On November 13-14 a group calling themselves Uniting Methodists gathered in Atlanta, Georgia, around the theme that unity in the church must be maintained at all costs. The group claims it represents the great middle of United Methodism which, supposedly, is convinced that if we all are just nice to one another, regardless of what persons believe or practice, the church can avoid schism. According to the keynote speaker, Dr. David Field, member of the Commission on A Way Forward, this is the way it works:
Some of the first steps toward unity will be to develop mutual respect for the sincerity of one another's convictions and mutual respect for each other's freedom of conscience before God. The Book of Discipline is holding back UM unity because it is full of rules and restrictions that leave no room for following one's conscience, a value that Wesley held in high esteem.
Unless there is some larger context in which to understand this statement, or unless the words were quoted incorrectly, or unless the word "conscience" has been redefined, we have a serious problem in the church. Is "conscience" now the ultimate authority for determining God's will? Have we moved from the primacy of Scripture to subjective preferences as the guide to all matters religious? And if so, how are we to know whether our acts of "conscience" reflect the Word of God or simply unredeemed prejudice? And since our various "consciences" differ widely on matters of importance, are we at the point of saying that one view is as good as another and thus there really are no authoritative standards (except to accept each other's preferences); so individual churches are free to do what is right in their own eyes as are conferences and pastors and laypeople?
And just what are the rules and restrictions that the Discipline is "full of" that are so terrible they leave no room for following one's conscience? Since the crisis in the church is because of views of human sexuality we should assume the offending "rules" have to do with celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage. And we can assume it also refers to the Discipline's statement that "the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." Evidently in our present time ideas about faithfulness and celibacy and marriage between a man and a woman are mere opinions that can be disregarded or at least interpreted broadly in this modern age of enlightenment. Such views, according to some even who call themselves "centrists," are not basic to the Bible's understanding of marriage, family, the Church as the bride of Christ, the meaning of covenant, stability in the home and the central place of the family as the Bible's way of passing down the faith.
We are living in a time when we are bearing the fruits of the sexual revolution, a cultural shift which might be dated from the 1960s. This revolution led to a liberalization of established moral attitudes toward sexual standards, gender, sexual orientation, the importance of the family and to greater experimentation with sex, even outside the bounds of marriage.
What is the result? How about broken homes, broken marriages, out-of-wedlock births, sexual addictions, pornography, sexually transmitted diseases, sex trafficking, poverty, co-habitation outside of marriage, higher incidents of sexual predators, sexual confusion, higher rates of homosexuality, transgenderism, the breakdown of the family, and suicide?
For years the importance of the home was neither a liberal nor conservative issue. Our various traditions that now make up United Methodism and the different theological perspectives within those traditions agreed on the importance of the Christian home and the family altar and teaching children about the faith. They also recognized the pressures upon the Christian home. In 1948 the Methodist Discipline spoke of the attack on the home by evil forces to the extent that "the existence of civilization is threatened." The same Discipline declared it is "the birthright of every child to have the emotional security of a stable home, permanently established, with two parents living together and loving each other." While some persons accuse our present Discipline of being "hateful," "unchristian," "homophobic," "restrictive" and "unloving," the truth is that previous church statements were much more forthright. They spoke out against pre-marital sex, divorce, permissive perspectives in literature and film, and the general decay of morals.
Within the past few years, however, progressives have changed course. They are no longer advocates for the family, at least in the way that they once were. The argument now is that culture has changed and the church needs to keep up with the culture. Our culture is characterized by shifting boundaries between what is permissible and impermissible in sexual conduct. It has emphasized personal autonomy and a view of "freedom" which would replace long-standing understandings of purity and faithfulness. So all kinds of sexual liaisons are portrayed in the entertainment media; so sex trafficking is more serious than ever before; so we can write catalogs on the varieties of sexual orientations. The explosion of sexual harassment reporting among high profile persons in positions of power indicates that health and stability in the relationships between men and women are not progressing but regressing. 48% of women in the workforce say they have personally experienced unwanted sexual advances.
All of this relates to other serious problems in society. Instead of marriage, 48% of women now say they cohabited with their male partner either before marriage or without marriage, up from 34% in 1995. Only 23% now report their first sexual union came within marriage, down from 39% in 1995. George Will in a recent column writes about the direct link between poverty and sexual permissiveness. According to studies only 3% of families live in poverty when the father and mother first received at least a high school diploma, then got a job, then got married and only then had children. 55% of millennials cohabit and have children before marriage. This compares with 25% of baby boomers (born between 1957 and 1964). Seventy-one percent of low-income families are headed by single parents. Thus, it would seem obvious that the way to address poverty is to strengthen our families and our home. The War on Poverty, the great progressive piece of legislation under Lyndon Johnson, has been a dismal failure. The country today has more wealth than ever before and at the same time, more poverty.
In healthy societies values and social arrangements are matters of course. But these values and social arrangements are presently crumbling. Progressives blame poverty on the unfairness of material distribution rather than addressing the breakdown of family stability.
Present statements in our Discipline and Book of Resolutions on marriage and family say nothing about the birthright of children to live in a two-parent home; they say nothing about sexual abstinence before marriage; they say nothing about the problems of cohabiting without marriage. They say a lot about sexual harassment (5 ½ pages worth). They speak nice things about premarital counseling, classes, government programs, and the right to food, shelter, clothing, guaranteed basic income, housing, and protective services, but not about the importance of the two-parent home. And so children suffer. The Indiana Department of Child Services reports skyrocketing numbers of abuse and neglect cases: 23,950 cases in 2016 up from 13,048 in 2010 or nearly 84% increase. It reports 77 child deaths resulting from abuse or neglect, up from 25 in 2010. They appeal for foster homes. They appeal for funds for more case workers. Can we understand the relationship between this and the fact that the percentage of births to unmarried women is now approaching 40%?
I speak to my children and grandchildren from time to time about how we (and they) have benefited because of "privilege." Some of this may be because of race or gender or economic security, but these are not the areas where real privilege makes a difference. The real privilege I speak of has to do with being born into a stable Christian family where we are advantaged because we knew love and respect and hard work and the importance of serving Jesus Christ. It is the Bible's intended way but many, probably most of the people we work with have not been so advantaged. Both my wife Ruth and I have sought to pass the blessing on to others, especially to our children and their children and their children. The total of marriages of my siblings and my wife's siblings, as well as their children and their children's children now totals 50 (only three of which ended in divorce). Almost all of these (as far as I know) represent stable homes making a contribution to church and society. None live in poverty.
There are still many families and extended families which have been so blessed but presently they seem the exception rather than the rule. I have worked with our local Rescue Mission for 27 years. It is not easy work. Almost none of the men and women come from stable two-parent families. They have experienced abuse, poverty, disappointment, drugs and sexual confusion. We have a message to them and to a hurting world: there is hope; you can change in Jesus Christ; you can break the cycle of poverty and abuse and living without standards.
The Way Forward for United Methodists must include a commitment to a Biblical view of human sexuality. It should include not just disciplinary statements on faithfulness in marriage and celibacy in singleness, but also a strategy for addressing larger problems of abuse, poverty, sexual harassment, and respect through the building up of Christian marriage and Christian homes.
