Rev. Peck opines that liberals and conservatives should first discuss their different views of scripture before they attempt reconciling their views on homosexuality.  That is an excellent insight on his part about the real issue at play in United Methodism’s never-ending debate.  However, and perhaps it was merely a rhetorical suggestion on his part, it is also a course of action that would be fruitless and doomed to failure from the start.  For those of us who “believe every book in the Bible is the inspired Word of God” there is no turning our backs on that inspired Word. It would have been nice had Rev. Peck pointed out that conservatives believe in a proper interpretation and application of the inspired Word.  We’re quite capable of having such as the Council of Jerusalem help us distinguish between eating shellfish and engaging in sexual immorality.

 So far as the notion that we should recognize that “Christians have differences of opinion” on the issue of homosexuality, that is not really an accurate reflection of the case.  Except for a small group of liberals, in a few tiny culture-pleasing segments of a few insignificant denominations in only a few countries of “western, Post-Christian culture” there is unanimous opinion that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.  For countless billions of the Church Triumphant and the Church Visible, across continent after continent and age after age for two thousand years of Church history, believers have recognized that homosexuality is simultaneously sinful, unnatural, and the result of elevating self or some other idol into God’s place at the center of creation.

 Steven H. Zinser, Chaplain (Retired) U.S. Army

Commentary: Church should examine the reason for its differences   

(included in NIC VOICE GC2004 Follow-up Reporting #43)
 
May 21, 2004   A UMNS Commentary By the Rev. J. Richard Peck*

Dr. Karen P. Oliveto, The Robert and Dorrie Moon Lectures, Sacramento, CA, May 16, 2004

Having just come back from General Conference, I find myself wondering: Just when did love become so unfashionable for the Church of Jesus Christ?

<snip>

In the course of a few short months, the gay lexicon has changed. While at General Conference, I caught up with a United Methodist friend who had come to SF to be married and who couldn’t wait to introduce me to her wife. Where once lesbian and gay couples referred to each other as partners, confusing many straight people who wondered what kind of small business the partners owned, now they have claimed the words spouse, wife, and husband. Words are powerful. Friend, partner, lover…none of these words convey the fullness of meaning implicit in spouse, husband, wife.

<snip>

Unfortunately, that is not the way The United Methodist Church sees it.

The first two petitions that the plenary adopted at General Conference were on family and marriage. We narrowed our understanding of family to include a father and mother, snubbing not only gay and lesbian families, but all those parents who, by choice or circumstance, are parenting alone.

The second petition defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, and urged United Methodists to work against all civil laws that would widen that definition.

Having lived through San Francisco’s Winter of Love, having many different forms of families within my congregation, including most recently the adoption of children by two gay couples, and standing as we all are, on the eve of legal gay marriage in Massachusetts, I find the legislation passed at General Conference to be both arrogant and offensive. How dare The United Methodist Church, or any church which follows the teachings of Jesus, seek to limit family and covenant. Jesus expands our traditional notion of family and kinship. "Who are my brothers, my mother? All who do the will of God is my family." And Jesus shows us that the highest form of relationship we are to strive for is that of covenant. We are to be a people who live in covenant with each other and with God. In spite of what some may argue, marriage is a covenant that need not be limited by gender.

Oh, if only these were the only things that happened at General Conference…

I have returned from General Conference deeply concerned, not only for my own ministry at Bethany, but for all churches across our denomination that welcome all people, regardless of sexual orientation, to participate in the faith community. I am concerned about our annual conference, and its historic commitment to ministry with, by and for g/l/b/t persons. And I am concerned about the western jurisdiction, which has been further marginalized to the point of tokenism.

While some look at the statistical data of the voting trends of General Conference, and say that there are hopeful signs that the church is changing, ask any gay or lesbian person, or those who minister to them, if in fact General Conference offered any hope and most would have to say no. Because while the margins narrowed, the restrictions against g/l/b/t United Methodist laity and clergy increased. When a noose is tightening around your neck, cutting off your air supply, the fact that not as many folks voted to hang you is of little comfort.

<snip>

As the rights and visibility of gay men and lesbians increase in American culture, The United Methodist Church is heading in the opposite direction. Loopholes in The Discipline that allowed pastors to care for their gay and lesbian parishioners as well as enabled gay and lesbian pastors to serve in a don’t ask, don’t tell environment have been effectively eradicated. As gay men and lesbians enjoy public visibility, the church is requiring them to go more deeply in the closet. For many, this is simply not an option.

<snip>

At the same time, The United Methodist Church is forcing gay and lesbian pastors to be even more deeply closeted than ever before. This is occurring in an era when young people are coming out at an increasingly earlier age, and in comparison with older generations of queer people, with virtually no closets. As a result of the increased restrictions on gay and lesbian clergy, we will see fewer gay and lesbian young people answer their call to ordained ministry through The United Methodist Church. The cost of ordination within this denomination, which includes the lack of recognition of one’s family and the self-denial of one’s very personhood, will be too great for a generation of young people who have never been limited by the borders of closet living. The cost to the church as a result of these restrictions is a loss of called and creative individuals whose ministries can further the mission of the church.

Frequently when I am typing quickly, I make an error and wind up typing "Untied Methodist Church." These days, it seems more of a prophetic message rather than a typo. At a breakfast meeting of Good News at General Conference and later at a press conference, Rev. Bill Hinson outlined a proposal for the splitting of the church. He cites we in the West as one of the factors which caused him to call for this split. As he said at the breakfast: "Our friends in the Western Jurisdiction have left us.  Our covenant is in shreds.  And when I speak of covenant I’m not talking about the trust clause. I’m talking about a sacred trust that is much deeper and more binding.  Through the years such a trust could be counted on to keep us faithful to what we have discussed, voted on, and placed into our Book of Discipline.  All of that has now changed.  More than that, our friends who have broken our covenant feel that they themselves are broken, because the votes of this Conference have largely gone against them, they feel disenfranchised, they feel we are doing spiritual violence to them, and have told us clearly that we are not truth tellers.  In addition they are seeking autonomy from the larger body.   They garnered more than 300 votes in an attempt to do things their way with regard to ordination in the Western Jurisdiction."

Hinson talks of three things: a breaking of covenant, the victimization that he perceives the West feels, and what he perceives as the West seeking autonomy so that our ministries can be inclusive.

First, the question begs to be asked: just who is breaking covenant with whom? I contend that The United Methodist Church has broken covenant with every gay and lesbian member and their families. There is no other group we have legislated so thoroughly against. We believe that within every baptized Christian is a promise from God waiting to unfold. Except when it comes to gay and lesbian Christians. If we don’t want gay men and lesbians to live out the vows made at their baptism, maybe we should reject infant baptism and instead only baptize adults who pass a certain number on the Kinsey scale of sexual orientation.

I also believe that the rest of the denomination is breaking covenant with the church in the West. This is not about victimization as much as it is about an abuse of power by the majority. The West has a long history of ministry to those who have come here to escape the provincial attitudes found in other parts of the country. We have had our own understandings of ministry broadened by the diversity of races, cultures, and lifestyles found in our region. Over the past three decades, we have had our ministries increasingly limited by General Conference actions, particularly ministries related to g/l/b/t persons.

It is from this place of decreased ecclesiastical rights that the West is responding, trying to maintain the ministries we have always done, as well as respond as agents of God’s love and justice in an ever changing cultural context. It is through these lens that we interpret the Discipline, not to undermine its authority, but to have it undergird our ministries.

I confess that I heard very little honest conversation at General Conference. We couldn’t name honestly our differences nor could we name honestly the evil of war and violence found in these current days which beg for the church’s prophetic voice. Perhaps the closest we came to being honest was when Bill Hinson was invited to the floor of conference to speak on the last day of conference. Mind you, the headlines in every paper that morning screamed denominational schism. Instead of apologizing for undermining the work of General Conference, Hinson continued to detail his schism proposal.

This could have been the opportunity for tremendous honesty. As with any relationship which has soured, whenever one member of the relationship finally dares to name what neither has been wanting to speak aloud, there is the possibility for honest communication, a chance to name unmet needs, to offer a possibility of healing, and an opportunity to see if this relationship really can be saved.

Instead of seizing the opportunity put before us, representatives of all five jurisdictions as well as the central conferences quickly came to the floor to propose a statement of unity. Instead of suspending the rules of order so true holy conferencing could occur, the body had two speeches for, two speeches against, and then 95% of the delegates voted to stand behind this statement of unity. Instead of engaging in theological triage, a band aid was placed on the hemorrhaging body of Christ.

We in the West as well as progressives throughout the church had a chance to speak boldly our truth: that we are committed to The United Methodist Church, but the church needs to be committed to us as we seek to do ministry in a unique cultural environment. Instead, we succumbed to the seduction of cheap grace without doing the hard work unity in the face of differences requires.

Where does that leave us? Mark Tooley of UMAction is clear. He and others are working towards a split. He and others knew that General Conference delegates would not move towards a split, because most delegates are, in his words, "institutionalists." Instead, by proposing a split from the sidelines of General Conference, he and others are committed to bringing this notion to the people sitting in the pews. You can be sure there is a carefully crafted plan to put this all into motion so that the church can take the shape and form they believe it is called to be.  Read More

06/04/04

By Cynthia B. Astle
Editor

The chalice shattered against the concrete floor of the convention center in Pittsburgh.

The Rev. James Preston, a General Conference delegate from the Northern Illinois Annual Conference and a pastor in Rockford, Ill., distraught over that morning's vote to retain and tighten United Methodism's stances against homosexual behavior, grabbed a ceramic cup from the altar table during noontime communion and dashed it to the floor.  Read More

"Schism Incompatible with Wesleyan Tradition and the Church’s Mission"

Tension intensified during the recent General Conference when rumors circulated that a proposal was forthcoming to "amicably" split The United Methodist Church. Delegates, bishops and visitors huddled in small groups to share responses and plan strategies. Would the church divide?

One person at the center of the rumor described a possible split as the "800 pound gorilla" silently dominating the General Conference. That was news to most of us. Few had been aware of the proposal. The possibility of dividing the denomination was not in the minds of the vast majority of the delegates and participants.  Read More

Delegates stay united. By Woody Woodrick (Mississippi) Advocate Editor

PITTSBURGH — The United Methodist Church appears more strongly committed to living up to its name than it has in years following the denomination’s General Conference.

The 10-day event at the David Lawrence Convention Center ended May 7, and on that day delegates from around the world approved a resolution affirming their unity. The Rev. Joe May of Jackson, leader of the Mississippi Conference delegation, called the conference a time of healing.  Read More