Doing my homework

I’m a General Conference delegate who is under thirty years old. “Under thirty years old” isn’t one of the first ways I usually categorize myself, but it seems to be appropriate in this context. I’ll turn twenty-eight during General Conference. You don’t need to get me anything; just don’t make it illegal for me to be a member of your church, that’s really all I want.

As part of my preparation to be a delegate, I’ve been picking up old Books of Discipline and Books of Resolution on Amazon and seeing where we’ve been in the not too distant past. It’s a good education, also I’ve always been impressed by pastors who have complete collections of old Disciplines on their shelf.
To summarize what I’ve found- the insides of those books is even more impressive than their handsome spines. In some instances it isn’t so much what is printed as what isn’t. For example, in the nineties there was no ban on me getting married, for a time in the eighties there was no ban on me being ordained and for the present (as alluded to above) there is no ban on me joining the church.

But it isn’t all just grace by omission. Today I was reading from the 1980 Book of Resolutions (that’s one year before I was born and baptized) and I’m a little shocked by the report on human sexuality. Would we be ready to affirm the following language today? - “Too often men and women who are genuinely struggling with problems in their sexual relationships or with ambivalences in their sexual orientation have had their concerns met with rigidity and simple moralisms, if met at all.” Wow, rigidity and simple moralisms were understood as bad things 28 years ago! Now it feels like people are trying to put them into our vision statement.

Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to turn back the clock. (I recently heard a keynote speaker claiming a new direction for the church say We need to turn time back to how things were in the 18th century. My Annual Conference had paid money for this person to speak to us.)

I’m sure there was plenty going on in the United Methodist Church of 1980 that was problematic, but I’m inspired by the trust and respect implicit in the study document on human sexuality. The tone is calm and caring, compassionate and concerned. Some of this is the special privilege of being a study document and not a resolution. We forget how hard it is to warm the heart when the word “whereas” appears fifteen times and we bring the good news home with the phrase Therefore be it resolved…

But for your own inspiration, read these words from our United Methodist tradition:

“Why do we do this to one another? What is it about our view of sexuality that causes us, more often than not, to approach it negatively rather than positively? Are our expectations and experiences about human sexuality bound up with a culturally restricted view of humanity, full of “holy negatives”? Often we are subject to distorted and misinterpreted biblical, theological, and ethical interpretation. We are called to examine the biblical and theological roots of our understanding of human sexuality. Careful consideration should be given to the context in which Scripture was written. The emphasis on sexuality as limited to procreation is particularly in need of examination. Additionally the biblical teaching must be related to understandings provided by the human sciences and both should be applied to personal and corporate experience of contemporary Christians.”

I could post a lot more of this document, maybe I will if people want to see it. It’s pretty much all this good. There’s nothing in these words that we can’t agree with. So why couldn’t we agree on these words today? I don’t want to suggest that we go back to the way things were. We can do better. But in Fort Worth, I’ll at least try to remember how good we’ve done in the past. I’m not even thirty yet, so I don’t know any better.

Comments

[Tiffany Steinwert]

I'm also doing my homework right now....writing my dissertation. I found another great historical tidbit...

Did you know that in 1992 the General COnference received a Study Report on Homosexuality that said the following:

"a) the seven biblical references and allusions cannot be taken as definitive for Christian teaching about homosexual practice because they represent cultural patterns of ancient society and not the will of God;

b) the scientific evidence is sufficient to support the contention that homosexuality is not pathological or otherwise an inversion, developmental failure, or deviant form of life as such, but is rather a human variant, one that can be healthy and whole;

c) the emerging scholarly views in biblical studies, ethics, and theology support a view that affirms homosexual relationships that are covenantal, committed, and monogamous; and

d) the witness of God’s grace of lesbian and gay Christians in the life of the church supports these conclusions?"

Unfortunately, although the Church affirmed these statements, teh General COnference refused to remove the incompatibility statement.

[Scott]

One thing I was not aware of until the last Interpreter hit my mailbox: It wasn't until 1972 that Native Americans were first seated at General Conference (although the Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference existed a long time prior to 1972) and it wasn't until 1980 that they first had the right to vote at GC. Our "social justice tradition" isn't so nearly obvious!

[southdakotajay]

Will, thanks for this post.

So many times I have heard the line about the "Tradition" of the church is anti-GLBT people, but this just helps to prove that it is not true.

The true tradition of the church is that we are Justice people, from Jesus of Nazareth, through John Wesley, through the 19th and 20th century Methodist movements in the U.S., we have always been about Justice. That is our tradition. Peace with Justice.

[Sarah Woodyard]

Will,
I'm from the NE UMC Conference and am so proud to have you represent us. I fear your voice and position will have to persist past the ignorance of those who believe they come from a greater height of grace and discipline, wallowing in their beliefs of exclusion. For me who was raised in a UCC background, I find it reprehensible that we seem to be so slow about this form of bigotry. Even the UMC church understood that both women and folks of color have the right to our heritage w/ the Lord--why should loving Christian LGBT folk be any different?
Sing it proud and loud, Will--we're with you in prayer and spirit!!

[TonyJarek-Glidden]

I became a United Methodist in 1980, largely in part due to our (then) stand on both abortion (in those days we were much more pro choice than we are now) and issues of sexuality. The current denomination is not the denomination I became a part of. Over the years we have become more and more conservative.

[Tiffany Steinwert]

The past is instructive. Did you know that in 1972 it was the official committee creating the new Social Principles who first suggested adding a statement of "sacred worth" to the Discipline? Church leaders then thought it was important for the UMC to continue its tradition of standing with those at the margins and were eager to join the emerging movement for equal rights of LGBT persons.

It was only an unplanned motion from the floor that inserted the language about incompatibility. Those prsenting the new Social Principles were taken by surprise and had a difficult time responding to the reactionary and often illogical arguments used to support the language of incompatibility.

This is noted in the 1972 Daily Christian Advocate notes when apparently after a prolonged discussion on one of the potential "dangers" of homosexuality, the chair of the Social Principles Committee stated:

"As to the concerns about the rise in illegitimate children, it would be a very rare case indeed if an illegitimate child were to result from homosexual contact."