The Primary, Underlying Issue to the UM LGBTQ Issue

I wrote in an earlier blog that the issue being addressed in A Way Forward is not the real issue. The issues that gave birth to the Way Forward report have to do with the official stance of The UMC concerning LBGTQ people: the language in the Book of Discipline that declares the practice of homosexuality as incompatible with scriptural teaching plus the prohibitions against the ordination of LBGTQ persons, against UM clergy performing marriages for LBGTQ couples, and against the use of UM facilities for such marriages.

On the surface, the issue appears to be a black-and-white, either/or issue: is the practice of homosexuality incompatible with scriptural teaching - yes or no? If the answer is "yes,", then ordination and marriage of LGBTQ individuals are not options.

As with most seemingly black-and-white, either/or issues, this issue rests on deeper issues. Those deeper issues are the ones we must discuss. These deeper issues comprise the foundation for our position on this seemingly black-and-white issue. (I made a list of those issues in my earlier post "There's More to the Issue Than the Issue Before Us.")

It seems to me the primary, underlying issue is: What is the distinguishing mark of a follower of Jesus? A different question comes at the same key issue from a different direction: What is the nature of the Christian life?

I have served in Christian ministry during a time in which being a Christian was defined by a combination of (1) what one believed, (2) one's moral behavior, and (3) one's involvement in church life. A Christian is someone who believed certain things, held to a particular moral standard, and was actively involved in church activities. The particular "brand" of church in which one was involved was determined by the beliefs and moral standard. This way of identifying or defining a Christian resulted in Christians identifying themselves as United Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, non-denominational, etc., not simply "as a follower of Jesus." Each group had its own set of distinguishing beliefs and moral standard.

In this way of defining a Christian, the Bible became the basis for what a Christian believed, for the moral standard the Christian held, and for the religious rituals they followed. The Bible became the authority that defined right belief, right behavior, right ritual. It began to be used as the unquestionable "last word" as to what to believe, how to live, and how to worship. As such, the Bible became a book of laws and rules to which to appeal in times of disagreement over belief, morals, or ritual. The wide variation of what was considered right belief, right behavior, and right ritual lay in how each group viewed the Bible and, thereby, interpreted the Bible.

This way of defining a Christian and using the Bible created churches that are rigid in their views.  (They would dislike the term "rigid," arguing that their views were "biblical.") An inevitable consequence of such rigidity is these churches became elitist, excluding "those not like us" (us-them division). Belonging is conditioned upon conformity. Questions are treated as "a lack of faith" rather than a way of growing in faith. Differing views are labeled "unbiblical" or heresy. "Being right" is a prized virtue and the fuel to an unrecognized sense of superiority. Some groups go so far as to say "if you don't believe as we do, you're not a Christian."

This expression of Christianity is quick to argue that homosexuality is incompatible with biblical teaching. Those in this camp can quote chapter and verse from the Bible to support their position. (In my opinion, how they view scripture and how they interpret scripture is really the basis of their position.)

This expression of Christianity is the religious arena in which I have lived since I first became involved in church life as a child. But I am increasingly uncomfortable in this kind of Christianity. It seems to me that it does not reflect the heart of God or the ways of God that Jesus taught, what he called the Kingdom of God. Right belief, right behavior, right ritual are ways of identifying different religious groups (Christian and non-Christian), but not for identifying the followers of Jesus.

Jesus himself said, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Love is the distinguishing mark of the followers of Jesus. How one views and treats others is what sets one apart as a follower of Jesus. The nature of the Christian life is a life of love and service to others - the way of the servant.

Us-them, better than-less than thinking are inherent to our human condition. We naturally think and live this way. We associate with "those like us." We exclude (and fear) those who are different. To wrap this us-them, better than-less than way of thinking and relating in religious garb, appealing to the Bible as validation, is not authentic Christianity. Nowhere in scripture do I see that Jesus excluded anyone. He viewed, embraced, and treated all as beloved children of God ... and taught his disciples to do the same.

As the followers of Jesus, we are to love one another. We are to love our neighbors. We are to love our enemies. Because love - love for all - is the distinguishing mark of the followers of Jesus. Love expressed in ministry to others is the nature of the Christian life.

The Way Forward report raises a divisive issue. Before we take a position on that issue, we must first, I believe, be clear on what is the distinguishing mark of the followers of Jesus, on how we describe the nature of the Christian life. Our answer to those questions will determine what position we take on the other issue.