UMC's Religious Quandary

UMC’s Religious Quandary  

Progression “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors”  or Regression

By Cornell Cox

In response to Reverend Steve Wellman’s A Denomination Upside Down

 

A former well-known orator in Johnston County, N. C., the late Evander S. Simpson, often in public prayer would use this phrase: “God of every good and perfect gift.” I have often pondered this expression, for God’s creation of man doesn’t seem to always be ‘good’ or ‘perfect’: man and woman come into this world with body deformities, physical and mental disabilities, including dissimilar brain wiring – of which more is to be learned. Acknowledging these truths we may have an honest debate – with introspection – for the best decision on the ‘core issue’ dividing the United Methodist Church. 

 

Notwithstanding orthodoxy (doctrine, tenets, and beliefs) of the UMC, there is a ‘faith’ progressing forward – centered on God’s handiwork – for love, grace, and acceptance for all God’s human creation. Harvey Cox (Author of The Future of Faith) says, many people look at “faith” and “belief” as two words for the same thing. They’re not the same, and in order to grasp the magnitude of religious upheaval we must know the difference: “Faith is a deep-seated confidence in people we trust and values we treasure.” Belief is more like opinion in our everyday speech to express a degree of uncertainty. Cox asserts, to know the tectonic shift in Christianity today, we must understand the distinction between the two. “Creeds are clusters of beliefs. But the history of Christianity is not a history of creeds. It is the story of a people of faith who sometimes cobbled together creeds out of beliefs.” Therefore, it seems to me, orthodoxy, creeds, dogmas, beliefs – opinions (uncertainties) – written hundreds or thousands of years ago, logically, in some parts are outdated. 

 

There are those, it would seem, who stand by ‘a certainty within uncertainty’ such as Reverend Steve Wellman, based on the so-called ‘infallible word of God.’ Quoted from his article, A Denomination Upside Down: “Those who are orthodox follow John Wesley and his devotion to the supreme authority of Scripture. As Jim Elliot was known to say, ‘Why do you need a voice when you have a verse?’ We are convinced it is only through the divine revelation of God's inspired word that we have any hope of awakening.” But the Bible is not the infallible word of God: Essentially, we must comprehend “what the ‘Bible is’ and what it ‘is not.’” The Bible is not the word of one deity; it is the ‘word of God’ by narratives told of Abraham and his descendants, writings by many characters and prophets; law, history, metaphor, allegory, poetry, and the ‘words of Jesus’ as recorded by the Gospel writers – whereby ‘scribes errored in copying first manuscripts’[1]; through centuries of hundreds of translations whereby some ‘words’ didn’t convert to original meaning; reinterpreted in modern-day ministry – from which comes many different religious opinions. So speaking for God comes with a caveat and grave responsibility. However, the Bible, when at its best, provides countless life-principles, including the moral precepts of Jesus, the incomparable teacher.

 

Wellman further makes his case quoting Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “As a critic of the German church during WWII, Bonhoeffer identified the core issue as a misrepresentation of God's grace. It's what Bonhoeffer called, ‘Cheap Grace.’ According to Bonhoeffer, "Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate." (We don’t know that Bonhoeffer was even slightly thinking of gays in the forgoing statement. If he was, who is to say a gay needs to be repentant for being gay?)  On the other hand, during his final year/s, “. . . the German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–45) wrote wistfully from a Gestapo cell of what he called a future ‘religionless Christianity,’ liberated from its dogmatic tethers.”[2]

 

Also, “Bonhoeffer said that when humanity ‘comes of age,’ by which he meant when human beings develop the ability to set aside the external supernal parental God of theistic religion, a new day in human consciousness would dawn. For far too long that theistic God has blinded us to the God of life, love and being, who emerges at the heart of humanity and who is the ultimate depth and meaning of the Jesus experience.”, wrote John Shelby Spong.[3]

 

Among other criticisms of departing from “Scriptural commands of holiness and purity,” Wellman writes: During a chapel service at Duke Divinity school God was prayed to as, "The Queer One." We don’t know the genetical/biological birthright of Jesus. We do know that his true essence was not of orthodoxy (beliefs, creeds cobbled together around and after Emperor Constantin’s rule). Jesus’ true essences, based on weight of scripture, was orthopraxy: putting into action the love of fellowman. His first and greatest commandment: (NIV, Matthew 22: 36-39) “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.” One can only love the ‘Abstract’ God until he has first loved his neighbor as himself, thereby doing for neighbor all that Jesus taught. In the Bible I read, unequivocally, Jesus’ (Mat. 25) and his brother[4] James’ (James 2) messages were totally orthopraxis. Jesus had no need for Orthodoxy. Only by orthopraxis, we doing the work for Jesus, can Jesus’ ‘grace’ and ‘justice’ permeate God’s infinite love, mercy, and goodwill to humankind – to become the salvation for this world.

 

LGBTQ is yet another of countless, questionable doctrinal/creedal (or absence thereof) issues which has splintered Christianity, ongoing since Protestantism’s beginning 505-years ago. However, it is the most personal of Christianity’s questions, for it goes to the very heart of humanity, love and being. As we consider ‘the decision’s ramifications’ let us do so from a deep self-examination within our ‘open hearts.’ Pray that any personal perplexities and conflictions will be resolved. And that ‘we the people speaking for God’ are open to a God of life, love, and being, leaving old prejudices in a heap-pile of ashes. Meanwhile, science progresses; however, until more is known “The biology of sexuality diversity tells the world to deal with it. We are who we are, and our sexualities are part of our human nature.”

 

That’s the paramount question: How do we deal with it? Knowing that births come with body deformities/inequalities of all kinds (including God’s endowments +/– of various body parts), physical and mental disabilities, including dissimilar brain wiring (all by which the born had no choice) – what is or will be our attitude toward these realities? Can we deal with respect and love, for all in the human family with ‘disparities’ bestowed by our biological “Universal God”? 

 

After beginning to write this composition, I decided to interview my married adult children and married grandchildren, a total of six, ages 36 to 62: *All have LG friends. *Most all have LG associates in workplace. *One has attended a gay wedding. Just a sample of their comments: “Our very notion of what constitutes the natural are very limited by our own experiences.” “No, sexual orientation is not a choice. Being open and ‘out’ is a choice.” “I believe you could be genetically predisposed to being gay or any feeling, thought, and skill.”  

 

In a reporting of Feb. 17, 2022 Gallop poll, 7.1% of adults in the U. S. identified as LGBTQ. Over the years that percentage has been continually rising, logically I suspect in part, because of ‘overcoming denial’ and ‘safer places to come out.’ According to the latest Gallop poll: The percentage of Americans who say they are satisfied with the acceptance of gay and lesbian people in the country has reached a new peak of 62%. This is a growing trend, yet lags behind the 71% saying that gay and lesbian relations are morally acceptable, as referred to later herein. Accepting it as ‘moral because gays have no choice,’ but yet ‘find it hard to accept as a natural sexuality,’ in part, may explain this 9% difference. 

 

 ‘Straights’ have no control over LGBTQ; we have an opportunity to respond with ‘open minds’ in the most humanly compassionate manner. Most of us do not have direct experience in these matters, but out of respect and love, we must show empathy for parents who have no choice. I have an older friend who, he and his wife have four boys. One of the boys at a young age revealed that he was different from his brothers. They went with the young son to counseling several times, to no avail, only to learn, for a gay child, the only thing they could do would be ‘to love the son’ – just as they loved the other three sons. Today, that special child has grown-up to be a very successful adult. While these persons (many call queer) do not conform to what some people believe – in less than a fully informed society – as best they can, they live their biological God-given birthright, in spite of what others may see as unnatural or even abhor. 

 

Some of the smartest gay and lesbian people I know of, men and women, work in the media, TV host, reporters, commentators, writers, and many other walks of life. You may know some of them, but many are unknown to the public at large. These exceptionally gifted professionals have been given talents that benefit all of us. A Gallop poll (2/22/22) asked a series of questions, one being “whether you personally believe in general that it is ‘morally acceptable’ or ‘morally wrong’ with regard to gay and Lesbian relations?”: [acceptable 71%  / wrong 25%; eight years before (5/10/14), acceptable 40% / wrong 53%] Otherwise, we know that ‘sexual abuse’ is abominably morally wrong: i.e. some leaders in Christian Churches and Catholic priest.

 

Yet, the question remains: How do we respond to what 71% believe to be morally acceptable? We wait with great excitement and expectation with love for the unborn, not knowing what the day of birth will bring. In the growth of the child to adolescent and beyond, the parent may suspect, or not, that the child is different. When a child of unsuspecting parents ‘come out,’ how do the parents react? Whether or not parents accept the child for ‘who they are’ can ‘make’ or ‘break’ a life. A community, attitude of friends, supportive of struggling parents and child is critical to the child’s success – by affirming a morality zone. Does that not involve the church?

 

Horrifically, your child could be born with ‘ambiguous genitalia’ or  intersex (having male & female organs), other body deformities, physical and mental disabilities. Or, one may envision being trapped in a body of such serious abnormality: “. . . evidence comes from genetic males who, through accident, or being born without penises, were subjected to sex change and raised as girls. As adults these men are typically attracted to women. The fact that you cannot make a genic male sexually attracted to another male by raising him as a girl makes any social theory of sexuality very week.” These are complicated issues: “. . . sexuality cannot be pinned down by biology, psychology or life experiences . . .,” thus, man’s understanding is far from conclusive. Therefore, we must not be quick to judge, being careful not to ‘bear false witness against neighbor.’

 

If parents (all of us) choose to accept, as Simpson prayed, that “God is the giver of every good and perfect gift.,” there is hope for the best outcome, providing ‘faith’ over ‘belief’ prevails. As we progress in our affirmation that all of us are God’s children – knowing the ‘certainties of God’ are beyond our comprehension – let us show kindness, love, and keep ‘open doors’ for all God’s human creation. Without a doubt, that’s what Jesus would do.

---

[1] Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why – Bart D. Ehrman

[2] The Future of Faith – by Harvey Cox

[3] Jesus For The Non-Religious – by John Shelby Spong 

[4] Believed to be Jesus’ brother by Bible scholars

____________________________________________________________________

A Denomination Upside Down: The Problem of Theological Reversal in the United Methodist Church

 

Steve Wellman

New Hope Church, Goldsboro, NC

 

George Stratton was a prominent 20th psychologist. One of the most fascinating experiments he conducted involved subjects wearing glasses that made everything upside down. Stratton explored how our minds adapted to living in upside-down conditions. There are videos of these subjects in observation laboratories wearing the glasses and going through normal activities such as riding bicycles, pouring orange juice, and eating their meals. His research concluded that within a relatively short time, the mind has a way of adapting. It's possible to function in the upside down condition and allow it to become the standard of normal. Imagine people who are living right side up, from the point of view of those upside down, it's the right side up who are in need of correction. 

 

This is the picture of the current United Methodist Church. The standard of the establishment is functioning upside down. Numerous bishops and conferences have abandoned the Discipline and are ignoring constitutional order. The UM seminaries have jettisoned orthodoxy in favor of theology which departs from Scriptural commands of holiness and purity. Iliff seminary recently announced atheism as a live option on their campus. During a chapel service at Duke Divinity school God was prayed to as, "The Queer One." A ministry candidate from the Illinois conference dresses as a woman and refers to himself as "Penny Cost." His videos are promoted on the national United Methodist website. The denomination celebrates its upside-down theology as that which "liberates." These are not isolated incidents, but represent doctrines and practices institutionalized as standard. 

 

In order for a system to function upside down, it must not only construct seminary curriculums aligned against orthodoxy, but it must promote ordination standards that are also aligned against orthodoxy. That which is orthodox is associated with a bygone age. Jesus was too limited in His understanding to grasp the enlightened teaching of modern science. Therefore, we must revise our doctrines to accommodate what Jesus would endorse if only He had access to the latest publication of Scientific American.

 

To complete the upside down, those who are orthodox must be accused as the ones who are actually upside down. One bishop argued recently that anyone offering criticisms of the existing denomination is violating the 9th commandment, bearing false witness. Moreover, as those who are orthodox attempt to recruit members, we are not evangelizing but proselytizing. Finally, if those who are orthodox withhold apportionments to express disfavor of the present system, then we are equivalent to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. We are withholding gifts from the existing church and causing harm. Notice in all these incidents, the starting point is the assumption the upside down is true. 

 

In the upside-down denomination, it is unorthodox who are genuine evangelists. It is unorthodox who are the community worthy of supporting with financial gifts. It is, the unorthodox who is associated with doctrinal authority, and criticism of the unorthodox is associated with misinformation. In the upside-down, everything gets reversed. Common terms like grace, love, and good news, are all used, but with diametrically opposed connotations. 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was very familiar with the dangers of doing church upside down. As a critic of the German church during WWII, Bonhoeffer identified the core issue as a misrepresentation of God's grace. It's what Bonhoeffer called, "Cheap Grace." According to Bonhoeffer, "Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate."

 

Cheap grace is contagious and proliferates on a cosmic scale. The established order must justify its departures from orthodoxy by promoting itself as legitimate and that which calls it into question as illegitimate. How is a denomination that promotes atheism as a live option evangelical? How is a denomination that promotes cross-dressing on its national website representative of truth? How is addressing God as "The Queer One" depicting prayers as Jesus would have taught? In the upside-down, everything gets reversed. True grace is license. Love is unqualified acceptance and enabling of any behavior or lifestyle that a person sees as fit for them. The church is about helping Steve become everything he desires for self-enhancement rather than a community that promotes Christ-likeness. 

 

Cheap grace is a fatal distortion, but it doesn't make it any less seductively attractive to the misguided. It's attractive because it makes no demands and requires no sacrifice. There is appeal because it offers everything and asks for nothing. In the upside down, it's possible to function with our common activities, and soon it's the standard of normal. 

 

John Wesley realized the dangers of placing reason, tradition, and experience over the authority of Scripture. Imagine living in an upside-down world for so long that the upside-down is all we've ever known. Our politics is built around the upside down. Our corporate world is built on the upside down. Our academy is built on the upside down. Our media is built on the upside down. Our entertainment is built on the upside down. The only hope we have is for the church to remain a voice crying in the upside-down wilderness. 

 

Those who are orthodox follow John Wesley and his devotion to the supreme authority of Scripture. As Jim Elliot was known to say, "Why do you need a voice when you have a verse?" We are convinced it is only through the divine revelation of God's inspired word that we have any hope of awakening. Outside of full reliance on Scripture, we are left riding bicycles and pouring orange juice, convinced the world we experience is the sum of what's there.

 

Jesus promised His followers a Spirit of Truth. Through His presence, we can "test" the spirits to identify which are upside down and which are right side up. We will know Him when we follow His commands, not our reason, not our traditions, not our experience. If Scripture isn't supreme to anything and everything else, all we've got left is the upside down, and sadly, we'll never know the difference.