The Sexual Identity Crisis of the United Methodist Church

There is one thing about which we can all agree: the ongoing battle within the United Methodist Church over sexuality is an extremely exacerbating debate. Everyone hates it. We all want it to go away. Everyone- young or old, liberal or conservative, gay or straight, United Methodist or not- implores why we must persistently lock horns over the issues surrounding the presence of LGBT people, especially when this fight distracts us, divides us, and paints a picture for the rest of the world of the church at its very worst.
ID Crisis Church

Nevertheless, for nearly 42 years, this issue has increasingly been the defining issue of the church to grapple with. Now it threatens to tear the United Methodist Church apart. With the conclusion of the Schaefer trial and news of many more of these trials already in the works, tensions are rising to historic levels. We are indeed in the midst of a major crisis of sexual identity in the United Methodist Church.

Crisis doesn’t just mean “pain and distress” as commonly used. Crisis comes from the Greek word krisis, which means “a decision”. A crisis is a major point of decision in which several paths are laid out before us. We must choose which way to go.

The problem has been that at our point of crisis, the people of the United Methodist Church have been asked to choose from one of two paths. The first, which has been the standard of our Book of Discipline, has established that the practice of homosexuality is not compatible with Christian teaching. As such, same-sex weddings are outlawed, clergy who perform them can be charged, tried, and lose their credentials, and no self-avowed practicing homosexual may be ordained. The second path continually and persistently offered our church has been a change to our Discipline that would allow for the full inclusion and embrace of LGBT persons into the church: membership, marriage, and ordination.

When our denomination meets for General Conference every quadrennium, we are thrown into the same crisis in which yet another excrutiating choice must be made, a choice that will ultimately pain and exclude a significant portion of the church. That choice for nearly 42 years has been made to uphold the incompatibility of homosexuality within the life of the church: with special emphases on marriage and ordination.

Now we are in a state of chaos. As gay marriage became law in 16 states and in the District of Columbia, some clergy and churches have been conducting same-sex marriages and in doing so, have conscientiously defied church law in the name of righteousness, fairness, and what they uphold as a true example of the gospel. Charges, trials, and verdicts ensue as well as a growing possibility of a devastating split to the church, or a grand exodus by those who can no longer tolerate the standards and practices of the church.

Then there are so many more folks who don’t strongly subscribe to one side or the other, who are afraid of being torn apart in this tug of war. They never receive the press or the attention that the sides of the debate always seem to garner. But they are suffering and hurting, too.

As for me, I am in deep pain over the state of the United Methodist Church. I am deathly afraid of a split or an exodus. We would never recover from a loss like this, and I don’t want to have to choose between which side, which of my church family, I would remain loyal to. I love and need all my church family, including the ones I don’t see eye to eye with. They especially have enriched and deepened my life and my vision.

However, I have a proposal that I believe most fair-minded, open people will embrace. It’s admittedly quite vague and undefined right now, but better defined, it will restore our unity and uphold the greatest truths we all share.

I am proposing a via media, a third alternative which can rise above the two choices we’ve always been given and become a place we can all live in, even with our great differences.

I believe we can find a biblical model or principle that will allow our full United Methodist church to co-exist, even with our great differences. We can each uphold our passionate convictions while making room for the other. In that way, we can cling to Jesus, to each other, and to our church, even when we are not able to agree.

Many on both sides would vehemently challenge me here. They would claim that a third way would compromise essential aspirations and truths from their side. They argue that there are fundamentally incompatible convictions and aspirations that cannot possibly co-exist in one body, not without damaging the integrity of the whole.

Well, so far the two-choice paradigm we’ve been living with for nearly 42 years has proven one thing: it’s killing our church. If it’s allowed to continue out of principle while each side entrenches itself even more deeply, we will be reduced to a much weaker, smaller shadow of our former selves which I firmly believe will summons the death knell for Methodism in America. None of us will be better for it. Each side is killing the church in the name of preserving it.

I also firmly believe that the Holy Spirit has been trying to lead us in a different way, to a different place. It’s a place quite different from the places people are entrenched in now. It’s a place, not necessarily of compromise, but of shared community in which there is respect, trust, love and embrace of common, higher, Christ-like principles. The problem is that we’ve not been able to listen among the calamitous voices of the debate over LGBT. Or, afraid of backlash from the ideological right or left, we’ve feared to go there. Well now, with the church in jeopardy, we have nothing to lose, especially if we believe in the future of a United Methodist Church.

To get there, God will call some open people who are not afraid of backlash from their respective side to engage in this work. They are the blessed peacemakers whom Jesus names “the sons and daughters of God” (Matthew 5:9). It will be hard painful work, but I believe that the Holy Spirit will lead us. If we can be humble and moldable enough and endure the friction from within and without, God will show us this different way. And Jesus’ disciples who make up our church will see and respond.

~A Postscript: For Those Still Reading~

Right now, I can hear some of you saying, “I don’t care what you say, Chris. I will not be a part of a church that calls sin acceptable and tolerates anything that goes against the Word of God.” News flash: none of us do, liberal or conservative! Of course we don’t want a church like that. I hear no one saying, “Yup, I’m all for proliferating sin and evil in my church!” And of course, we all want to uphold the Word of God as our light and truth. The problem is that we cannot agree on what is sin and what is not. What one calls sin is a painful stumbling block to the other, and what one doesn’t call sin is also an offensive stumbling block to the other. Perhaps the Apostle Paul might have a word to say about that…

Right now, I can hear an entirely different group of people saying to me, “I don’t care what you say, Chris. I will not be part of a church in which people are excluded and oppressed on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or any other kind of identity.” News flash: none of us do, conservative or progressive! Of course we don’t want a church like that. I hear no one saying, “Let’s go the way of Westboro Baptist Church and cast out all the [insert pejorative].” Of course we want to include and embrace all people. An inclusive church is one of founding tenants of the United Methodist Church. The problem is that we all don’t agree on the nature of inclusivity. It’s not a question of who we include, but what we include, specifically standards, behaviors, and the qualities we want (or don’t want) for clergy.

As you can see, neither of the critical statements I mentioned here about sin and inclusivity which we hear bantered about in the debates are helpful.

No one wants a church who tolerates sin. No one wants an exclusive church. But perhaps a step forward would be to claim what we all do want: an inclusive  church which loves biblical righteousness. Can we all say that together, even if our definitions differ from time to time?


Filed under Human Sexuality, The United Methodist Church

11 Responses to The Sexual Identity Crisis of the United Methodist Church

  1. Edmund Metheny

    “Many on both sides would vehemently challenge me here. They would claim that a third way would compromise essential aspirations and truths from their side. They argue that there are fundamentally incompatible convictions and aspirations that cannot possibly co-exist in one body, not without damaging the integrity of the whole.”
    I would vehemently challenge you here because I don’t see you offering any real solution to the problem. Before you can come up with a third approach you need to address how that approach will handle fundamental (sorry) issues that are currently dividing the church. Absent actual solutions, your third way isn’t really adding anything to the debate.

    • I believe I did say that my aspiration is admittedly vague on substance, at least for the time being. That’s on purpose. If I was too specific with a particular set of uniting convictions and aspirations, there wouldn’t be room for the creative thinking of others. Because this is so new, I want to offer an invitation for a third way to be shaped together by those willing to co-discern what it is. Sorry if that’s not specific enough for some, but it is what it is.

  2. Edmund Metheny

    It DOES make a nice rant, however. ^_^

  3. Terry Orrence

    I have prayed about this for years and have always wondered why this particular sin is singled out above all others. I know of no pastor or lay person who is without sin. That being said, I will never marry two people of the same gender. I believe Jesus was clear that marriage was ordained to be between an man and a woman. However, I really have no problem ordaining homosexuals, they are no more sinful than I am. One of the beauties of Methodism is that we are free to think, to embrace diversity of thought. We are not a monolithic people, so why should be forced to think as if we were. To me, this issue does not rise to the level of something we need to add to our creeds. Wesley often quoted Augustine’s, “In essentials, unity;in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” perhaps the third choice is to allow each of us to believe as the Spirit leads us, without prejudice to those who disagree. If you don’t want a homosexual pastor, there will be plenty who are not; if you feel homosexuality is incompatible with marriage, then you should be free to refuse to officiate such a union. The “essential” thing here is not what you believe is right or wrong and force that on others…it is what our Lord has commanded; that we love one another. Maybe, if we spent more time doing that, this “issue” would resolve itself.

  4. Nikki Horner

    Chris, I agree that a split in the church is painful especially for those closest to it such as yourself as a pastor – as one who is a church leader and in the thick of the debates, stress, and anxiety. These are people that are your dear friends and probably like family. But, it is better and necessary to stand up lovingly for the truth than to try to keep everyone together and happy and let sin become acceptable in the church thereby compromising the holiness of God. According to Matthew 10:34 – 39 Jesus says whoever loves their family more than me is not worthy of me. It is what I thought about first after reading your post and it took me a while to find that passage. But, I am not making light of your situation – it is very difficult and I do not like confrontation, either. I am interested in your thoughts – am I completely misunderstanding you?
    Jesus stood up lovingly for the truth. He had great compassion and mercy in dealing with the woman caught in adultery, the woman at the well, Zacchaeus, and many others (that you can name off the top of your head but I can’t). But he didn’t say things like, “Well, in your case it was okay.” he said to all of them (in one way or another) “Go and sin no more.”. He wasn’t hateful yet he showed love by calling a sin a sin and telling them not to do it anymore! But he also didn’t snarl at them and tell them to get away from him – they’re icky. He befriended sinners without compromising His Father’s holiness. That is the example we have to follow as Christians. We need to love one another without compromising the holiness of God. I believe that splits are sometimes necessary to accomplish that. The people who stand up for the truth will be made stronger and the people who want to promote a lie in their own pride will not persevere to the end. There will be bruised feelings and broken relationships but, again, see Matthew 10:34 – 39. And I think that you can still reach out to your loved ones/friends who disagree with you and treat them with respect without saying, “Well, you might be right.”.
    This has nothing to do with your post but congratulations on your Ram’s Head gig. I’ve been enjoying reading about your new band and I am thrilled that you are involved. It’s a good example for your kids – surely your older ones play several instruments by now? Music is a joy. I need to get babysitting, grab my husband, maybe a few old friends from high school, and come out and hear you guys at some point in the near future. Maybe next time your sister is in town.

  5. First, bravo for tackling a thorny debate with honesty and without using euphemisms or obfuscation. Second, I don’t know if I’m just being very obtuse today or insufficiently informed in the specifics of the UMC dialogue, but I didn’t grasp what shape this via media would or could take?

  6. Reblogged this on John Hill's Blog and commented:
    Here’s a good read on the “Sexual Identity Crisis within the United Methodist Church.”

  7. Pingback: What a Pastor and a Duck Dynasty Star Have in Common | Pastor Chris Owens - - Musings, Rants, and Reflections

  8. M.060

    With this ongoing special General Conference this weekend, I pray that we as a church can come to a resolution, hopefully for the better. It would be God’s will to see us love our neighbors, so why must so many of His humble servants insist on discriminating so many of His children? All should be welcome in our church, no matter whom they choose to love.. one this remains unanimous: no matter the gender of the person we love, we ALL love our Lord.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *