.

I hope this is helpful to any of you who are considering your own role in this whole process. I’d love to answer more questions if you have them, or to hear your thoughts.

Share it!

Related articles

Share it!

Related articles

Share it!