Letters: Cheers and Jeers

Concerning unity
A cry has arisen from some of the more "liberal" or "progressive" United Methodist clergy professing to be shocked and saddened by the "amicable separation" speech given by Dr. Bill Hinson (May/June 2004 issue).

While I do not desire such a separation, it might be preferable to the already existing de facto separation wherein some choose to obey the Book of Discipline and some do not. My preference, however, is for the restoration of spiritual health for the whole of the United Methodist Church.

Similar separation proposals have been made in recent years by theological liberals in various private discussions. Consequently, the apparent shedding of so many tears is disingenuous. For example, Resolution No. 115 in the 2004 Preliminary Report for the California-Pacific Annual Conference, offered by a group of pro-gay clergy in the Annual Conference, called for the Western Jurisdiction to build a "Jurisdictional structure capable of promoting.the Church in the West." In this case, the liberal clergy sought to build their own "church within a church" for the sole purpose of thwarting the will of the UM Church as expressed by General Conference.

The fact is that there is a divide within the church. The issue of homosexuality is itself a reflection of other, less easily grasped but more important, theological issues. Two key ones might be stated as follows:

. Does one believe in a God who has the power to change lives, or is "God" merely a figure of speech for "the universe having its being," or some similarly vague notion?

. Does the Christian have a clear and authoritative way of knowing God's will in the Bible, or do we, by our various fashions and rationales, make ourselves God?

The question remains: Upon what basis are Christians to have unity? Are we to be united in our upper-middle-class-ness? Is it in the pension fund? For United Methodists is it in the Book of Discipline? Well, based upon the conduct of some in our connection, obviously not. We do have Articles of Religion, and these were made very difficult to change for the very reason that they were thought very important. Most of our parishioners, however, do not even know that we have them; we suspect that many of our pastors have never read them. Some believe that since they cannot be easily changed, they can be readily ignored; and so they are.

The issue that divides us today, however, is relationship with Scripture. Can there be any authoritative way to know the will of God that is not simply one's personal opinion at any given point in time? One side says yes, the other side says no. Thus we do not seem to have unity about our view of the Bible, and thus our unity is threatened upon all matters of faith!

While the authority of Scripture is the most easily accessible argument raised by the differences of opinion about homosexuality, there is another issue of profound importance. That is the reality of God. Evangelicals believe God can change lives. We know that Jesus Christ can change lives and lead people out of drugs, alcohol, fear, anger, pornography, gambling addiction, adultery, homosexuality, and more. From personal discussions, some of my "liberal" colleagues do not seem to believe that God is any sort of Being at all, but more in the nature of a figure of speech for "really big things," or "the universe," or something.

The unity of Christians is in Christ, or else it is dissembling to use the word Christian. Our unity must be in some shared understanding of Christ, or, better still, in some shared experience of Christ, or, better yet, some shared understanding and experience of Christ. That, I am sad to say, we do not have.

Jim Hill
North Clairemont UM Church
San Diego, California

 

My hope is that it wouldn't have to come to this. My fear is that it must. Bishop C. Dale White thinks the church should not separate over what he calls a peripheral issue. What is at issue, however, is the authority of Scripture. That is not peripheral. The issue strikes at the very core of what it means to be the church. Some seem to believe that unity is the be all and end all of Christianity. Others believe that there are essentials of the faith that are more important than unity for its own sake.

Scripture tells us to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). That faith, as handed down to us, is our guide, our aim, and our end. The scriptures even admonish us to consider separation from those who do not hold to the essentials of the faith. "Therefore 'Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord'" (2 Corinthians 6:17). I pray for unity of mind and spirit around the essentials of the faith. Yet, when we have irreconcilable differences over such essentials as the authority of Scripture, or Christ's divinity, virgin birth, and literal resurrection, I do not pray for unity for its own sake.

Neither is unity a goal that should supersede doctrine on other issues that will eventually come before the church. If, in the future, a UM group wanted to be so inclusive as to legitimize some sinful cause-as a practice acceptable in the UM Church-should unity override our doctrine? It is never right for the church to support what is contrary to scripture and incompatible with Christian teaching. Not in the name of unity or anything else. It seems strange to hear those who disavow the Discipline of the church with one breath, plea for unity with the next. Those who will not stand with the Discipline, and the essentials of the faith, have themselves already broken unity.

Bishop Joe E. Pennel, Jr. speaks of the Discipline holding us together. Yet it is obviously not holding us together. The Discipline is clear, as the Judicial Council has ruled. That has not stopped the Western Jurisdiction, and will not stop them, or others in the future, from ignoring its declarations and destroying our unity. It is time to consider the question, is it not possible, even desirable, for an amicable separation to be worked out within the guidelines of the United Methodist Discipline? With that question in mind, I continue to pray for our church.

The Judicial Council has ruled that the Discipline is in force, but saying so does not make it so. The Judicial Council has also ruled that it can do nothing if a part of the church ignores the Discipline in its own judicial decisions. The Western Jurisdiction has already made clear it will ignore the obvious, declarative language of the Discipline. It will do so again, despite all efforts to strengthen that language. What will result is a shameful likeness of the Episcopalian system, where each jurisdiction goes its own way, and the church as a whole has no voice but babel. No voice, not on a peripheral issue, but on the very foundations of the faith. That is not the church, and there is no unity in that.

Dillon Staas
Van Wert, Ohio



Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News