Thursday, January 31, 2019

There Should Be No Division in the Body of Christ



1 Corinthians 12: 24b-26 (New International Version):  “But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.”
One of the more famous quotes that John Wesley never said is: 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials liberty, and in all things, charity.' It is unclear who said it first, maybe St. Augustine, but it appears doubtful that Mr. Wesley, the founder of the worldwide movement called Methodism, said this. But it is a good quote, a very good quote, nonetheless.  It is quite clear how Mr. Wesley felt about division in the church: he was against it. 

The United Methodist Church has been debating human sexuality for about three years less than half a century. That is a long time, a very long time. At issue is the current position of the United Methodist Church that states homosexuality is incompatible with a Christian life-style primarily leading to restrictions in the area of ordination, weddings and the use of church space.
 
This February in St. Louis, over 860 elected delegates from the World-Wide Church will gather in legislative session once again, and thrash out where we stand on this issue.  We will be represented by four clergy and four laity, six from Colorado and two from Montana. They were elected in 2015 and their term of service effectively ends this summer.

There are three competing plans for what we are going to do about human sexuality:

1. Remove the restrictive language and allow various levels of the church to make their informed decision as to what works for them in their context. No church will be forced to accept an openly homosexual pastor. No pastor will be forced to perform a same sex wedding. No church will be forced to allow their space to be used for a same sex wedding. This is the “One Church Plan.” 
2. Retain the current restrictive language and it would strengthen the response for those who violate these restrictions. This plan would permit “gracious exit” for churches who find the language problematic. This is called the “Traditional Plan.” 
3. A very contextual solution that would eliminate one layer of church hierarchy and keep us United in name, but would allow for three different theological understandings to be their defining ethos. It is reasonably safe to say these three approaches are: more open and affirming, roughly where we are now, and something between the two. This is the most complex plan, and will require the longest to implement for various reasons. This is the “Connectional Conference Plan.” 

As with any legislation, amendments can be offered, debated and voted up or down. It is quite challenging to know precisely what will be approved or disapproved. This will be a defining moment for the movement called Methodism.  There will be some leaving no matter what is or is not agreed to, that is a simple fact. Division is going to happen: the issue is how to minimize the division while being faithful to scripture as informed and illuminated by our traditions, experiences and reason. 

I believe that if we are attempting to minimize division and want to find solutions, we can. I confess often, I hear voices that are uninterested in reaching common understanding and I hope a spirit of active listening leading to understanding will be present in St. Louis. 

I personally endorse the “One Church Plan” as a pragmatic solution that allows conscience to be invoked at multiple levels: conference, local church and pastor.  Is it perfect? No. There may come a day twenty-five years from now where such an agreement with the “One Church Plan” will be viewed consistent with barring pulpits to women so long ago is viewed now. “You were part of a denomination which permitted some churches to refuse to accept homosexual pastors and refused to perform same sex unions?”  My explanation at that charge would be:  We had to accept that compromise in order to keep the United church from becoming Untied. 

Barry Welliver, your Lay Leader, and I will be discussing this on Saturday, February 9th, at the United Methodist Men’s Breakfast. Breakfast is at 8:30 am, and our discussion will probably start about 9:00.   Send a note to office@hilltopumchurch.org if you do not normally attend the Men’s breakfast and would like to attend to help with head-count. All are welcome. 

I pray we can find a way to stay United on the essentials and agree to a Grace-filled state of being less than United over non-essentials.

Selah, Pastor Dennis



No comments: