|
August 5, 2005 A Letter to Reconciling Ministries Clergy(The following is a letter of response to an “Open Letter” I received July 21, 2005, from leaders of the Reconciling Ministries Clergy (RMClergy), of the Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN). It included 687 signatures of RMClergy For the full text of that letter, see the Good News website. This response will also be posted there. An abbreviated version of this letter will be carried as my editorial in the September/October issue of Good News. The full text of the RMClergy letter will also be in the magazine.) Dear Revs. Meredith and Aslesen: Greetings in the Name of Christ the Lord, who calls His Church “to be holy and blameless in his sight.” Your letter of July 15 came as an “Open Letter” to me, copied to United Methodist media. In it you “strongly disagree” with Good News’ view that your “Hearts On Fire” conference should not be held at the Lake Junaluska (NC) Assembly over Labor Day. You make your case (to us and the larger church) as to why the conference should go on. Your letter is gracious in tone and opens the door for a thoughtful exchange, which we welcome. First, some background. In my July/August editorial, and June letter to supporters, I expressed strong concern that the speakers at your conference—including United Methodist Bishops—will join others “to teach, support, encourage, and strategize how to further the acceptance” of a practice the church has determined to be “incompatible with Christian teaching.” Participants will hear teachings that directly contradict Scriptural teaching and the clear, tested standards of our Book of Discipline. That should not happen at a United Methodist conference center. Neither should bishops speak at such an event. They are responsible for “carrying into effect the rules, regulations, and responsibilities prescribed and enjoined by the General Conference” (Par.47, Discipline). They are also charged “with the oversight of the spiritual and temporal affairs of the whole Church.” (Par. 427.3) They are not to be dissenters to the church’s doctrine or moral teachings. The stated purpose of the Reconciling Ministries Network cannot be harmonized with our Book of Discipline’s teaching about same-sex practice, or with Scripture’s. Yet, the most recent report we have heard is that seven bishops will be attending/participating in this conference. There is no way to measure the negative, demoralizing impact their participation in this event will have on the denomination. With this background, I will respond briefly to portions of your letter. First, you reduce the much-debated, critical issue about same-sex practice to being just a matter of “hospitality.” But Scriptures come to mind. “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity. . .” (Eph. 5:3) Again, Paul instructed the Corinthians “not to associate with sexually immoral people” (I Cor. 5:9). He said he did not mean those “in the world,” but one “who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral.” (vs. 11) This one should be “put out of your fellowship,” Paul said (vs. 2). These and other Scriptures indicate that “hospitality” is not always the primary consideration. I did purposefully mention the Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN) website because it states the RMN purpose: “to enable full participation of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities in the life of the United Methodist Church.” What is implicit, but not stated, is that RMN views homosexual practice as normative, an acceptable alternative for Christians today. “Full participation,” then, would include leadership in the church, ordination, and same-sex marriages. This issue is about much, much more than just “hospitality.” Second, you say “Advocacy for changing the church’s position or teaching. . .has never been understood in United Methodism as grounds for withdrawing hospitality or breaking community.” But let’s be clear about what will take place at Lake Junaluska. The “Hearts on Fire” conference will not just be advocating for change in the church’s standards, it will include large doses of preaching and teaching which are in direct opposition to the Scriptural norm and to the church’s standards. Again, we believe this should not happen. You say that even Good News exists “to reform, or change, the denomination,” implying that the RMN is really just doing what Good News does. But your attempt at equivalency is not convincing. From the start, Good News has sought to help recover and reaffirm our Wesleyan doctrinal heritage. We have urged fidelity, and thus continuity, to our church’s long-standing teachings on marriage and Christian morality, which are consistent with the Church’s teachings for 2,000 years. On the other hand, the RMN’s position is discontinuous with both Scripture and the Church’s long tradition. Following its lead would result in the severance of United Methodism from a major part of its own membership as well as from our larger, ecumenical commitments to the world-wide church (i.e. Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and the Church in the Third-World). Third, you say that amidst our strong differences, you will “continue to engage in a difficult struggle to discern God’s will in this area.” This implies that for the RMN, God’s will concerning human sexuality is not yet apparent. This is a disturbing claim. It reflects a rejection of 1) Scripture’s clear word; 2) two millennia of Church teaching, and 3) 30 years of General Conference action. We must all remember that when human sexuality is severed from its Biblical foundation and teaching, then any sexual behavior becomes an option. For without the norm of Biblical teaching, there will be no authoritative, corrective word for any sexual misbehavior. Who then determines which behaviors are acceptable and which are not? This path would, in the end, lead us to moral and ethical chaos. Fourth, your concern about the unity of the United Methodist Church rings a bit hollow, frankly. The constant push by many RMClergy to force local churches to accept a new sexual ethic—which affirms homosexual practice—is disturbing and demoralizing to those congregations, and has even literally destroyed some. This revisionist campaign has left a devastating legacy. You cite Wesley’s warning about “inward disunion,” while at the same time advocating a revisionist view of human sexuality that is itself highly divisive. The new insights and teachings espoused by the RMN have arisen in the church in just the last 30 years or so. You would have us all believe that suddenly, after nearly two millennia of Church history, expansion, and growth, you now have gained insights and understandings about God’s plan for human sexuality that will, at long last, correct two thousand years of what must have been erroneous teaching. And you arrive at your position after dismissing the clear and tested teaching of Scripture, upon which our very civilization is founded. This is as astounding as it is audacious! It is also frightening. It is no surprise that such a bold claim of new, latter-day understandings has resulted in serious division within the United Methodist Church. And we would add, such unscriptural claims in other communions have brought similar division to them as well, including the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), the United Church of Christ (UCC), and the United Church of Canada to cite just a few. Furthermore, you cite the conversation about “schism,” or more correctly, “amicable separation,” that arose at the 2004 General Conference. What you did not mention is that the catalytic event that brought about the discussion of separation was a late-night conversation between leaders of evangelical caucuses and leaders of the liberal/pro-gay caucuses, including the RMN. We were told by persons representing the RMN view that it really did not matter what General Conference did on the sexuality issues, they would not abide by it. Such a statement, it must be said, is a schismatic statement. “We will do whatever we want to do, regardless of General Conference” is what we heard being said that night. The question, then, is how can there be a “covenant community” when a group that is supposedly a part of the covenant says it does not intend to abide by the guidelines and terms of that covenant? Fifth, you mention that many persons across the church “are suffering intensely due to the current policies of the church on homosexuality.” Some of us, though, believe that the language of victimization and discrimination represents a misunderstanding of discipleship and the holy living to which God has called all of us through Christ. If the Scriptural teaching about human sexuality is true, reflecting God’s revealed will for humankind, then whatever suffering we must endure in amending our lives for righteousness’ sake will be worth it. And we will be assisted by the grace and power of God. It may not be easy. But He who has called us is faithful and sent the promised Holy Spirit to be our Advocate in the midst of the struggle. Eminent Anglican theologian John Stott’s words are particularly relevant here. He wrote, “God does indeed accept us just as we are, and we do not have to make ourselves good first; indeed, we cannot. But his ‘acceptance’ means that he fully and freely forgives all who repent and believe, not that he condones our continuance in sin. Again, it is true that we must accept one another, but only as fellow penitents and fellow pilgrims, not as fellow sinners who are resolved to persist in our sinning. . . And indeed his offer of friendship to sinners like us is truly wonderful. But he welcomes us in order to redeem and transform us, not to leave us alone in our sins. No acceptance, either by God or by the church, is promised to us if we harden our hearts against God’s Word and will. Only judgment” (Same-Sex Partnerships? A Christian Perspective, Fleming H. Revell, 1998, p. 59). Our church’s responsibility in dealing with human brokenness is to offer ministries of forgiveness, healing, and transformation. We must look at our sins and failures in the light of the self-revelation of Christ, not in the light of our secular, permissive culture. Rather than argue for the acceptance of homosexual behavior, we ought to be pouring our time and energy into ministries that can help persons experiencing all forms of sexual brokenness to find healing and wholeness in Christ. Numerous personal testimonies of transformation and the existence of many effective transformational ministries around the world (including United Methodism’s own “Transforming Congregations”) point the way forward for us. Finally, in previous issues of Good News magazine, we
have carried these poignant words from the renowned German theologian,
Wolfhart Pannenberg: “Those who urge the church to change the norm of its
teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a
church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat
homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm. . .such a
church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the
unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease
to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” (From Church
Times in
In light of Pannenburg’s prophetic warning, it is surprising how many RMClergy still march steadily on, determined to reconstruct the Church’s long-held teaching on human sexuality—with seemingly little or no awareness that they are traveling a schismatic path that could destroy the unity and apostolicity of our church. That is not what we elders promised to do when we were ordained. For these and other reasons, we do not believe the “Hearts on Fire” conference can be a time of “healing the brokenness” either in the lives of individuals or in the larger church. Authentic healing comes as the Holy Spirit works in us through the faithful preaching and teaching of the Word of God. Healing comes when we allow the light of God’s Word and truth to shine upon the dark crevices of our lives, letting His transforming grace make us new creatures in Christ. Faithful discipleship means adhering to and obeying Scripture and God’s plan for our lives. It does not allow an altering of that plan according to human whim, personal preference, or cultural trend. We remain convinced that the planned theme and emphases of the “Hearts on Fire” conference as publicized on the RMN website contradict the clear teachings of Scripture and the carefully developed standards of the United Methodist Book of Discipline. For that reason, the event should not be held at a church-owned and supported conference center such as Lake Junaluska. Once again, I am appreciative of your letter and the gracious tone of it, and for the occasion it has provided to exchange views about this important matter. I hope this might lead to further, cordial but candid exchanges in the future. In Christ’s Name,
James
V. Heidinger II JVH/pf Steve@goodnewsmag.org
|