UM Regionalization - Is it Fair?

In a recent editorial Rob Renfroe stated, “Our friends in Africa with whom we work closely have told us they cannot remain in a church that allows for a contradictory, “contextualized” sexual ethic.” (for the whole piece see https://www.umnews.org/en/news/traditionalist-caucus-president-speaks-to-criticism_) This provides his rational for remaining politically active in the UM General Conference. He's working to guarantee the rights of these "friends" to disaffiliate.

Renfroe doesn't tell us exactly who these friends are, the basic idea here is that by allowing regional decisions on same sex marriage and ordination of LGBTQ persons the UMC is saying that sexual ethics are a matter of cultural context rather than universal divine mandate. And this gets to the core of the Good News and WCA critique of the UMC. They maintain that there is a universal, biblical mandate for human sexual relations that is not subject to historical change and cultural evaluation. Renfroe maintains that the UMC is on a course toward the sin of “latitudinarianism,” the old Puritan word for allowing a diversity of opinion in matters of settled doctrine.

There are three problems with Renfroe’s analysis.

First, the plan for regionalization isn’t latitudinarian. It springs from a lack of consensus in the interpretation of scripture in some matters of sexual identity and ethics. The WCA and Good News should easily recognize that such a lack of consensus can happen, and has. They know that the consensus about divorce and remarriage has changed in the last 70 years among Methodists, including themselves. They know that among many of their constituents there is still no consensus. And they know that among Methodists globally there is no consensus in the interpretation of scripture in this regard. 

Second, Renfroe's analysis fails to acknowledge that all interpretation of scripture is culturally located. Traditionalists disavow being literalists, and instead regard themselves as having a "high view of scriptural authority," whatever that means. They read the Bible “along with the tradition of the church." And that, given their official stance on the ordination of women and marriage and divorce, is clearly a living tradition at least up through the middle of the 20th century. It is a culturally located interpretation. Wesley would never have allowed divorce, and certainly not the ordination of women. Neither would the early 20th century Methodist pastor who was my grandfather. All such things smacked of modernism to him.

 

So why is the tradition regarding divorce and ordination of women somehow fixed by a mid-20th century American consensus that is not generally found outside the countries on the North Atlantic? Why is it fixed on a far from universal consensus established just before we came into current understandings of human sex, sexuality and gender?

Third, contrary to Renfroe's claim, no United Methodist congregation or clergy person in the Central Conferences is permanently denied the opportunity to disaffiliate and join the GMC. Under the regionalization plan now passed by the General Conference the different regions can work out culturally sensitive and situationally appropriate plans for such congregations and pastors. And in fact this would be necessary in any case, since laws governing property ownership and trusteeship vary widely outside the US. And these regions can do so without being troubled by opposition from the US.

Of course what is more likely is that they will maintain in their Discipline an approach to issues of human sexuality appropriate to the consensus of scripture interpretation in their context. And this will leave little reason for their local churches to disaffiliate. And of course that is what is truly problematic for the Good News Movement and the GMC. 

In any case there was always another way. Renfroe forgets or doesn't mention this: every Central Conference has the right to choose autonomy if its members don't wish to be part of a "latitudinarian" UMC. It was a right that the Eurasia Central Conference chose, and which was overwhelmingly approved by the General Conference. 

Now that regionalization has passed in the General Conference, and it appears likely that the language progressives object to in the Social Principles and Discipline will be removed, the progressives need to take heed. Our newly recognized US region is multi-cultural and not surprisingly lacks a consensus on matters related to human sexuality even after the disaffiliation process. 

If we are to thrive we will have to take to heart that cultural differences are real in matters of sex, gender, and sexuality. Unity in these matters cannot be mandated by progressives any more than they could be by traditionalists. The better path is the one already taken by the General Conference by its adaptation of Social Principles that guarantee full human rights regardless of gender and sexual orientation. Hopefully it will affirm this week that which we can all affirm about the human family and no more. Beyond this we must trust the individual conscience, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the lives of our clergy and congregations. Law has simply never worked as a means of Grace. Quite the opposite, as we have all seen in recent years.