untiedmethodist.com

The Question I am Most Often Asked -- Part Two

After posting "The Question I Am Most Often Asked By People Visiting My Church's Website -- Part One," I received this thoughtful response from the person who had e-mailed me the original question:

Dean, I read your blog, and thanks for your words. You touched on the scriptural verses pertaining to homosexual practice and rightly noted that they all cast it in a negative light. I don't understand your acknowledging these scriptures existence while concluding that they likely don't matter, or are likely non-binding because they were written in a cultural context that viewed homosexual practice negatively.

You mentioned that the Old Testament mentions caring for the poor in many (300) instances. Should we take the view that those admonitions to care for the sick and help the poor were written in a culture that is much different from our own, and therefore contemporary Christians can ignore them? If not, why?

Christ doesn't tell us to come to him so that He can conform to our imperfections. He accepts us as we are and then goes about the work of removing our imperfections. He wants to change us, not leave us wallowing in our sin. T

elling an active homosexual that he can keep on doing as he pleases is no better than telling a liar it is "OK" to lie, or a greedy person it is "OK" to steal. My view of scripture, especially the Old Testament is that it makes us aware of where we are wrong, and then the New Testament tells us how we can be made right again!! Why tell an active homosexual everything is fine when all scripture regarding homosexuality say it isn't??? I don't tell my kids to stay out of the street to keep them from having fun, but rather to ensure their safety, and I have faith in the Lord that he would not allow cultural differences to enter into his Holy Word. If I don't have confidence in his scriptures, why would I even read them in the first place?

I know I am getting long winded, but this cavalier (for the lack of a better word) view of scripture seems destined to make the Bible altogether irrelevant. Again, thanks for words, and I await your response.

I appreciate this question and statement, and believe this is an important concern to discuss, so I am glad my new friend has chosen to continue this conversation. As someone who spends much of my time attempting to grasp the meaning of Scripture for my life and trying to understand what it means to live biblically in the world today, I would hate to be part of a process of devaluing Scripture or treating it cavalierly in any way. I also understand the point that, if (this is a big "if") one assumes that any homosexual act in any quality of relationship is wrong or harmful like being greedy or lying, teaching and preaching the way I do would appear to be enabling and abetting sin. I certainly take this seriously, remembering the admonition of James: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." (James 3:1)

Of course, it is also possible to devalue Scripture and to treat it cavalierly by reading it too shallowly, and by applying it too simplistically and casually. The Matthew and Luke accounts of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness seem to make the point that even the devil can use Scripture to promote his ends. (Matt. 4:5-6; Luke 4:10-11) I do not say this to suggest anyone is misusing Scripture with deliberately bad intent like the devil was in the temptation accounts, but to make the point that the study of Scripture requires constant self-examination and prayer to make sure we don't misuse it, and especially to make sure we don't misuse it to reinforce our personal and societal prejudices and biases, as has been done throughout history again and again.

This possibility surely applies to those who, like myself, put much emphasis on reading Scripture and understanding it within the context of the time and place it was written, looking most of all for a glimpse into the heart of God but also for truths and principles that can then be translated into our time, place and culture. But it also applies to those who use Scripture to make direct application without adequately considering context, culture and the limitations of the "clay jars" within which the "treasure" of Scripture is held and from which it pours forth. (Paul, who wrote as much Scripture as anybody, refers to himself as a "clay jar" in II Corinthians 4:7.) If mistakes can be made in the process of translating the meaning of Scripture into another time, place, circumstance and culture, mistakes can also be made by failing to translate the meaning adequately or appropriately.

I keep in my study a copy of a book entitled Slavery Defended (published by Prentice Hall in 1962, now out of print) which includes an essay justifying slavery based on Scripture. (A version of the essay is on line here.) The essay, written in 1841 by the Rev. Thornton Stringfellow of Locust Grove, Va., a community just 100 miles away from my church, is actually quite cogent if the reader is able to transport himself or herself back to a time when slavery was a debatable issue in American society.

Rev. Stringfellow argues that: 1) God sanctioned slavery in the book of Genesis ("God decreed this institution ... He is the same God now, that he was when he gave these views of his moral character to the world" p. 2;) 2) Slavery is an essential part of the "national constitution emanating from the Almighty" p. 7 (In other words, slavery is a part of the law given to Moses on Mount Sinai.); 3) The legality of slavery was recognized by Jesus and strongly advocated by Jesus' disciple Peter and by the Apostle Paul p. 13 ; and 4) To enslave Africans is an act of mercy done for their own good. p. 16

By my count, Rev. Stringfellow quotes the Old Testament at least 30 times and the New Testament about 15 times. And the truth is that his quotes are relevant and, on a surface level, accurate because slavery was accepted as legitimate by the writers whom Rev. Stringfellow quotes, and this assumption appears as part of the context of their writings. It never occurred to them to question it, any more than they thought to question the assumption that the earth is flat. If we could read it objectively, many who think in terms only of what seems to be Scripture's plain meaning would find Rev. Stringfellow's arguments convincing.

Yet, we know that beginning with the story of the Israelites' Exodus from slavery in Egypt and continuing through Jesus' example of sacrificial love, there is a spirit in Scripture that runs deeply contrary to one people enslaving another, even when some biblical writers clearly accept and endorse slavery because they didn't know any differently.

So, it is necessary to ask the question of whether any particular statement in Scripture possibly reflects the limitations of time, place and culture of the writers, or whether circumstances and context may have changed in such a way as to cause a direct application of the verse to have an effect contrary to the Scripture's original intention. And, yes, this does include the more than 300 verses in the Old and New Testaments about social justice and the poor. Given what is revealed to us about the heart of God in the whole scope of Scripture, and especially in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, do we discern that these 300 reference about caring for the poor reflect the heart of God or not? Or has the social context changed in any way so as to alter the application of these verses? Everyone has to discern these questions for himself or herself, hopefully through conversation, sharing and study with a trusted community of faith. There is no way to have absolute certainty.

The ability to quote a specific statement within Scripture, or even several, is no substitute for prayerful study of the the whole biblical story and for the interpretation of any statement within Scripture in light of what has been revealed to us about the heart of God.

Is is my belief that the writers of Scripture, including the Apostle Paul, had no knowledge that some men and women are born with an innate orientation for same-gender affection and romantic love, and that for these persons opposite-gender affection would be unnatural and inauthentic. This would not have occurred to the writers of Scripture any more than the idea that the earth is round. Based on my experience of being the pastor to many gay and lesbian persons throughout the years, as well as the findings of science, I am absolutely convinced that same-gender orientation is the natural and given nature of some percentage of the human population. (This may even be the case in the animal realm. See here.)

If this is true, should the comforts and joys of human love and companionship be denied these persons? What would the biblical revelation of the heart of God suggest to us? Do we look here to the letter or to the spirit of the law? (II Cor. 3:6)

Certainly the Bible is much clearer about divorce than it is about homosexuality, and in the case of divorce it is Jesus himself who is quoted in Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11 saying that if someone divorces and remarries he or she is guilty of adultery. Yet, the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church say: "God's plan is for lifelong, faithful marriage. ... However when a married couple is estranged beyond reconciliation, even after thoughtful consideration and counsel, divorce is a regrettable alternative in the midst of brokenness." (The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church 2004, p. 161.) Second marriages after divorce are common and accepted within the United Methodist Church, and in my opinion should be.

My only point is that it is not unusual for Christians and the church to decide that the larger sense of the spirit of Scripture requires a perspective different from what a specific verse says.

Is this risky? Sure. But an overly simplistic application of Scripture is risky as well. Does engaging in this kind of discernment process mean we are ignoring Scripture, as the question above suggests? No. It means we are taking it seriously, profoundly seriously, but not simplistically. We are taking it seriously enough to search it deeply.

In "The Question I Am Most Often Asked -- Part One," my primary concern was to respond to the statement that there are many references prohibiting the practice of homosexuality in the Bible. I suggested that there are at most seven references: two are about homosexual rape and thus not relevant for a discussion about loving gay and lesbian relationships; two are part of the Leviticus purity codes which we do not expect people to follow; two are vague references by the Apostle Paul; and the seventh is Romans 1: 18-32 which is based on Paul's understanding of what is natural and unnatural, as was his assumption that men having long hair was unnatural. (I Cor. 11:14)

The primary point I want to make here is that, even if the Bible were clearer about homosexuality, we would still have to be careful about how we interpret what it says. If same-gender sexual orientation is innate and natural for some people, how then should we apply biblical teachings about sexual relationships to such a circumstance? Should we say that gay and lesbian people need to pretend to be straight and to live lives that would be inauthentic for them? Or do we attempt to apply the qualities the Bible advocates for human relationships to the relationships between gay and lesbian couples?

Obviously, the conclusion I have reached is the latter one. Just as the United Methodist Church has reached the conclusion that the failure of a marriage should not deny people the opportunity for a second chance at love and marital fulfillment in spite of what Jesus is quoted as saying by Matthew and Mark, so gay and lesbian people should not be denied the chance for love and marital fulfillment because of a few verses of Scripture that echo the (understandably) limited understanding of the biblical writers.

Finally, let me add a word about the second part of the question. If I am wrong about what I have written above, I am guilty of enabling and abetting sin. However, the same possibility applies to those who teach that gay and lesbian people living in loving relationships with partners are sinful. If they are wrong, then they are enabling and abetting self-hatred and despair among an innocent people and making false and harmful judgments. (It is no accident that suicide is amazingly high among gay and lesbian youth. See here.) I wonder if poor Rev. Stringfellow who was so sure that Scripture justified slavery ever had to face his complicity in the suffering and death endured by those enslaved, cheated, and oppressed by the system he used the Bible to promote?

While absolute certainty is rare, I am confident that the heart of God is full of love and acceptance for all of us, straight and gay, and that God's heart longs for human fulfillment, joy and loving companionship for each of us. To deny sisters and brothers this only because of their innate sexual orientation is, I believe, a simplistic --but nonetheless harmful-- reading of Scripture.

Finally, we need to trust our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers to study Scripture and decide God's will for their lives for themselves. We need to learn from them. Rather than dictate to them, we need to listen widely to their insights and perceptions concerning Scripture and its interpretation, just as we should have listened to slaves' interpretation of Scripture 160 years ago. After awhile, we have to trust our kids to be able to cross the street for themselves, and learn to respect their wisdom. If they are 30 and we are still keeping them locked in the house so they don't play in the street, they aren't the problem! (:

Amid sad context, Liberia’s story inspires

A UMNS Commentary By Dean Snyder and Jane Malone

The danger of visiting Liberia, as we did in February during the 2005 Liberia Annual Conference, is that a visitor might easily confuse the context with the story.

The context is a nation that has experienced more than two decades of violence and years of political and economic devastation. It has been 14 years since Liberia, once the jewel of West Africa, has had centralized electricity, water or sewage systems. Buildings have either been destroyed in fighting between government troops and rebels or have deteriorated without occupants, repairs or maintenance.

(Continued here.)

Is the UMC really global?

Several weeks ago I was sitting in my living room with an amiable British guest, a Methodist pastor visiting from England. His mood changed, however, when I happened to mention the decision of the Methodist Church of Cote d'Ivoire to become part of the United Methodist Church (UMC).

The Protestant Methodist Church of Cote d'Ivoire (the Ivory Coast) had historically been affiliated with British Methodism. As a result of the efforts of British Methodism to move beyond colonialist models of Christianity, the Cote d'Ivoire Methodist Church became locally governed and autonomous in 1963.

Several years ago leaders of the Cote d'Ivoire denomination approached the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) of the United Methodist Church to explore the possibility of affiliating with the UMC. During General Conference in Pittsburgh last May, the million members of the Cote d'Ivoire church officially became United Methodists and the UMC grew, in one day, from a 10 million-member denomination to an 11 million-member church. See "Cote d'Ivoire denomination joins United Methodist Church."

My British friend was incensed about this and felt that the General Board of Global Ministry was undermining decades of efforts by British Methodists to reverse the negative effects of colonialism and their work to promote independence and self-determination within the African churches.

"This is nothing more than 'rice Christianity'," my friend thundered. The terms "rice Christians" and "rice Christianity" refer to the horrendous practice of forcing people to convert to Christianity in India during the famine of 1837 when Christian missionaries gave starving people rice to eat only if they agreed to be baptized. My British friend was suggesting that the decision of the autonomous Methodists of Cote d'Ivorie to become an Annual Conference of the UMC, and part of the West Africa Central Conference, was motivated by financial benefits that might accrue to them as a result of this affiliation.

This conversation is one reason I recently stopped by my local Cokesbury store to pick up a copy of Bruce Robbin's book A World Parish? Hopes and Challenges of the United Methodist Church in a Global Setting published last year by Abingdon Press. Robbins, former head of the UMC Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, has written an amazingly frank book about a topic that is one of the most difficult to talk about within the United Methodist Church: the relationship between U.S. United Methodists and United Methodists in other parts of the world who are organized into Central Conferences. (Central Conferences -- there are currently seven -- are organizational units located only outside the United States.)

The relationship between General Conference, Central Conferences, and Annual Conferences is --how to put this?-- peculiar.(Find information about "Conferences" and links to information about United Methodist organizational structures here).

A World Parish? is a short book -- 120 pages -- but it contains the only history of how Central Conferences came to exist I have ever come across. It also raises hard questions about our relationship with Methodists outside the United States, whether they are part of Central Conferences, autonomous Methodist churches, concordant churches, "Act of Covenanting" churches, churches formerly affiliated with British Methodism, or other member churches of the World Methodist Council.

In the book's final chapter, Robbins proposes a new organizational structure for worldwide United Methodism that would balance the tension between the desire for both autonomy and interdependence.

All throughout the book, he discusses "the elephant in the room" (as he calls it) of the financial disparity between rich U.S. United Methodists and impoverished (beyond our imaginations) Methodists in other parts of the world, and the way this disparity so often distorts the relationship between United Methodists in the U.S. and in the Central Conferences.

Here are a few of the important points Robbins makes:

1. We are not really a global church in any serious sense of the word. The Catholic Church is a global church, but United Methodism is what Robbins calls (based on a model developed by Janice Love) an "extended-national confessional" church. He defines this as "a particular doctrinal tradition embodied in members primarily in one country with additional churches in other nations or regions." (pp. 28-30)

2. The Central Conference structure, established in 1928, sought equality and empowered the younger churches in a way that was remarkable for its day, according to Robbins. But it has since remained impervious to modification or reform in spite of several major attempts to do so. There are some problems with the structure that we have failed to adequately discuss or address. Many of these have to do with the "elephant in the room" of the financial implications of the relationship.

3. Some Methodist churches, such as the churches of Brazil, Korea, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and others, have become either autonomous churches or affiliated autonomous churches. (Definitions of different relationships that autonomous churches might have and the implications for representation at General Conference can be found here.) These churches were promised that their relationship to the United Methodist Church would remain as strong as if they were still Central Conferences, including in the area of financial support. This has not happened, largely, I believe, for political reasons. Because the representation of Central Conferences at General Conference is much greater (in 2004, 184 of the 994 voting delegates or 18.5 percent were from Central Conferences) and because Central Conferences are represented on the governing bodies of UMC boards and agencies as well as on the Council of Bishops, Central Conferences have received significantly greater support from the UMC than other daughter/son churches. Frankly, this seems to me to be an unavoidable consequences of the greater degree of political power Central Conferences have within the denominational system compared to autonomous churches.

4. One example of the "elephant in the room" that Robbins puts on the table is the financial and other benefits to individuals that result from being part of Central Conference structures. Robbins is very frank in his discussion of the fact that the bishops of Central Conference churches are advocating that they be paid the same salary as U.S. bishops. This would seem fair; however, such salaries (paid entirely by U.S. funds since Central Conferences contribute no apportionments to the UMC) would make Central Conference bishops amazingly rich in their home economies. Even the opportunities for bishops and other Central Conference leaders to have expenses paid to travel to the United States to attend meetings and, thereby, to establish relationships with U.S. Methodists are very desirable benefits to people living in countries where people have exceeding low income and very few opportunities. As Robbins hints, it must be very difficult for Central Conference leaders not to be influenced by personal benefits when they make decisions that impact their people back home.

Robbins says that Central Conference leaders who have resisted changes in the status quo have been criticized back home. People back home have asked: "Concerning those who support the status quo, are they not the same people who have the opportunity to go to the United States and to take advantage of the opportunities created by the 'world church'?"

U.S. United Methodists participating in discussions about possible changes in the status quo do not know what to do, he says. "They (U.S. Methodist leaders) saw the impediments and the concern expressed by other parts of the world Church ... Yet they felt it most important to listen to the voices of the leadership who sat around the table with them. Otherwise, they would be exercising a paternalism far more concrete than the structural paternalism inherent in the present church structure. It was a conundrum that would pass from one General Conference to another up to the present day." (pp. 54-55) 5.

One concrete and contemporary example of this unfortunate tension between the desire for both autonomy and interdependence is the Philippines. United Methodists in the Philippines are increasingly leaning toward a preference to become an autonomous Methodist church rather than remaining a Central Conference. (See a UMNS news story here and a GBGM analysis of Methodism in the Philippines here.) The Central Conference includes 19 Annual Conferences and, by current church rules, all 19 would have to vote to become autonomous. If even one conference fails to do so, the status quo remains in effect. (pp. 93-95)

6. One of the strangest quirks of the current arrangement is that Central Conference delegates to General Conference vote on the contents of two Books of Discipline. They vote on the version of the Book of Discipline that applies to the United States church, and then vote on a different version of the Book of Discipline that applies to their particular Central Conference back home. As a group that collectively controls 18.5 percent of the vote (this percentage is expected to increase in 2008), Central Conference delegates have a major influence on policies and practices that they themselves do not necessarily have to follow themselves. Another consequence of this strange rule is that U.S. United Methodists are the only group who do not get to vote on their own version of the Book of Disciple. (pp. 19-20)

Robbins' ultimate hope is that the UMC will move toward a new structure that will both maintain the connection with Central Conferences and repair the connection with autonomous daughter/son Methodist churches. The new structure would not be based on competition for scarce resources but a renewed commitment to mission and ministry. Everyone would contribute their apportionments based on their ability to do so. (There is something unhealthy about a portion of the church not having the opportunity to put their apportionments in the plate, no matter how numerically small their contriutions might turn out to be.) The new structure would respect the need for both self-determination and interdependence.

Robbin's basic proposal consists of a General Conference and Regional Conferences. General Conference would include members from all the annual conferences throughout the world. The work of General Conference would be to develop and maintain a common constitution, including the basic theological tenets and Methodist emphases shared by everyone, and to coordinate worldwide mission and ministry. Then, there would also be Regional Conferences, similar to Central Conferences today, except there would also be a Regional Conference, or perhaps more than one, within the United States. Each of the current U.S. Jurisdictional Conferences might become Regional Conferences, or there could be one U.S. Regional Conference (or any other combination). Each Regional Conference would have its own Book of Discipline (as the Central Conferences outside the United States do today) as long as the content was consistent with the Constitution agreed upon by General Conference.

For those of us who have dear friends within the Central Conferences, all this (especially financial matters) can make for awkward conversation. This very fact suggests there are aspects of the current structures that are not as healthy as they ought to be. Robbins deserves our gratitude for raising the issues so directly, openly, and frankly. Now all of us who love the United Methodist Church must prayerfully contemplate what it would mean to commit ourselves to be a truly global church.

Is the UMC really global?

Several weeks ago I was sitting in my living room with an amiable British guest, a Methodist pastor visiting from England. His mood changed, however, when I happened to mention the decision of the Methodist Church of Cote d'Ivoire to become part of the United Methodist Church (UMC). The Protestant Methodist Church of Cote d'Ivoire (the Ivory Coast) had historically been affiliated with British Methodism. As a result of the efforts of British Methodism to move beyond colonialist models of Christianity, the Cote d'Ivoire Methodist Church became locally governed and autonomous in 1963. Several years ago leaders of the Cote d'Ivoire denomination approached the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) of the United Methodist Church to explore the possibility of affiliating with the UMC. During General Conference in Pittsburgh last May, the million members of the Cote d'Ivoire church officially became United Methodists and the UMC grew, in one day, from a 10 million-member denomination to an 11 million-member church. See "Cote d'Ivoire denomination joins United Methodist Church." My British friend was incensed about this and felt that the General Board of Global Ministry was undermining decades of efforts by British Methodists to reverse the negative effects of colonialism and their work to promote independence and self-determination within the African churches. "This is nothing more than 'rice Christianity'," my friend thundered. The terms "rice Christians" and "rice Christianity" refer to the horrendous practice of forcing people to convert to Christianity in India during the famine of 1837 when Christian missionaries gave starving people rice to eat only if they agreed to be baptized. My British friend was suggesting that the decision of the autonomous Methodists of Cote d'Ivorie to become an Annual Conference of the UMC, and part of the West Africa Central Conference, was motivated by financial benefits that might accrue to them as a result of this affiliation. This conversation is one reason I recently stopped by my local Cokesbury store to pick up a copy of Bruce Robbin's book A World Parish? Hopes and Challenges of the United Methodist Church in a Global Setting published last year by Abingdon Press. Robbins, former head of the UMC Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, has written an amazingly frank book about a topic that is one of the most difficult to talk about within the United Methodist Church: the relationship between U.S. United Methodists and United Methodists in other parts of the world who are organized into Central Conferences. (Central Conferences -- there are currently seven -- are organizational units located only outside the United States. The relationship between General Conference, Central Conferences, and Annual Conferences is (how to put this?) peculiar; find information about "Conferences" and links to information about United Methodist organizational structures here). A World Parish? is a short book -- 120 pages -- but it contains the only history of how Central Conferences came to exist I have ever come across. It also raises hard questions about our relationship with Methodists outside the United States, whether they are part of Central Conferences, autonomous Methodist churches, concordant churches, "Act of Covenanting" churches, churches formerly affiliated with British Methodism, or other member churches of the World Methodist Council. In the book's final chapter, Robbins proposes a new organizational structure for worldwide United Methodism that would balance the tension between the desire for both autonomy and interdependence. All throughout the book, he discusses "the elephant in the room" (as he calls it) of the financial disparity between rich U.S. United Methodists and impoverished (beyond our imaginations) Methodists in other parts of the world, and the way this disparity so often distorts the relationship between United Methodists in the U.S. and in the Central Conferences. Here are a few of the important points Robbins makes: 1. We are not really a global church in any serious sense of the word. The Catholic Church is a global church, but United Methodism is what Robbins calls (based on a model developed by Janice Love) an "extended-national confessional" church. He defines this as "a particular doctrinal tradition embodied in members primarily in one country with additional churches in other nations or regions." (pp. 28-30) 2. The Central Conference structure, established in 1928, sought equality and empowered the younger churches in a way that was remarkable for its day, according to Robbins. But it has since remained impervious to modification or reform in spite of several major attempts to do so. There are some problems with the structure that we have failed to adequately discuss or address. Many of these have to do with the "elephant in the room" of the financial implications of the relationship. 3. Some Methodist churches, such as the churches of Brazil, Korea, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and others, have become either autonomous churches or affiliated autonomous churches. (Definitions of different relationships that autonomous churches might have and the implications for representation at General Conference can be found here.) These churches were promised that their relationship to the United Methodist Church would remain as strong as if they were still Central Conferences, including in the area of financial support. This has not happened, largely, I believe, for political reasons. Because the representation of Central Conferences at General Conference is much greater (in 2004, 184 of the 994 voting delegates or 18.5 percent were from Central Conferences) and because Central Conferences are represented on the governing bodies of UMC boards and agencies as well as on the Council of Bishops, Central Conferences have received significantly greater support from the UMC than other daughter/son churches. Frankly, this seems to me to be an unavoidable consequences of the greater degree of political power Central Conferences have within the denominational system compared to autonomous churches. 4. One example of the "elephant in the room" that Robbins puts on the table is the financial and other benefits to individuals that result from being part of Central Conference structures. Robbins is very frank in his discussion of the fact that the bishops of Central Conference churches are advocating that they be paid the same salary as U.S. bishops. This would seem fair; however, such salaries (paid entirely by U.S. funds since Central Conferences contribute no apportionments to the UMC) would make Central Conference bishops amazingly rich in their home economies. Even the opportunities for bishops and other Central Conference leaders to have expenses paid to travel to the United States to attend meetings and, thereby, to establish relationships with U.S. Methodists are very desirable benefits to people living in countries where people have exceeding low income and very few opportunities. As Robbins hints, it must be very difficult for Central Conference leaders not to be influenced by personal benefits when they make decisions that impact their people back home. He says that Central Conference leaders who have resisted changes in the status quo have been criticized back home. People back home have asked: "Concerning those who support the status quo, are they not the same people who have the opportunity to go to the United States and to take advantage of the opportunities created by the 'world church'?" U.S. United Methodists participating in discussions about possible changes in the status quo do not know what to do, Robbins says. "They (U.S. Methodist leaders) saw the impediments and the concern expressed by other parts of the world Church ... Yet they felt it most important to listen to the voices of the leadership who sat around the table with them. Otherwise, they would be exercising a paternalism far more concrete than the structural paternalism inherent in the present church structure. It was a conundrum that would pass from one General Conference to another up to the present day." (pp. 54-55) 5. One concrete and contemporary example of this unfortunate tension between the desire for both autonomy and interdependence is the Philippines. United Methodists in the Philippines are increasingly leaning toward a preference to become an autonomous Methodist church rather than remaining a Central Conference. (See a UMNS news story here and a GBGM analysis of Methodism in the Philippines here.) The Central Conference includes 19 Annual Conferences and, by current church rules, all 19 would have to vote to become autonomous. If even one conference fails to do so, the status quo remains in effect. (pp. 93-95) 6. One of the strangest quirks of the current arrangement is that Central Conference delegates to General Conference vote on the contents of two Books of Discipline. They vote on the version of the Book of Discipline that applies to the United States church, and then vote on a different version of the Book of Discipline that applies to their particular Central Conference back home. As a group that collectively controls 18.5 percent of the vote (this percentage is expected to increase in 2008), Central Conference delegates have a major influence on policies and practices that they themselves do not necessarily have to follow themselves. Another consequence of this strange rule is that U.S. United Methodists are the only group who do not get to vote on their own version of the Book of Disciple. (pp. 19-20) Robbins' ultimate hope is that the UMC will move toward a new structure that will both maintain the connection with Central Conferences and repair the connection with autonomous daughter/son Methodist churches. The new structure would not be based on competition for scarce resources but a renewed commitment to mission and ministry. Everyone would contribute their apportionments based on their ability to do so. (There is something unhealthy about a portion of the church not having the opportunity to put their apportionments in the plate, no matter how numerically small their contriutions might turn out to be.) The new structure would respect the need for both self-determination and interdependence. Robbin's basic proposal consists of a General Conference and Regional Conferences. General Conference would include members from all the annual conferences throughout the world. The work of General Conference would be to develop and maintain a common constitution, including the basic theological tenets and Methodist emphases shared by everyone, and to coordinate worldwide mission and ministry. Then, there would also be Regional Conferences, similar to Central Conferences today, except there would also be a Regional Conference, or perhaps more than one, within the United States. Each of the current U.S. Jurisdictional Conferences might become Regional Conferences, or there could be one U.S. Regional Conference (or any other combination). Each Regional Conference would have its own Book of Discipline (as the Central Conferences outside the United States do today) as long as the content was consistent with the Constitution agreed upon by General Conference. For those of us who have dear friends within the Central Conferences, all this (especially financial matters) can make for awkward conversation. This very fact suggests there are aspects of the current structures that are not as healthy as they ought to be. Robbins deserves our gratitude for raising the issues so directly, openly, and frankly. Now all of us who love the United Methodist Church must prayerfully contemplate what it would mean to commit ourselves to be a truly global church.

The Question I Am Most Often Asked By People Visiting My Church's Website -- Part One

Here is an true-life example of the question that I am most often asked after people visit my church's website or read certain of my sermons:

I am a new Methodist in Texas who came across your church website. Great website by the way.

I have noticed that your church strongly emphasizes an acceptance of homosexual practice. Knowing that there are numerous biblical prohibitions against homosexual practice (not homosexuals), how does your church reconcile those prohibitions with those Bible verses?

Thanks for the opportunity to ask the question!

It is a fine question, a discussion Methodists need to continue to have. This particular e-mailer asks the question very graciously, for which I am grateful. I hope my response is equally gracious, as it is meant to be. (I am sometimes asked similar questions by reporters, and have found that I can not answer them with a sound-bite. This really needs to be a conversation.)

So, this is one of the topics I hope we can discuss through The Untied Methodist blog and the community of Methodist bloggers who meet at the Wesley blog . But, really, this is more a conversation than a Q. and A.

Let me begin with a few quick thoughts (more will follow). The most important thing I want to say here is that the Bible really doesn't have all that much to say about homosexual practice. At most, there are seven references in the Bible, and not all those (and maybe none of them) are relevant to a discussion of loving, consensual gay and lesbian relationships.

1. THE FOUR OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES: There are four Old Testament references: two mentions in stories (Gen. 19: 1-29 and Judges 19) which are really stories about rape --not consensual, loving relations-- and two prohibitions in the Leviticus cleanliness codes (Lev. 18:22 and 20:13). These later two verses say that a man shall not lie with a male as with a woman and that the penalty for this should be death. We could discuss these specific Scriptures at more length but the strongest statement about the Old Testament prohibitions was made years ago (1979) by Walter Wink in his article Homosexuality and the Bible. Wink makes the point that we manage to ignore many of Old Testament teachings about sexuality (the following are quotes from his article):

---Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18:19; 15:18-24), and anyone who engaged in it was to be "extirpated," or "cut off from their people" (kareth, Lev. 18:29, a term referring to execution by stoning, burning, strangling, or to flogging or expulsion).

---Nudity, the characteristic of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (II Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3). ... Are we prepared to regard nudity in the locker room or at the old swimming hole or in the privacy of one's home as an accursed sin?

---Semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16-24). Intercourse rendered one unclean until sundown; menstruation rendered the woman unclean for seven days. Today most people would regard semen and menstrual fluid as completely natural and only at times "messy," not "unclean."

---"If men get into a fight with one another and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand." (Deut 25:11 f)

---When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a male heir. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27 par.) I am not aware of any Christians who still obey this unambiguous commandment of Scripture. Why is this law ignored, and the one against homosexual behavior preserved?

See the Wink article here for more examples and for his thinking about how we should deal with biblical teachings about sexuality.

2. THE THREE NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES: Homosexual acts are mentioned three times in the New Testament, in each case in the writings of the Apostle Paul, never in the Gospels. (Jesus is not recorded as ever having spoken about the topic.)

In I Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul lists a group of "wrongdoers who will not inherit the kingdom of God." Among those listed, in addition to "the greedy," "drunkards," and "idoloters," are malakoi, a Greek word translated "male prostitutes" in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible, and arsenokoitai, translated "sodomites" in the NRSV. The term arsenokoitai appears again in a list of those who are "lawless and disobedient" in I Timothy 1:10.

These two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, have been studied extensively, and as often is the case with words used infrequently in Scripture so that there is little basis to establish clarity about their meaning, the English words used to translate them have often reflected the biases and assumptions of the translators. Malakoi means "soft one" in Greek, and many translators have interpreted this to mean someone who is effeminate or gay. Maybe. It could also mean someone who is weak or undisciplined. Or someone who likes to wear fancy clothes, a so-called "dandy."

The Greek word arsenokoitai is also ambiguous. It is a compound expression of the Greek words that mean "male" and "bed," and has often been assumed by biblical scholars to mean men who go to bed with each other. Some scholars question this assumption. Mary Tolbert, testifying to a United Methodist Committee on Investigations in 2000, summarized the work of Yale University biblical scholar, Professor Dale Martin, who concludes that the Greek word arsenokoitai "seems to have referred to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex, perhaps but not necessarily homosexual sex." Read Tolbert's statement here.

The third -- and most significant and difficult -- New Testament reference to homosexual practice is found in Romans 1: 18-32. Here Paul is critiquing the thinking and practices of pagan or Greek culture. He argues that, even without access to Scripture, the nature of God is evident in creation. But Greek culture rejected what should have been obvious and "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a human being or birds" and so on. (Rom. 1: 23) Paul argues that a consequence of this is that God gave them up "to degrading passions." (Rom. 1: 26) Two primary examples given in Romans 1 (others are gossiping, slander, haughtiness, boastfulness, heartlessness, and rebelliousness toward parents [Rom. 1: 29-31] ) for such "degrading passions" are:

1. "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural," and

2. "The men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men..." (Rom. 1: 26-27)

Scholars have usually assumed the "unnatural" act done by women to which Paul referred was tribadism, the term used in antiquity for certain lesbian sexual practices, although Paul never says so specifically. He may have been referring to other acts he considered unnatural.

Paul's reference to male same-sex acts and desires is, however, quite specific. It is interesting to note that Paul considers these acts and desires to be a consequence of idolatry. Because the Greeks "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds" etc. (Rom. 1:23) "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity ..." (Rom. 1:24 Italics mine) According to this passage, Paul considered same-sex acts to be unnatural and, thus, a consequence of the idolatry of Greek culture.

Of course, Paul had his own particular sense of what is natural and unnatural. In his commentary on Romans in the Anchor Bible series, the biblical scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer, who seems otherwise sympathetic to Paul's opinions in Romans 1: 18-32, does admit that there is a potential problem with taking Paul's teachings there too literally. He points out that the Greek word physis, which is the term Paul uses in Romans 1 to talk about what is natural and unnatural, is the same word he uses in I Corinthians 11: 14: "Does not nature (physis) itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him ..." Fitzmyer, who agrees with Paul's assumptions in Romans 1 about what is natural and unnatural, comments on Paul's assumptions about men and short hair: "In this instance, physis hardly refers to the natural order of things, but to social convention." (Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Vol. 33 of The Anchor Bible, p. 287.) The point is that Paul's own cultural biases do influence his teachings in ways that we might not always consider authorative today.

Personally, I believe the culture out of which the Old Testament was written generally disapproved of homosexuality. I also believe the Apostle Paul shared in Jewish cultural assumptions of his time as to what is "natural" and "unnatural."

My only point here is to illustrate that the assumption that there are numerous prohibitions against homosexual practice in the Bible is not really true, although I understand how someone might get this impression by listening to preachers and teachers who are so fixated on this concern. You might think it was the primary theme of Scripture! At most there are seven reference. Compare this to more than 300 verses about social justice and the poor. See "The Bible on the Poor."

The next question is whether these several references reflect the culture out of which the Bible emerged or whether they are revelatory of the movement of God in the midst of that culture. The Bible, I am convinced, reflects both the culture in which the events recorded happened and the movement of the Spirit of God toward liberation, justice, healing, reconciliation, beauty, and truth. In other words, "we have this treasure in clay jars" (II Cor. 4: 7) or "in earthen vessels" as the King James Version says. Are these few references condemning homosexual practices (and, in the case of Romans 1:27, homosexual desires) part of the treasure or part of the clay?

A significant factor in thinking this through is the question of whether Leviticus or the Apostle Paul understood that there is such a thing as sexual orientation, which is innate and established by nature.

These questions need further discussion and attention.

For more information about biblical references to homosexuality and questions of how to interpret the several biblical references, I strongly recommend an essay entitled "The Bible, the Church and Homosexuality" by Dan O. Via, a retired professor of New Testament Studies at Duke Divinity School, in the book Homosexuality and the Bible published by Fortress Press. (The book also contains an essay by Robert A. J. Gagnon arguing an alternative opinion if you want to read an articulate, if somewhat frenzied, exposition of a view opposed to homosexual practice. Obviously I am not convinced by Gagnon's arguments.)

In his essay in Homosexuality and the Bible, Via puts the discussion we need to have with one another in what I believe is the proper context. "There are two basic positions, although each is variously nuanced," he writes. These are the alternative possibilities:

1. "All homosexual acts are sinful by their very nature," or

2. "Homosexual acts are not in themselves immoral or sinful but, like heterosexual acts, are good or bad depending on the context that defines and gives meaning to them."

I would appreciate hearing your reaction and hope this conversation can continue.