A More Traditional Plan

I've recently had a chance to read accounts from the Good News Magazine of the recent meeting of the Wesley Covenant Association, and of course of what the Good News movement itself expects of the Traditional Plan before the upcoming UMC General Conference. And I was impressed. I think these groups really do believe that they are preserving an authentic witness to God's Reign against a culture drifting further and further from God's plan for humanity.

And I note that they appear willing to pay a price. If the WCA forms its own denomination it will be small, and will give up access to substantial denominational resources. And even if at the upcoming General Conference their plan, the Traditional Plan, passes some of their members are so discontent they will leave regardless.

And yet I also think their cause is quixotic, because as I explain below, when it comes to marriage they are defending not so much the traditional teaching of the church as they are defending a mid-20th century set of Christian ideals.

There is a traditional understanding of marriage, clearly expressed in the book of Genesis and affirmed by Jesus, taught always and everywhere in the church, and found universally across many religions and cultures. In the true traditional understanding marriage is a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman, in which men and women have distinct roles, for the purpose of biological reproduction and the raising of children. One finds nothing other than this in the scripture, in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, and in almost every traditional culture worldwide.

But here is the problem. The UMC abandoned that traditional view of marriage in its Social Principles Creed. I quote the relevant material below:

Marriage

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. 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.

Divorce

God’s plan is for lifelong, faithful marriage. The church must be on the forefront of premarital, marital, and post-marital counseling in order to create and preserve healthy relationships. However, when a married couple is estranged beyond reconciliation, even after thoughtful consideration and counsel, divorce is a regrettable alternative in the midst of brokenness.

The UM definition of marriage doesn't require a lifelong bond, even if divorce is a “regrettable” alternative. Nor does it affirm the distinct roles of men and women found in scripture. Nor does it require biological reproduction or even sexual intercourse, much less child rearing. If we read the paragraph above these we learn that all children are supposed to have loving parents. And yet potential parents have no obligation to raise children. All that is left of tradition are ideas about "love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman." And thus the UMC view, as expressed in our discipline, is 100% modern. It reflects exactly the sensibilities of American culture in the middle of the 20th century, not least the scientific, medical, social, and political consensus of mid-20th century Americans.

There was an important reason for this change to a modern view of marriage from the traditional marriage. It extends the blessings of marriage to people who through no fault of their own; a changing life situation, different physical abilities, or long repented past mistakes are cut off from the traditional marriage. But once you abandon biological reproduction and sexual intercourse it is hard to argue that you still need two different sexes to confect a valid marriage. What difference do the genitalia make if they don't need to be used and their use need have no outcome?

It isn't a perverse modern culture and its progressive apologists that push LGBTQ marriage on the UMC. It is a UMC that whose fully modern definition of marriage recognizes that marriage was made for humans and not humans for marriage. The possibility of LGBTQ marriage didn’t come from outside, it was invited because with a sense of God’s grace we extended marriage to those cut off from its blessings by tradition. After all, in what way do love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity require a difference in sex?

I don't see the self identified traditionalists as so very traditional. They have accepted the abandonment of the true traditional definition of marriage, but have failed to adopt the United Methodist tradition of extending the blessings of marriage to all those otherwise denied them.

So let me offer yet another alternative plan, what I call the More Tradtional Plan.

Abandon the current Social Principles Creed definition of marriage and return to a pure tradtional definition. Defrock all the divorced and remarried clergy. Refuse the Eucharist to those who live in persistent adultry. Refuse marriage to those clearly unwilling or unable to engage in sexual reproduction and/or child raising. And certainly allow no marriage to those who cannot move out of their parent’s homes. Because that is the real traditional understanding of marriage in the long history of the Christian church, and it is the real traditional understanding in all those traditional cultures worldwide.

And would that not be just? Why should the withholding of the institution of marriage create social rejection for only LGBTQ persons? Why not extend the misery of rejection to all those who traditionally down through history of traditional marriage were shunned because they were barren, impotent, disabled, divorced, widowed at an old age, impoverished beyond leaving their parent’s home, or otherwise incapable of entering into traditional marriage? Why not embrace the real tradition of Christian marriage?

Well I doubt anyone will. The traditionalists seem to me modern romantics longing for good old days that were never good. Their own many statements show they wish no one ill. They want people to be blessed. That is why they accept the fully modern UMC definition of marriage. So whether they control the UMC or leave it the pain of their children and the steady advance of nuanced and complex understanding of human sexuality will lead them, as it already has in so many other realms of human personhood, to re-consider the appropriate interpretation of scripture and tradition.

And in a way I regret it; another Babel will crumble into dust and children will be thrust back into God’s certain but unpredictable providence. And yet it has its consolations when the faithful gather in love under an infinite sky and hear in the winds of change the voice of God.