With many other United Methodists in the past few weeks, I’ve spent a lot of time considering the various proposals for our denomination’s way(s) forward. Other people, and ultimately Judicial Council, will have a better eye on issues of constitutionality. And while I could focus on other practicalities––how a particular plan will affect finances, whether it tends toward congregationalism or abandons Methodism’s general superintendency, etc.––I’m choosing to focus on a different aspect of these plans.
I’ve been reading these primarily to ask (a) how they arrived at their theological and biblical foundations, and (b) whether the proposed plan accomplishes what it should based on those foundations. I’ll stick to those here.
I have a (perhaps minor) objection to the exegesis used to establish this plan’s foundations. I have a major objection to what the plan accomplishes. The proposed plan fails to accomplish what its foundations make primary. If we accept the foundations for this plan, it doesn’t go nearly far enough.
A Minor Objection: Exegesis
A slightly troubling piece to the One Church Plan, for me, is some faulty exegesis. It cites Romans 14:19 as an example of Paul calling “those in Rome to give up judgement and contempt of each other as they worked out these differences in community.” The plan uses this as biblical support for a “live and let live” approach to differences regarding orthopraxy. This is exactly opposite what Paul was advocating in Romans 14.
Paul doesn’t advocate “live and let live” as what will lead to peace and mutual edification. Instead, he tells the group that is exploiting their new understanding of freedom to stop and instead restrict their actions. “If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love […] It is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.”
Paul supports freedom of action in principle but restriction of action in practice.
In this case, peace didn’t come by letting people behave as they wanted while others had issues of conscience. Peace came by people restricting their actions that troubled the others’ consciences.
The One Church Plan’s approach is directly contrary to Paul’s exhortations in Romans 14. As a whole passage, it shows how one group’s actions can cause distress for another group, how liberated action (even if acceptable on its own) can destroy table fellowship when others have troubled consciences, how one group’s liberties affect everyone. It provides an answer for those who would ask, “How does our blessing of same-sex marriage in Cal-Pac harm you in North Katanga?”
Not that I would call Romans 14 a final word on the issue. I wouldn’t say that it alone is enough to merit restricted action for all. But it was the wrong passage to support the biblical foundations of this plan.
A Major Objection: Plan compatibility with theological foundations
If we take the theological foundations seriously, no one should be voting for this plan.
The Theological & Biblical Foundations state (with my emphases): “We are aware that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) persons exist in every nation and every culture in the world, with varying degrees of openness, acceptance, and freedom […] There are, and have been, LGBTQ persons serving at all levels of leadership in the UMC, as laity and clergy. Currently they suffer as they are unable to live into God’s calling on their lives to ordination or to lay leadership.”
The very next paragraph: “The UMC Social Principles state that all people are persons of sacred worth. This calls us to honor the human dignity of all persons and we believe that it is the calling of the church to be about the eradication of all forms of suffering. It is our sacred obligation to work to end suffering everywhere, that all might be free.[note]A minor objection I decided not to spend more time on: Is the church’s calling truly to eradicate all forms of suffering? We are called to administer true justice and show mercy and compassion to one another. I am not sure this is the same as “eradicating all forms of suffering.”[/note] We do this in order to live into our calling to be the hands and feet of Christ in the world.”
So the argument of the One Church Plan is that LGBTQ people suffer because they are unable to live into God’s calling to ordination or lay leadership. And the church has a sacred obligation to work to end suffering. Everywhere. This after it has acknowledged that LGBTQ persons exist in every nation and every culture in the world.
If the One Church Plan really believes what it says—that we have a sacred obligation to end the suffering of LGBTQ persons everywhere—it shouldn’t give Annual Conferences and Central Conferences the option to continue denying ordination to self-avowed practicing homosexuals. Not if that denial is a part of the suffering we’re called to eradicate.
As the plan defines suffering and the church’s obligation, it fails to accomplish its purposes. If we believe the theological foundations here, we should be outspoken opponents of the One Church Plan. It expressly abdicates the church’s sacred obligation to work to end suffering everywhere. It affirms whole regions of the church that would actively contribute to human suffering, as defined here.
A theological foundation that establishes deep divisions
Moreover, in the plan’s theological foundations, it says, “Rather than dividing people into various camps based solely on these issues, they are willing to continue the journey together.” But its theological foundations have already broken us into two camps: those causing suffering and those alleviating it; the Oppressors and the Liberators.
This plan would hold any Annual Conference that is not fully affirming as the opposition: a wing of the church that is actively contributing to human suffering. This model preserves structural unity, but its theology establishes a deep division.
If anyone affirms the One Church Plan’s theological foundations, they could only support its structural changes to our denomination as a first step. A necessary next step would be to establish full inclusion of self-avowed practicing homosexuals everywhere. Anything less than that, according to the plan’s own foundations, is an abdication of the church’s responsibility.
If anyone is suspicious that this plan is just a gateway to enforcing full inclusion, its theological foundations betray that agenda.
Oddly, for people who really believe the foundations here, the Connectional Conferences Plan or the Traditional Plan would both be much better options. Both of those would allow for a Methodist presence in all regions that will ordain practicing homosexuals—Connectional Conferences by forming different conferences according to ideology, Traditional Plan by forming different denominations according to ideology. The Simple Plan also allows for a Methodist presence in all regions that will ordain practicing homosexuals, and that as the only option.
The One Church Plan is the only plan that will divide these decisions geographically. It would leave no Methodist presence in (for instance) Alabama that would ordain a practicing homosexual. If the goal is truly to eradicate the suffering of those denied ordination as Methodists, and to eradicate it everywhere, the One Church Plan is the only one of the four that should not be considered.
Like it? Or just want to discuss it more? I’d be honored if you’d share it –– use the social media links at left. Or send me an email for follow-up discussion. Or if you haven’t already, click here to subscribe for more. Thank you!
teddy ray 