In a May 17 column posted on the United Methodist Reporter site, Bishop Minerva Carcano of the Desert Southwest Conference offered her assessment of the recently completed 2012 General Conference.
As many of you know by now, that Conference retained our denomination’s position on the volatile issue of homosexuality in Christendom: homosexual persons are of sacred worth while at the same time homosexual practice is not compatible with Christian teaching. Every General Conference since 1972 has reached the same sensitive-yet-faithful conclusion on the issue.
As a result, persons who are self-avowed, practicing homosexuals cannot be ordained into United Methodist ministry and UM pastors cannot perform same-sex weddings.
This puts Methodists firmly in line with 2000 years of church teaching regarding celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in heterosexual marriage, and puts us at odds with several more progressive denominations — United Church of Christ (UCC), the Episcopal Church, Presbteryian Church (USA), and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) — who have abandoned restrictions against homosexual clergy and same-sex weddings.
There’s one other piece to the backstory to Bishop Carcano’s comments (which I’ll get to in a moment): over the last several quadrennia, the percentage of voting delegates from Africa and the Philippines — where Methodism is growing rapidly — has surged while the American percentage of the voting bloc has declined. And as whole, the Africans and Filipinos vote overwhelmingly in favor of our current stance.
So now that you know the story behind the story, I’ll want to share some of Bishop Carcano’s comments; words I would not have believed she said if I hadn’t read them myself:
Delegates from Africa once again proclaimed that their anti-homosexual stand was what U.S. missionaries taught them. I sat there wondering when our African delegates will grow up. It has been 200 years since U.S. Methodist missionaries began their work of evangelization on the continent of Africa; long enough for African Methodists to do their own thinking about this concern and others. Our conservative U.S. United Methodists continue to depend on the conservative vote of African and Filipino delegates to maintain our exclusionary position on homosexuality, a position I believe would be changed for the inclusion of our LGBT sisters and brothers if a U.S. vote for a U.S. context were taken. The manner in which we deal with the concern of homosexuality affects all of ministry in the U.S., and we are the poorer for it. It is time for us to let go of our wrong position and be the church of Christ Jesus, a church that excludes no one.
A bishop of our church, charged with teaching and protecting the faith handed down to the saints, publicly wonders when an entire continent of Methodist believers will “grow up.” Her words, not mine.
Patronizing, insulting, haughty, and almost beyond belief.
Even beyond the written insult, consider some of the assumptions behind the Bishops’ words:
1. Theological liberalism is sophisticated while aligning with orthodoxy is simple-minded. I will take the intellectually robust orthodoxy of Thomas Oden, William Abraham, and Timothy Tennent over the Bishop’s progressivism any day.
2. Newer is better when it comes to doctrine. Over the last couple of years at Good Shepherd, I have tried hard not to teach anything new but to do my best to excavate what is ancient, unchanging, and always relevant.
3. Human impulse is the determining force in human morality. Much of the Christian way involves surrendering our impulses — sexual, material, anti-social — to the Lordship of Christ.
The Bishop’s words are also thick with irony. Earlier in her column, she offers strong support for identity based structures in our denomination — the General Commission on Religion and Race and the Commission on the Status and Role of Women. While some at GC2012 wanted to disband both COSROW and the GCRR, Bishop Carcano and others worked energetically and successfully for their preservation.
Yet two paragraphs later, she laments the existence of immaturity of an identity group. Two, in fact: Africans and Filipinos. The implication is that your identity group is valid if you lean leftward in your theology and it’s not if you tilt to the right. In that case, apparently, you just need a little more education; you need to “grow up.”
Perhaps our African brothers and sisters can remind the Bishop that while their Methodist neighborhoods are thriving, her Desert Southwest Conference — like the far-left leaning Western Jurisdiction of which it is part — is on the fast-track to irrelevance, with vanishing membership and shrinking attendance.
I believe the Bishop is blind to the connection between doctrinal waywardness and denominational decline. Just ask our friends in the UCC, ELCA, and PCUSA, and our ancestors in the Episcopal Church.
If that’s growing up, I want no part of it.
There are 27 comments
Excellent post! Loving, yet truth-filled.
Sometimes minds can be so open that people’s brains fall out. 😉
Amen, thanks for sharing this. Think the Methodist church will discipline her?
I read the article in full. One thing the bishop did say that contradicted herself is the lamentation that conference was too US centric and then to complain that the African and Filipino delegates didn’t vote the way she wanted. And I would be surprised if the African and Filipino delegates’ rationale was based primarily on what the missionaries taught them over the last 200 years. I would think most of them bring it back to their interpretation of the Bible.
She didn’t say anything about the current message of UM missionaries but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Bishop wouldn’t advocate for missionaries reorienting the overseas churches to a more progressive theology rather than getting the gospel out to the 2 billion or so beyond the reach of a church to witness to them about the gospel.
Powerful! My own marriage has struggled with this issue for almost ten years now. It is heartbreaking and I continue to hold my view that scriptures say the practice is sin (like many other sin: adultery, gossip, gluttony, etc). BUT, the people are deserving of love and grace. STILL the Church can not condone the sin. Welcome the person…not the deed. Powerful! Amazing that some people don’t get it. Thanks, Alex Patton (Augusta, GA)
Brian,
I don’t know the exact number, but the UMC currently has relatively few American based missionaries serving in either Africa or the Philippines. I’m also not sure of the theological perspective of most of them.
Wow, thanks the honest, plain and direct post. We received an email from our church up here that had a photo of Mike Slaughter speaking. The caption underneath him said, “They support legislation, which would have acknowledged that United Methodist disagree on issues of sexuality.”
I can only assume from this that he was wanting to modernize our thinking.
Thanks for standing firm!
Not all churches are losing members and becoming less vibrant. I would think that those who are enlarging their witness would be called leaders rather than be encouraged to “grow up”. BTW, not all churches in America are losing members even in areas that have declined in population. The Gospel always thrives.
Thank you, Talbot Davis, for your clear voice! The arrogance of some “progressives” is incredible. Personally, I refuse to call them “progressives” because it falsely implies PROGRESS! Progress past biblical morality and doctrine? How about “Regressives”? Regressing into sin.
1. Can we really pat ourselves on the back for being “sensitive-yet-faithful?” The reality that three other denominations include gay and lesbian leaders either suggests they are not faithful (you assume as much, arrogantly) or that we are not faithful. The truth is that God’s will for the church in this matter has not reached any conclusion. In the meantime let’s not pretend we are being sensitive. Gay love was compared to bestiality. That is untrue and it hurts not only gay people in the room but also young gay people teens who believe such hate speech and commit suicide.
2. Yes, a bishop gets to tell people to “grow-up.” Paul called the Galatians “foolish” and actually told the Ephesians to grow up. I presume you offer “milk” to some members of your church and then solid food to others, yes? If you have a 50 year old who can only recite the books of the Bible with no sense of the sermon on the mount, then you find a way to tell him to “grow up” I hope. Because that is your job as teacher.
3. Or perhaps you suspect it is not your job to challenge people to reflect critically on changes in society and changes in their lives? You write “I have tried hard not to teach anything new” but instead spend your time “excavating” the old. This seems to me a disservice to your church who can, after all, simply listen to James Earl Jones reading the King James Version of the Bible on their own.
I know it is difficult speaking your mind in a context that may not encourage taking risks, but I pray the Spirit strengthens your knees to stand when the time comes for you to do so.
Those Christians who, like Pastor Davis, believe so strongly in their own correctness in interpreting scripture that condemns homosexuality as sinful are the epitome of the example Jesus gives of following the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of God. The frustration of a Bishop who believes her church is sinning by the self-righteous exclusion of a full life for LGBT persons I’m sure sounds condescending when you are so sure you are correct in your beliefs. And those who choose to believe that scripture does NOT condemn the faithful lives of LGBT personhood are therefore similarly condescended to by responses like Pastor Davis’.
Re-read this blog and JUST PRETEND that you could be wrong. Just for the sake of argument, take the position that God does NOT condemn homosexuality any more than he condemns your eye color or race or gender. The self-righteous anger of someone who is SO SURE that he has interpreted the scripture correctly and those who disagree are patronizing can perhaps be weighed against a Bishop’s pain at the rejection by her church of scores of PEOPLE. You see, saying you love them and accept them and pray for them and love the sinner hate the sin is such…self-righteous BS. Sin is WHAT YOU DO, not WHO YOU ARE. We equate people living faithful, committed lives the way GOD created them to convicts, child molesters, liars and thieves and then tell them we love them. So..I won’t steal, cheat or lie and you just stay celibate your whole life and certainly don’t share your life with anyone, don’t feel the call of God to become a preacher like ME.. and we will BOTH go to heaven. REALLY?
So these delegates that you are so insulted for; the same ones that voted that homosexuality REMOVES YOU FROM GOD’S GRACE and was compared to bestiality on the floor of GC (check the archives, it happened) are spiritually mature. Because they support your stance that the Bible condemns homosexuality. And your condescension, your patronizing of hundreds of thousands of your fellow Methodists who believe differently is somehow justified.
Anyone who is interested in exploring how perhaps the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality, a good start is this link:
http://www.believeoutloud.com/boltoday/20111230/clobbering-biblical-gay-bashing
and no, it is not a UM pastor. sigh.
Amen and Amen. If it’s NEW (more often that not) it’s not TRUE and if it’s TRUE it’s not NEW!
This article makes quite a few assumptions, 1. That just because the church has appeared to have the same stance on homosexuality that it is the right stance, examples of that would be using the Bible to justify spousal abuse and slavery (which is perfectly Biblical) 2. That the Bishop is wrong in saying that Africans need to educate themselves on issues of sexuality, there are gays in Africa too. 3. That the Bishop is being liberal because of her stance in one area.4. This article assumes that continuing to exclude LGBTIQ persons will only affect them, when ostracizing one minority group will spread to the ostracizing of all of them, it’s only a matter of time before women will once again have to fight in the UMC for their rights, and ethnic minorities here in the US will as well.
Also this article is just a judgmental as the Bishop’s so to judge her for that would just be hypocritical.
Thank you for your stand pastor!
In a video produced during GC I heard her say, “If you’re not for full inclusion, then you have not experienced the love of Christ.”
I was shocked by her comments.
No wonder we have a trust issue in our denomination.
I’m sure thankful yesterday’s Methodists suffered doctrinal waywardness when they finally condemned slavery, or allowed women clergy. I’d say the path to irrelevancy is accelerated when we deny that our understanding of God’s will, along with truth and justice, is ever-evolving as we gain knowledge and experience. Rev. Davis’ orthodoxy doesn’t condemn women clergy, embrace slavery, or prohibit divorced persons from marrying. Easy to conclude it’s more homophobic than theological.
One of the most brilliant people I’ve studied under was Ben Witherington III and he said something offhand in a lecture that’s stuck with me: “If it’s new, it’s probably not true; and if it’s true, it’s probably not new.” (It was in the context of new religious movements or something, but I think it applies.)
As an FYI to commenters who responded negatively to my post or make an accusation of homophobia — the quickest name calling response out there — we probably have more homosexual persons attending GSUMC than attend the average UMC. Perhaps even more than the average total attendance of some of our smaller churches in the connection.
The Discipline’s current stance and Good Shepherd’s practice calls for pastoral care to people who are homosexual. And guess what? Many people who are homosexual want to go to a church that itself wrestles with the issue instead of issuing carte blance endorsement of same sex intimacy.
While you are welcome to disagree with my assessment of Bishop Carcano’s remarks (an assessment that was much broader the the LGBT issue), you can do better than name calling.
I cannot speak for everyone. But I myself have attended United Methodist Churches since I was a child, was baptized and confirmed in one, and the only reason I do not leave the church is the belief that my generation will change this wrongheaded doctrine.
Homosexuality is not a sin. In a few generations, the belief that it is will have passed away, and the church will be better for being more inclusive.
Seems like the ‘name callers’ have a bit of growing up to do as Bishop Carcano mentions
This is an example why Bishops should not be ellected for life.
Some of the folks criticizing Davis’ comments are the closed-minded ones with the anger problem. They epitomize the psychological phenomenon of projection. Yes, I agree with a previous commenter who suggested substituting the term “regressive” for “progressive.” Interpreting the Bible as condoning homosexual behavior is tantamount to adding 2 plus 2 and getting 5. It’s far more honorable to simply say you disagree with the Scripture.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thank you for pointing this out–I was stunned at her attitude to those who can’t “get on board”–which includes me after doing exstensive reading and praying about the matter. I am reading GK Chesterton’s “Orhtodoxy: The Romance of Faith” and in the chapter titled “The Suicide of Thought” he refers to “…the false theory of progress which maintains that we alter the test instead of trying to pass the test,,,If the standard changes, how can there be improvement which implies a standard?..The main point here..is that this idea of a fundamental alteration in the standard is one of the things that make thought about the past or future simply impossible. The theory of a complete change of standards in human history does not merely deprive us of the pleasure of honouring or fathers; it deprives us even of the more modern and aristocratic pleasure of despising them.” He calssifies this under th category of”thought-destroying forces”.
Let’s be real clear here for those folks that only skim read. Or as Joel Green would say do not execute a close reading of the text. FIRST. No one said that being gay put you beyond God’s grace. All the church is saying is that the practice of homosexuality is not consistent with Christian teaching and as such practicing homosexuals cannot be ordained or married. Does not say you cannot attend, are not person of sacred worth or that you cannot even be striving to follow Jesus in the best way you know how. It is saying we will never tell you that that lifestyle is ok with God. It is saying we cannot allow you to be ordained. Or get married to a same sex spouse. In the same sense we will not ordain a pastor that is single and is sexually active, or cheats on their spouse, or seeks sexual gratification while viewing pornography or simply viewing pornography,
I’m a layman and not as theologically trained at this bishop. So, someone please help me find anything that is “united” or “Methodist” in her comments.
And yet, I’ve attended two United Methodist churches over the past fifteen years or so that are very openly welcoming of LGBT persons. The first church is filled to the brims every Sunday, and at one point was the “fastest growing” Methodist church in the region. The current church, while a much smaller congregation, has only grown in numbers since moving to become welcoming of LGBT persons. I think the question to ask is, whether or not people who leave the UMC are moving to more conservative denominations, and I understand that this is not the case. For the most part, at least based on what I’ve read, those folks are just not going to church at all. Meanwhile, becoming welcoming to LGBT persons has given many oncgregations a new lease on life.
Oh..I just realized that all comments are to be moderated by the blog author. So, that would tend to create an echo chamber would it not? Leaving no room for dissenting opinons? If non-conforming opinoins are not welcomed then really, what’s the point of pretending that there is any exchange of ideas.