Riley B. Case
A petition before General Conference that was introduced simultaneously in a number of annual conferences would add a clause to para. 214 in the Discipline stating that no person shall be excluded from the United Methodist Church for reasons to his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. The petition was forwarded to General Conference by fourteen different conferences, including seven from the North Central Jurisdiction.
There are at least five reasons why this is bad legislation.
1. The insertion deals with a non-issue. As far as we know no one is being intentionally excluded or has been intentionally excluded from the church because of sexual orientation. If this phrase were presently in the Discipline it would not have changed the nature of the Ed Johnson case in Virginia because in that situation the issue was over the “practice” of homosexuality, not “orientation.” It appears, therefore, that this is basically a political statement, and not one that is seeking to clarify a legitimate problem in the church.
2. The insertion uses inappropriate language for the paragraph where it appears. Restrictive and legal language does not fit in a paragraph that seeks basically to establish a principle (the church is open to all). If one must insist that a statement on sexual orientation be made it would be better simply to insert (at the same place in the paragraph) a phrase something like: This includes persons of all differing sexual orientations and gender identities. This would make the point without having to use juridical language.
3. The insertion can only create confusion. It would appear that the intent of the petitioners is not really with “orientation” by itself but in a larger issue, acceptance of homosexuality generally which includes practice as well as orientation. But this is not clear. It would be most difficult to apply this paragraph judicially or even administratively. It seems the intent is not consistent with the wording as it is. If the intent is to mandate the acceptance not only of sexual orientation but also of sexual practice, that, in the name of integrity, needs to be clarified.
4. The insertion adds additional confusion because of the wording: “excluded from the United Methodist Church.” The intent of the petition is undoubtedly that all persons, including persons of different sexual orientation, should be welcomed in United Methodist Churches. But, unfortunately, all sorts of persons presently are not welcomed for all kinds of reasons: because they are strangers, because they are not dressed appropriately, because they do not have pleasing personalities, because they are ill-mannered. It is not helpful to single out categories of reasons why persons are not welcomed. Perhaps the petition would be better served if it made specific reference to membership.
5. The insertion will create misunderstanding. Many churches will interpret this statement, if approved, to teach that the United Methodist Church does indeed condone the practice of homosexuality, despite another part of the Discipline which states we do not condone the practice of homosexuality. In a church already fragmented, this can only add to the spirit of divisiveness. This particularly will be misunderstood by some of our overseas churches. Do we want to invite this kind of misunderstanding?
It is quite likely that the discussions (debate?) dealing with para. 214 will generate a lot of heat and very little light at General Conference. The church needs to be welcoming to all persons. However, there are better ways to deal with this than with the specific petition under discussion.
Riley B. Case is a retired member of the North Indiana Conference, assistant executive director of the Confessing Movement, and a lifetime member of the Good News Board of Directors. He is also the author of “Evangelical and Methodist: A Popular History” (Abingdon).