When the United Methodist Church met in Pittsburgh earlier
this month for its General Conference, the issue of homosexuality
was front and center. Controversies related to homosexuality had
consumed much of the denomination's attention for the last three
decades, but the action of a church court in its Pacific Northwest
Conference created a firestorm as Methodists gathered in Pittsburgh.
The most urgent dimension of the controversy erupted when an
ecclesiastical trial in Bothell, Washington ended in the acquittal
of the Rev. Karen Damman, an acknowledged lesbian who has served as
pastor of a United Methodist Church. The church's Social Principles
and Book of Discipline explicitly disallow the ordination and
pastoral service of self-acknowledged homosexuals. Nevertheless, the
Methodist jury in Washington put the church's doctrine on trial,
rather than the defendant.
Conservative outrage fueled debate on and off the floor as
the church met in Pittsburgh. Issues related to human sexuality have
been on the agenda for United Methodists and other so-called
mainline Protestants for decades, but movements inside and outside
the churches have forced a moment of decision.
At their General Conference--held every four
years--Methodists do the business of their denomination, establish
church priorities, and confront questions of church policy and law.
On all crucial votes related to homosexuality, conservatives
appeared to have the upper hand. First, the church's Judicial
Council ruled conclusively that a "self-avowed practicing
homosexual" may not be employed within the church nor appointed to
any ministerial position by a bishop. The 6-3 ruling effectively
declared that the Washington state jury had acted in blatant
disregard for the teaching of the church.
In particular, the Washington jury had claimed that the
section of the Book of Discipline that identifies homosexuality as
"incompatible with Christian teaching," fell short of a
"declaration." The Judicial Council declared otherwise, though the
court also ruled that the Washington verdicts could not be reversed.
In a further move, the church commanded its bishops to
refrain from appointing any self-avowed homosexuals to ministerial
posts. This came as a direct rebuke to some bishops who have already
pushed the homosexual agenda by appointing homosexual ministers. And
in yet another move, the church turned back an effort by liberals to
pass a measure that would have acknowledged a legitimate difference
of opinion on the issue of homosexuality within the church. If
passed, this new statement would have effectively declared that the
United Methodist Church has no common policy or conviction on
homosexuality. That motion failed on a 527-423 vote.
Liberals were predictably disappointed. "We're not leaving,"
said the Rev. Tiffany Steinwert, in comments published in the
Louisville [KY] Courier-Journal. "We're United Methodists at our
core. There's nothing the General Conference can do to change that."
Steinwert serves as pastor of the Cambridge Welcoming United
Methodist Church in Massachusetts. Such "welcoming" churches
identify themselves as open to the full participation of openly
homosexual members.
Other liberal forces in the church declared their
determination to continue the fight for homosexual ordination,
same-sex marriage, and the full endorsement of homosexuals in the
church. A group claiming to represent church officials and
leadership in the Northwest declared a determination to act in
defiance of the church's policy.
Given the fact that conservatives seem to have won the
critical votes at the General Conference, many were stunned when the
Rev. Dr. William Hinson, one of the church's most respected
ministers, called for an amicable division of the church over the
issue of homosexuality. Hinson, who served for 18 years as senior
pastor at First United Methodist Church in Houston, Texas, now
serves as president of the "Confessing Movement," an alliance of
evangelical United Methodists working for theological recovery and
spiritual renewal within their denomination.
William Hinson is a force to be reckoned with in the United
Methodist Church, having served as pastor of one of its largest
churches. Now retired from the pastorate, Hinson and his wife live
in Huntsville, Alabama, where he continues in ministry and in
influence.
Speaking to a breakfast meeting of conservative Methodists
associated with the Confessing Movement, Hinson set out a plan for
division in the church.
"It is time for us to end this cycle of pain we are
inflicting on each other," Hinson said. "There is a great gulf fixed
between those of us who are centered in Scripture and our friends
who are of another persuasion....Repeatedly, they have spoken of the
need to get our church in step with our culture. We, on the other
hand, have no desire to be the chaplain to an increasingly godless
society."
The response to Hinson's proposal was a mixture of shock,
dismissal, and support. Clearly, Hinson had sparked a much-needed
discussion by using his breakfast platform to make his proposal.
Coming on the heels of apparent conservative victories, his proposal
gained credence by its context.
Why would evangelicals now consider calling for a division of
the church? The answer is really quite simple--they know that those
pushing the homosexual agenda will never accept defeat. Proponents
of homosexual ordination will come back again, and again, and again,
forcing future votes on the same contentious issues. Hinson and his
allies see no profit in fighting the same battles over and over
again.
Furthermore, homosexual supporters are confident of eventual
victory--and time is not on the conservatives' side. In denomination
after denomination, conservatives are losing ground on issues of
sexuality.
In a move prompted by Hinson's proposal for division, the
General Conference adopted a final measure aimed at underlining
unity in the church. The vote to remain unified was intended as a
symbolic statement, and press reports told of delegates standing
teary-eyed and linked hand-in-hand across the convention center as
they sang a hymn just before taking the unity vote.
The Rev. Troy G. Plummer, Executive Director of the
Reconciling Ministries Network, an alliance of churches supporting
homosexual ordination, told the New York Times that the very idea of
a split would have been "anathema" to John Wesley, Methodism's
founder. "John Wesley said schism is a sin," Plummer said.
Of course, Wesley also believed that homosexuality is a sin.
William Hinson and his fellow evangelicals believe that unity can be
established only on a foundation of truth and shared biblical
conviction. To abandon the church's historic understanding of
homosexuality would be to abandon the Bible itself. That's exactly
what the pro-homosexual forces demand. Troy Plummer and his fellow
homosexual activists are demanding that the church disregard
biblical conviction in order to affirm the homosexual lifestyle. In
William Hinson, the liberals may finally have met their match.
One of the most perverse aspects of this controversy is the
fact that Hinson is now accused of being divisive, while those who
have actually forced the division and controversy pose as forces for
progress in the church.
Many observers believe that the so-called "Methodist Middle"
will eventually decide the issue. Speaking for moderates, Rev.
William McAlilly of Tupelo, Mississippi told The Washington Post,
"Those of us in the middle can contain those on both sides of the
equation." By making such comments, Rev. McAllilly and his fellow
moderates risk becoming cartoons of compromise. There is no credible
middle ground in this debate. The church cannot negotiate this issue
down to a mutually-acceptable compromise. The church will ordain
homosexuals, or it will not. Those who treat the issue of
homosexuality as insignificant offer the greatest insult to truth
and provide the clearest indication of how a denomination can reach
such a point of confusion in the first place.
David C. Steinmetz, a respected church historian at Duke
University, pointed to the fact that the church is already divided
over this issue. "What the General Conference demonstrated is what
the General Conference refused to concede, even as a token
gesture--namely, that on the question of gay ordination there are
two Methodist Churches rather than one. Whether these two churches
can continue to live together as one family will be severely tested
in the next four years."
Clearly, Steinmetz is correct. Far more is involved in this
controversy than the singular issue of homosexuality. At stake in
the Methodist debate is the very heart of Christian conviction. Are
the Bible's clear teachings on homosexuality authoritative or not?
One way or another, the United Methodists will eventually give a
conclusive answer to that question.
In the meantime, William Hinson has forced his church to
confront a most significant question: Are United Methodists really
united after all?
