INJUSTICE AGAINST GAYS AND LESBIANS
IN THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH

By Ryan D. Neaveill
Christian Moral Reasoning, Spring 2006
Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary
Evanston, Illinois

In Part One of this series of papers, I examined the ethic of right relationship (shalom) in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. In Part Two, I explored justice (mishpat) as a principle of ethics and a means to shalom. Now, in Part Three, I will look at a specific example of shalom and mishpat (or the lack thereof) in the case of injustice against gay and lesbian persons in my denomination, the United Methodist Church. This paper will address the absence of shalom between the church and the gay/lesbian community, the injustices that have resulted from this broken relationship, the theological and philosophical arguments the church has used to justify its unjust actions, as well as a call for the church to begin to act with justice and shalom in this matter.

We do not have to look far to see that there is no peace on the issue of homosexuality in the United Methodist Church. In my Annual Conference (Illinois Great Rivers) every year there is heated debate on various topics surrounding this issue; and similar debates take place every four years at our General Conference. This has been going on for years. Since 1968 when the United Methodist Church was formed by the merger of the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren, homosexuality has been a major issue of discussion due largely because “a more articulate gay and lesbian rights movement began to impact major denominations in the 1960s and 1970s.” (The Church Studies Homosexuality, 10)

In 1988, the General Conference of the UMC directed the General Council on Ministries to conduct a study of homosexuality and to present its report at the 1992 General Conference. In spite of the excellent work done by the General Council on Ministries in this “Report on the Study of Homosexuality,” the 1992 Annual Conference accepted but did not approve the report. Currently, the official doctrine of the United Methodist Church on homosexuality, which comes from our Book of Discipline, says:

Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. (italics mine) We affirm that God’s grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.

In spite of some positive language in this statement (e.g. “homosexual persons…are individuals of sacred worth”), many people in our denomination, myself included, find the third sentence problematic: “The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.”

Because of this view, the United Methodist Church has acted unjustly towards members of the gay and lesbian community in a number of ways. For example, the UMC will not ordain any persons who are self-avowed practicing homosexuals. Also, if an already-ordained pastor admits to being a self-avowed practicing homosexual, then he or she will have their credentials as a pastor withdrawn (as in the recent case of Rev. Beth Stroud, see Judicial Council decision 1027).

Other acts of injustice occur because the United Methodist Church does not allow marriage between gay and lesbian persons:

We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman. (italics mine) We believe that God’s blessing rests upon such marriage, whether or not there are children of the union. We reject social norms that assume different standards for women than for men in marriage. We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. (italics mine) (Book of Discipline)

And most recently, a gay man in the Virginia Annual Conference was denied membership in the UMC by the directing pastor of a local church specifically because of the gay man’s sexual orientation (see Judicial Council decisions 1031 and 1032).

Now, some would argue that these decisions were justified because they followed the currently established doctrine of the United Methodist Church. However, others would argue that it is this very doctrine which is unjust. A similar pattern of thought can be seen fifty years ago when segregation was legal and some argued that it was therefore justified. However, as Martin Luther King, Jr., and other civil rights activists taught us, just because something is legal does not make it just. Therefore, let us examine not only the United Methodist statement that homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching” but some of the underlying philosophical and theological streams that have led to this unjust doctrine.

At the root of anti-homosexuality in the UMC (and Christianity in general) seems to be a handful of verses from scripture (e.g. Leviticus 18.22, 20.13; Romans 1.24-27; 1 Corinthians 6.9; 1 Timothy 1.10). But, as Phyllis Bird says, “There is no understanding of homosexuality in the Old Testament, just homosexual actions that were meant to shame and dishonor the male. It’s not the same situation as we have today. They are not talking about consensual homosexual relations.” (quoted in Lattin) Tex Sample agrees with Bird as he notes in a commentary for the United Methodist News Service:

The term “homosexuality” as we understand it today appears nowhere in Scripture. In fact, the word was not coined until the 19th century. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Scripture addresses the matter of sexual orientation as that characteristic is now understood. In Scripture, the attention is given to same-sex practices. It is a minor concern and appears in only five passages.

Of the handful of scriptures that we have, only Paul’s words from Romans 1 come closest to referring to a purely homosexual act (as the other passages are in the context of rape and prostitution). But John J. McNeill writes that “Paul apparently refers only to homosexual acts indulged in by those he considered to be otherwise heterosexually inclined; acts which represent a voluntary choice to act contrary to their ordinary sexual appetite.” (McNeill, 55) A more detailed analysis of this passage and its context can be found in Robert Jewett’s article “The Social Context and Implications of Homoerotic References in Romans 1:24-27.”

It should also be pointed out that in the Gospels, which is the heart of Christian teaching, Jesus is completely silent on the matter.

So, how can the United Methodist Church claim that homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching” with such a paucity of clear and specific scriptural writing on this issue? Perhaps it is because in the United Methodist tradition we rely not on scripture alone, but also on Church tradition, reason, and personal experience (the Wesley “quadrilateral”). Let’s turn therefore from scripture and address the traditions that have spoken to this issue.

One of the ethical traditions that has held sway over the homosexual debate is the idea of natural law. John Boswell writes in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality that “Late Roman law had embraced the principle that there was a ‘natural law’ known to mankind apart from legislation enacted by particular nations.” (Boswell, 313) In the third century, Ulpian wrote,

Natural law is what nature has taught all animals. This law is not unique to the human race but common to all animals born on land or sea and to birds as well. From it comes the union of male and female which we call marriage, as well as the procreation of children and their proper rearing. (as quoted in Boswell, 313)

It is this concept of natural law that seems to suggest, much more loudly than scripture, that homosexuality is wrong because it is uncommon——an aberration of nature. However modern investigations into human sexuality have revealed that homosexuality is not so uncommon. Lisa Sowle Cahill notes that

Alfred Kinsey was among the first to establish some reliable instruments for documenting the incidence and variety of homosexual behavior. According to his studies, only 4 percent of males and 2 to 3 percent of females are “exclusively homosexual throughout their lives,” but 37 percent of males and 13 percent of females have had at least one significant homosexual experience after adolescence. (Cahill, 177)

So it would seem that homosexuality is not so uncommon after all. It has been hidden, no doubt, due to social taboos; but it does in fact occur often enough to be considered normal, even natural. In fact, I think it is safe to say that gay and lesbian persons would argue that to engage in heterosexual activity would be, for them, unnatural. Beverly Harrison writes, “If our sexual behavior were really determined ‘by nature,’ we would, of course, need no ethic of sexuality. Human beings do not need morality to deal with what is determinate or, in an older worldview, ‘natural.’” (Harrison, 339)

Returning to the Wesley quadrilateral, it seems that the United Methodist position on homosexuality is heavy on scripture and tradition but lacking in the areas of reason and personal experience. This may be true for the larger church as well. James Nelson writes that,

The vast majority of religious statements on sexuality in the past have assumed essentially a one-way question: what does Christian theology (or the Bible, or the church’s tradition) say about human sexuality?... In addition to the still-important question of what our religious tradition says about human sexuality is another question: What does our experience as sexual human beings say about the ways in which we experience God, interpret our religious tradition, and attempt to live the life of faith? (Nelson, 354)

In its formation of a sexual ethic, the church has ignored not only the experiences of persons but specifically the experiences of marginalized persons. This has been true also in the recent past with women.

This year the United Methodist Church celebrates fifty years of clergy rights for women. This is a great milestone; but it reminds us that only fifty years ago, the church did not allow women to be ordained. The arguments used for this injustice against women bear an uncanny resemblance to the same arguments now used against gays and lesbians: “scripture says so” or “women are not naturally capable.” Beverly Harrison draws even more poignant parallels between the treatment of women and gays in her article “Misogyny and Homophobia: The Unexplored Connections” for example:

It appears that some male homosexual activity came to be despised because one male was understood to play the passive role, that is, was penetrated. One stigma of homosexuality, then, was that it “reduced” some men to the role of females… Homoerotic men are perceived as failed men, no better than females.

In these examples, it has been the powerful status quo (i.e. white, heterosexual males) that has oppressed the voiceless and the powerless (females and gays). If we go back a little further in history, we find other examples of oppression by the status quo: the slavery of African Americans and the extermination of Native Americans——both of which were justified by Christians using similar patterns of scripture and natural law ethics.

Unlike homosexuality, however, the oppression of the powerless by the powerful is something to which scripture speaks very loudly, clearly and consistently. It is found throughout Hebrew scripture in Torah and Prophets and throughout Christian scripture in Gospel and Epistles.

The measure of how just a society is can be found in its treatment of the powerless. In the Hebrew bible, the powerless were widows, orphans, aliens and the poor:

“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.’ (Zechariah 7.8-10)

Throughout the church’s history, different powerless groups have emerged challenging the church to rethink its ethical treatment of the marginalized. Whether it has been Native Americans, African Americans, Women, or Gays and Lesbians, the status quo has always initially responded to these groups by dehumanizing them and using scripture and natural law traditions to show that these groups did not deserve equality with white, heterosexual males. However, as these groups have persevered (especially Women and African Americans) in their struggles for equality, their voices have been heard and change has actually taken place in the church. This change has been brought about by the pursuit of justice.

As I have explored these issues of justice as a means to shalom, I have concluded that this is not a one-way street. Not only can justice be a means to shalom, but shalom can be a means to justice. That is, justice can help bring about right relationship; but at the same time, being in right relationship can be a catalyst for justice.

In the case of gays and lesbians in the church, we do need to pursue justice for these persons. We need to end discriminatory policies such as refusing to ordain and marry based on sexual orientation.

We also need to pursue shalom. In the United Methodist Church we have acknowledged the “sacred worth” of homosexuals. This is a start towards right relationship. We need to advance on this journey towards shalom by continuing to listen to the voices of gays and lesbians and understanding the pain that our unjust policies have caused to this marginalized group of people. We need to listen to reason and the personal experience of gays and lesbians, not simply rely on scripture and tradition. When the church truly loves this group of people and has compassion for their suffering it will no longer be able to sustain its unjust policies.

Justice and Shalom work together. Forever chasing each other, they spiral us ever onwards towards the Kingdom of God.

Copyright © 2006 Ryan D. Neaveill

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ball-Kilbounre, Gary L. et al, eds. The Church Studies Homosexuality. Nashville: Cokesbury, 1994.

The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2004. Nashville: The United Methodist Publishing House, 2004.

Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Cahill, Lisa Sowle. “Using Empirical Information.” In From Christ to the World: Introductory Readings in Christian Ethics, edited by Wayne G. Boulton et al. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994.

Geis, Sally B. and Donald E. Messer, eds. Caught in the Crossfire: Helping Christians Debate Homosexuality. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994.

Harrison, Beverly W. “Misogyny and Homophobia: The Unexplored Connections.” In From Christ to the World: Introductory Readings in Christian Ethics, edited by Wayne G. Boulton et al. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994.

Jewett, Robert. “The Social Context and Implications of Homoerotic References in Rom 1:24-27,” in Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture, edited by D. Balch. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Lattin, Don. “Disciplinary Hearing on Lesbian Blessing: Methodist Panel Listens to Testimony,” San Francisco Chronicle, Wednesday, 2 February 2000.

McNeill, John J. The Church and the Homosexual. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993.

Nelson, James. The Liberal Approach to Sexual Ethics. In From Christ to the World: Introductory Readings in Christian Ethics, edited by Wayne G. Boulton et al. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994.

Sample, Tex. “Commentary: What Do Bible, Tradition Say about Gay Marriage?” United Methodist News Service, 12 August 2003.