Book Review
Book Review: Finding
Our Way: Love and Law in the United
Methodist Church. Rueben P. Job,
Neil M. Alexander, eds. (Nashville:
Abingdon, 2014)
I move in five steps here:
summary, overview, review, conference\discussion, and concluding thoughts.
1. Summary: After a personal introductory frame from Job
and Alexander, seven UMC general superintendents offer 10-20 page statements
about Methodism and gay people, following which Job concludes with a call to
prayer. Two write directly about the
full humanity of gay people, one in affirmation (Talbert) and one in denial
(Yambasu). Three offer administrative
worries (Palmer—the discipline must be upheld),
(Lowry—the center cannot hold),
(Carter—the connection needs support).
Two offer mildly inclusive reflections on recent conference level
experience (Ward, Wenner).
2. Overview: The most striking feature of this collection
is its nearly complete lack of
theological reflection, biblical interpretation, and homiletical
assessment. Does the gospel offer grace,
freedom, love, acceptance, pardon, and hope to sexual minorities or not? Does the gospel disdain silent or spoken
bigotry against sexual minorities or not?
Where do the Scriptures (John 14, Galatians 3, Ecclesiastes, Amos 5), or
the tradition (Bristol, Appomatox,
Seneca Falls), or human reason (diagnostic library, psychological research,) and experience (case
studies and stories of gay children harmed by religious bigotry) intersect with
these chapters? Hardly at all, granted
occasional interjections, more from Talbert and Carter than others. One major exception is the attention Lowry
pays to Acts 15 (and so Galatians 2, which he somehow neglects), the Jerusalem
Conference. He is right to do so. His reading of the passages however is
exactly the full opposite of their meaning
(see, for example, J. L. Martyn, Anchor Bible Commentary, Galatians, among many others). Lowry argues that the point of the Jerusalem
Conference was order. It was not. It was freedom, the freedom for which Christ
sets free. Other than our own current
debate the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15, Gal. 2) is the historical high water
mark of religious interest in detailed sexual debate—circumcision then, gay
love now. In the Bible, Paul leaves
behind tradition for gospel and Peter accedes.
(Freedom not order.) The
uncircumcised are the recipients of the gospel (then) as are gay people
(today). Lowry: ‘the famous debate at the Jerusalem Council
in Acts 15 is a debate over order, the doctrinal discipline of the church’ (74). No. No
it is not. In choosing to leave behind
religious order, textual rigidity and an inherited holiness code in order to
preach the gospel to the ‘genitally unclean’, men who were not circumcised on
the eighth day, the church decided that gospel ever trumps tradition, and grace
ever trumps order. It is the perfect
biblical citation for this debate, only
Lowry reads it upside down. We will
not ever ‘find our (administrative) way’ until and unless we first reflect
theologically, interpret biblically, and assess homiletically. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek,
neither slave nor free, there is no male or female. Nor gay nor straight. Are gay people people or not? 5/5 or 3/5 human? (We have a bad habit in this country, of
finding ways to fractionalize the marginalized.)
We baptize, confirm, commune, forgive and bury gay
people. We somehow cannot find our way
to marry or ordain them? We baptize,
confirm, commune, marry, ordain, forgive and bury those who have undergone
surgical abortion, and offer the same to those who oppose abortion. Can we not live ‘in all things charity’?
3. Review: Palmer’s distinction to affirm ‘uphold’ more
than ‘enforce’ (his assigned theme), in interpretation of the book of
discipline has some merit and more grace, and reflects his own sincere, irenic
temperament. Ward does honor the ‘brave
witness’ of a lesbian couple who suffered the bigotry of the Mississippi
conference to bear witness to their love for each other. Talbert has said and done the right thing,
well prior to this collection, and his essay is the truest of the seven. He and his African colleague are the only two
who directly state what they personally think regarding the full humanity of
gay people. (Carter rightly affirms that every person is
created in God’s image, and laments theological incoherence.)
4. Conference (that
is, Discussion): Carter.
Carter calculates (perhaps accurately, but there is no documentation)
that small progressive jurisdictions (we could read here, ‘northern’ could we
not?) have more presence, voice, vote and leadership on boards and agencies
than do larger and more moderate (we are meant to read here, ‘southern’, are we
not?) jurisdictions. Talbert.
Talbert simply and categorically states that the discriminatory language
about gays in our church is wrong and cannot claim allegiance, loyalty or
support. The UMC today provides
‘liturgical resources for pastors who may choose to use facilities of
congregations to bless animals, fowls, inanimate objects, and more. Are not our LGBT sisters and brothers of
sacred worth like all God’s creatures’? (37)
Yambasu. Yambasu equates homosexuality with
promiscuity, sexual slavery, and adultery, describes the Bible as infallible,
and places the denigration of gay people on par with the venerable inheritance
of the ten commandments (87). The voice,
or at least a voice, of Methodism in Africa.
To the extent that his view represents African Methodism, it is a
communicative benefit to have his remarkable and disappointing perspective
stated in the raw. Lowry. Lowry implores us to
keep covenant with one another, as he stated in a recent interview, ‘covenant
is Old Testament 101’. Many would
respond that the question is not whether to keep covenant, but in and about
what to keep covenant. If the gospel of
Jesus Christ, crucified, requires the affirmation of the full humanity of gay
people and the full rejection of bigotry against sexual minorities in the name
of scriptural authority, then the point of covenant is mutually to commit to
that gospel. Covenant on behalf of rules
of discipline that deny the gospel is false covenant. In the recent interview Lowry admits that a
substantial USA UMC majority now affirms same gender marriage and ordination
for gay people; he speaks wisely and protectively of the guaranteed appointment;
he deplores the waste of resources in time and money which are going into this
ongoing debacle. Wenner concludes: “I pray and work for a future where we will find
ways to embrace diversity on many issues, including human sexuality, allowing
us to think differently. Perhaps we may
even be able to live with different answers concerning clergy who live in
faithful and loving homosexual partnerships and those who choose to conduct
same-gender marriages.”
Thoughts: 1. The Book of Discipline affirms a moderate
pro-choice position regarding abortion.
But when it comes to marriage and ordination, we do not exclude those
who practice surgical abortion, nor those who reject such practice. We have a position as a church. But we allow for differences in practice,
practices that both agree with and conflict with our stated position. We do not deny ardent pro-life preachers
ordination because they refuse to practice or affirm others to practice
abortion. Nor do we exclude from
ordination women who have had abortions or men who have provided pastoral help
to others in the course of such a procedure.
If we can find a way to live together, regarding marriage and
ordination, when it comes to abortion, we should be able to do so regarding
homosexuality. 2. The first task of an
interpreter is to honor and affirm the texts interpreted. In this case, rightly, our general superintendents,
interpreters of the book of discipline, affirm the value of the book to be
interpreted. Once the general
conference has passed off a version of the discipline for another four years,
it falls to the bishops, along with others to interpret and apply it. It may help our leaders to rehearse again
some of the basic modes of interpretation of texts, biblical texts and others,
taught and learned years earlier. Most
passages, including your favorite scriptural passage, parable, story, psalm or
teaching, allow more than one faithful reading.
There may for sure be out of bounds readings, but multiple legitimate
ones, too. Simply on a non-literalist
hermeneutic, diversity of readings of the discipline itself should be
expected. So the dozen affirmations in
the discipline of the requirement of pastoral care for gay people may rightly
be read as a requirement for pastoral ministry for gay people who are getting
married or discerning vocations. Gay
marriage and ordination may be understood as not only permissible, but
required, to the fulfillment of these paragraphs. 3. We further do admit that
while all abhor war, some are pacifist and some are not and all are part of the
UMC. Why we can allow latitude regarding
issues of life and death, abortion and warfare, but not regarding love and
marriage, is a mystery and truly says much about the remains of the mind of the
church (UMC). 4. Marriage: UMCBOD Para.
340 2.a.3.a. (Duties of pastor) To perform the marriage ceremony after due counsel
with the parties involved and in accordance with the laws of the state and the
rules of the United Methodist Church.
The decision to perform the ceremony shall be the right and
responsibility of the pastor. So. Do we mean this? Are we going to ‘enforce’ as Br. Palmer says
‘enforce the discipline’? Here the
burden of responsibility is clearly, unequivocally placed upon the pastor whose
‘right and responsibility’ it is to decide to marry a couple. There is no shading here, no hem or haw. The pastor decides. After due counsel (pastoral care) and in
accordance with state law and church rules.
No comment here is offered to the situation when state law and church
rules, both of which are to be upheld, are different. Rightly, the BOD leaves these difficult
(pastoral) decisions in the hands of the minister. “The decision to perform the ceremony shall
be the right and responsibility of the pastor”.
Not the General Conference. Not
the General Superintendent. Not the
District Superintendent. Not the Charge
Conference. The pastor. As it should be.
