Saturday, November 30, 2013
United Methodist news circles and the blogosphere have been roused of late regarding same-gender marriage ceremonies. The news, however, is mostly only news to us United Methodists. My casual, un-scientific poll of people outside of the UMC tells me that this is largely unnoticed by the greater society. Outside of the UMC and a few Facebook pages, few really care or are even watching. Overall, United Methodists are losing their influence on America. In 1970, there were over 10 million UM's amidst 203 million Americans. In 2010 however, that number was down to 7.6 million UM's.. amidst 308 million Americans (from the General Commission on Archives & History). We are in decline in the U.S. No wonder few are losing sleep over what the United Methodist Church does or does not do.
It's not that same-gender ceremonies are an unimportant issue - they are, regardless of what "side" you might support. But most of the arguments that I am witnessing on blog pages, on Facebook, and in denominational articles come from an American perspective. For some denominations, that's the only perspective that matters. But for a long time now, the United Methodist Church has been a worldwide denomination, and in the UM conferences of Africa, West Africa, Congo, and Philippines, membership has gone up 3 million people since 1999 (State of the Church Report, 2011). While it is always hasty to make broad generalizations, these areas of our church tend to be more traditional in theology and doctrine. And in a very recent article released by the Church of England Newspaper (backed by academic research), the Anglican Church in Britain is experiencing new growth - but only in minority ethnic churches. Again, the secular media and average Joe and Jane doesn't seem to notice - or care.
The worldwide nature of the UMC sets up a situation that most American UM's are unused to and frustrated by, something that transcends our either/or, Democrat/Republican, Harley Davidson/Japanese motorcycle, Duke/Kentucky basketball way of thinking: there are others beside ourselves to think about or argue with. Such are the realities of being a world-wide Church. I haven't found that social media has helped the situation much; indeed, I think it has made finding common ground even more difficult. To borrow from Martin Buber, some have left an "I-Thou" way of seeing others and adopted an "I-It" demeanor in this issue. By doing so, we objectify the one who disagrees with us.
For some UM's, same-gender marriage ceremonies represent a civil rights issue. For other UM's, it is not a civil rights matter but rather an ecclesial and doctrinal matter. For our African brothers and sisters, however, many take great offense at equating same-gender marriage and civil rights, as they live with the reality that Apartheid resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands South Africans - for them, there is no comparison. In African provinces, homosexuality is not just a doctrinal/ecclesial matter, it is a legal one as well. With conviction, they cannot be party to changing church doctrine on the matter, as in their society such actions are not only illegal but punishable by imprisonment or even death. For us as American UM's, to ignore this part of the argument is to ignore a large part of our United Methodist Church. Again, such are the realities of being a world-wide Church. There are more issues, more cultural aspects, and more contextual realities than just American ones.
To love God is to love people. All people. Regardless. But it also means to embrace tolerance; tolerance is not kowtowing - tolerance is respect amidst the differences. And inclusivity - as opposed to being generic - means embracing all as a child of God; generic is nothing. The question is: how tolerant and inclusive can we be as a denomination? Can we still see others as brothers and sisters who are as convicted as we are in matters where we do not agree? Are those who are strongly advocating same-gender marriage so willing to say that they have the absolute truth on the matter, in light of Reinhold Niebuhr's words that to be Christian means living in the tension of having and not having the truth? So sure that they are willing to disrupt UMC gatherings of likewise faithful and convicted people?
I've always maintained that the Church is to be counter-cultural and "maladjusted" by worldly standards. No matter what the polls, what the opinions, what the trends - we are called to be in the world while not of the world - and that our discerning of what God wants trumps popular opinion. At the same time, we are better served to support the civil rights of individuals as a concern of what it socially just. These things are not diametrically opposed.
The reason why I have no problem with states deciding whether or not they issue a marriage license for same-gendered couples is because such (getting a marriage license) functions under civil authority. It is a state issue - not a church issue, which a wedding ceremony is. It doesn't mean I agree with it; indeed, I don't agree with how easy the state makes divorce, or abortion, or how cavalierly some states deal with capital punishment. While we Christians should never water down our beliefs or witness, we dare not depend on the state to make our stands for us - we are Christians first, and citizens second. Our calling to be Christ's is a higher calling. I love my country - but I love God much more. And while the Church is a man-made institution, it is led by those who are led by the Holy Spirit - and I believe it is the best hope of making disciples for the transformation of the world. Being United Methodist is, for me, the best expression of the Christian faith. I stand by its beliefs and submit to its authority - even when it pits me against friends and family. It's what I vowed to do.
When it comes to doctrine and belief, the theological milieu in the UMC gets muddier still. Some are liberal. Some are orthodox (or generously orthodox, rigidly orthodox, or neo-orthodox). Some are conservative. Traditional. Postmodern. Post postmodern (always something new - or nothing new - under the sun). Some think Christ was really born of a virgin. Some say that's an ancient legend (and everything in between). Some say Christ was really crucified and risen. Others say that miracles violate the laws of nature and must be discounted. Further, and most confusing to the average person in the pew, some say that Christian beliefs are based less on any one truth and more upon your "circle of interpretation."
My goodness. Where do we stand?!?
I think that's where God would have us: holding the hands of both. It's not clean - it's quite messy. I'd rather stand in the middle and place myself in God's will rather than my own. Left to my own devices, I'll end up wanting a Jesus who will fix it rather than trusting Him to take us where we need to be. That is the danger of taking the extreme positions on either side in our denomination - we run the risk of going where they want, rather than where God would have us.
Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done.