United Methodists and Homosexuality

It would seem that my own denomination, the United Methodist Church, is continuing to trod down the same road that the Episcopal Church is currently traveling, only much further ahead.

Follow this link to a news article written by the United Methodist News Agency on what is happening in California pertaining to the issue of homosexuality:

California United Methodists React to Same-Sex Ruling

The issue here is one of covenant and integrity.  Whether or not someone feels justified in their interpretation of the Bible to allow homosexual unions is a point that can be debated until people are blue in the face.  I personally don’t think that this is a faithful way to interpret scriptures, mostly because the 2000 year history of the church and the myriad cross-cultural settings in which the church resides still hold to the interpretation that homosexual acts are contrary to the Christian life.  When most Christians in most places and over most time agree on something, chances are it is probably the correct interpretation.

Nevertheless, I have had, and continue to have, people disagree with me on that issue.  They are not going to change my understanding, and I am not going to change theirs.  This is where the issue of covenant and integrity come into play.

Clergy in the United Methodist Church covenant to uphold the Discipline, our book of organization and social positions.  Our General Conference sets those organization and social positions every four years.  And our position on homosexuality has not changed, nor does it look like it will.  There are simply not enough people in the United Methodist Church who want the position changed (even though the ones that do seem to be very, very vocal).

So now we have, shortly after yet another General Conference decided that the denomination’s position would remain that the homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with Christian teaching, clergy (and even bishops) actively supporting positions and actions contrary to the positions and actions they have covenanted to uphold.  If these people have promised, before God and the Church, to uphold something, and yet find they cannot do so, why do they not have the integrity to break that covenant and leave the denomination with which they are at odds?  Why do they continue to give lip-service to upholding their ordination covenant while advocating actions that are contrary to what they have sworn to uphold?

It seems to me that they are living a lie, promising to uphold the Discipline, but refusing to do so.  They have repeately experienced failure in trying to change the position of the denomination on homosexuality, but yet they are unwilling to admit that failure and walk away.  It is obvious they do not agree with the denomination, and it is obvious that the denomination will not agree with them on this issue, so why drag out the process and cause a lot of frustration for all involved?  If someone cannot, in good conscience, uphold a vow made to God to support a certain set of beliefs and social principles, then that person ought to remove himself or herself from the need to fulfill that vow.

The current situation in California, instead of taking this route, simply states that those clergy are going to do whatever they feel is the right thing to do, no matter what they actually promised to do (which is uphold the Discipline).  This shows a total lack of integrity and a mockery of the idea of covenant.

~ by stevebruns on July 9, 2008.