Would you burn down your house because the furnace needed repairs? Obviously not. But the current disagreement, discussion, and proposed remedies over the issue of human sexuality within The United Methodist Church seems to be following that line of logic. When applied anywhere else, it seems obvious. If your engine is misfiring, you don’t rebuild the transmission. If your bicycle has a flat tire, you don’t disassemble it and sell its parts. Unfortunately, that seems to be how most everyone has been approaching the disagreement within our church.
But maybe there’s another solution that doesn’t involve burning down the house.
Let me explain.
The way that I see it, there are two principal disagreements within the church regarding human sexuality. First, those persons who feel that sex outside of a monogamous, heterosexual relationship is sinful believe that they cannot, in good conscience, formalize or bless such a relationship. And second, those same persons have difficulty belonging to a church that would ordain pastors and bishops who are in such relationships.
Oddly, while both are disagreements over the role and membership of clergy, the solutions being proposed to the next General Conference in 2020 is to split up the church by forcing the laity to vote. But if we are having a disagreement over the role and membership of the clergy, why isn’t anyone offering a solution that divides the clergy instead of dividing the laity?
Although this may seem strange, I think we might find a solution in the Catholic Church. While my knowledge of the intricacies of the Catholic Church is admittedly weak, I know that within that structure there are at least three different orders who, to me, seem to be orders of priests and not laity, Dominicans, Jesuits, and Benedictines. Without worrying about how these orders work within the Catholic system, this division, I think, points to a solution for United Methodists.
Rather than dividing churches and laity over a disagreement over the role of the clergy, why not simply divide the clergy? I think a division of clergy solves our immediate problem, without dividing the laity or the church, better than the solutions that I’ve seen proposed to date.
Here’s what I’m suggesting: Under the existing United Methodist structure, we create a new order of clergy, the name doesn’t matter. But those clergy that choose to belong to the new order, in line with their conscience, would be prohibited from performing LGBT weddings or officiating in the ordination of such persons. Local churches, under such a system, would not choose whether to leave the denomination, but would vote, as a congregation, on two things. First, would that congregation accept a pastor that only belonged to the new order, would they only accept a pastor that did not belong to the order, or would they accept a pastor from either the order. Second, the church would vote whether they would be willing to allow same sex unions to be conducted in their building. Churches could, therefore, accept a pastor from the new order while still allowing same sex marriages to be officiated in their church if there were an officiant (not the church pastor) willing to do so.
While there would be some significant logistical issues with such a system, rather than forcing local churches to vote on its denominational affiliation, bishops (and their cabinets) would be responsible to match churches with pastors (much as they already do) with some, admittedly, new and complicating differentiation. Two obvious consequences would be that it would complicate the appointment process, and that it would likely necessitate the elimination of guaranteed appointment for ordained elders. The second simply because, in many cases, there would be a significant disparity between the number of available clergy (of one type or the other) and the number of churches willing to accept them.
The advantage of such a system, of course, is that while the clergy would be divided, the church would remain whole.
Maybe we can take a hint from the Catholic Church.
Why burn down the house if you can fix the furnace?
Did you enjoy reading this?
Click here to subscribe to this blog.
Click here if you would like to subscribe to Pastor John’s weekly messages.
Click here to visit Pastor John’s YouTube channel.
I know that a lot of people have never gone on a mission trip. And because I know that, I understand why people often seem puzzled by what we could possibly do there, or how they might ever be able to contribute if they went on such a trip. Despite my annual announcement that The Joy Center, our host in Big Creek, deep in the Kentucky mountains, always has a list of projects that need done, and will always find something for us to do regardless of who comes with us, and regardless of the skills (or lack of them) that we have. And so, rather than just saying that there are all sorts of things that need done, this year we made a list of all the things that we did, and a couple that were left undone when we ran out of time. What follows is a list of nineteen (19) projects that were on our to do list. Most of them got done, but a few didn’t. I’m including the projects that didn’t get done so that you might better understand how, if even one more person (like you) had gone with us, we might have been able to do even more.
parsonage.
even a pair of scissors. What’s more, for the last several years, we’ve somehow managed to take along a volunteer that loved to cook and who just took over our evening meal preparation. But this year we didn’t have anyone like that, so someone would always have to stop working an hour or so before dinner so that there would be something to eat when the rest of us quit for the day.
Pete and Emily Brewer couldn’t figure out why anyone would want to interview them or hear their story, but I am confident that you won’t hear another story quite like it.
We were cold.
But would be hot almost within the hour.
The fog was still liftng from the mountan valleys as we walked to breakfast just after dawn. There was a chill in the air and several of us had spent a fitful night tryig to keep warm in our tents. But as we walked to breakfast, we were also aware that soon, almost within the hour, the sun wouold rise above the mountains and temperatures would rise enough to make us sweat.
And so, as each of us dressed that morning, we had made choices. We were all faced with the same facts, but each of us had made different choices. One had long sleeves and long pants, another long sleeves and shorts, another long pants and short sleeves, and still another both short pants and sleeves. Would we be comfortablly warm now, and cold later? Or cold now, and comfortable later? Each of us knew that our choice was transient.
Discomfort was inevitable.
We were choosing the form of our discomfort.
And it was so ordinary that no one gave it a second thought.
But in other situations we seem shocked by it… and we shouldn`t be.
We wonder why migrants would choose to come across our border when they know that the journey is arduous, that the “coyotes” that guide them vicious, rape ordinary, and often detention when caught. The thing is, many are aware of the dangers before they begin but, when faced with daily violence, death and mayhem at home, they’ve chosen the most comfortable discomfort. The discomfort they face at home seems endless and unsolvable, but the discomfort on the road to citizenship, or even residence, in a foreign country seems like a light of hope at the end of a dark tunnel.
We wonder why young people who grew up in the church, and who believe that life begins in the womb, still sometimes choose to end that life through abortion. But often these young people, married and unmarried, are faced with impossible choices, none of which are good. While we may not agree with their choices, we should understand that they are choosing their discomfort. When every possible choice seems to be a path of pain, they must choose which path of pain seems ever so lightly less painful.
We wonder why people who have few posessions and little money make choices that seem wasteful and foolish. But they are doing the same thing. They are choosing their discomfort. It can easily be understood that although none of their choices are good, they choose a path that offers a little joy, however transient.
We wonder why our friends choose to vote for candidates that do not represent their values, or who are known to act in ways that are contrary to the interests of the voters. But the same principle applies. It is often the case that voters are fully aware of the candidate’s failings, faults, and voting patterns. But, believing that the other candidates are just as flawed, or who violate their conscience in other ways, the voters are compelled to choose their discomfort.
Which path of pain seems the most bearable?
Which uncomfortable choice offers a chance at hope?
I didn`t laugh at my friends on the way to breakfast because I understood that each of us, in our own way, was choosing the uncomfortable path that we though offered the least discomfort.
If we can understand that, then shouldn’t we extend the same grace to others who are making harder, more painful choices between their available paths of discomfort?
Isn’t that what Jesus taught us?
Each of us must make choices that guide us through paths of discomfort.
We should have the grace to allow others to do the same.
Friends…
…always choose grace.
