I write today in response to the recent open letter to Bishop Sue Haupert-Johnson by “United Methodist Laity for Openness and Transparency.” With a couple of exceptions, I won’t try to respond point for point. Instead, I’ll take this opportunity to be as transparent as I can be about where I stand.
As I read the letter, I thought at times, “That’s a decent question,” or That’s a fair discussion to have.” But with whom should Bishop Sue address her answers or have such a discussion?
And that, of course, is the letter’s most obvious and serious flaw.
It’s unsigned. I learned a long time ago not to read unsigned letters, though I admit a full-page ad in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a little more difficult to ignore. Still, when all is said and done, this is just an anonymous letter, more harmful than constructive, and Bishop Sue should feel no obligation to respond since no real discussion is possible. It is also troubling that the writers claim to speak for all UM laity of the conference.
That, of course, is absurd and disingenuous.
The other specific question I’d like to address is bullet-point two: “Why are so many clergy unwilling to hold open discussions with laity about the future of the UMC? Do they have reasons to fear retribution?”
That’s a legitimate question, but from whom might the clergy fear retribution—the bishop/cabinet or, say, the conservative leadership of the clergy’s own churches? The reality is that the divisions over LGBT+ issues run THROUGH local congregations as surely as AMONG churches and clergy. Pastors, seeking to maintain unity of ministry, might avoid an open forum on LGBT+ issues because they have seen the intense emotions and divisive rancor such forums can arouse. You can certainly argue that such avoidance is far from healthy (admittedly, it has at times been my own choice), but please understand that watching faithful people, who for years have loved and cared and served together, suddenly counting heads and marshalling forces is gut-wrenching.
Here at Glenn, I don’t have to worry about a congregational split. This church made clear its stance on the issue of full inclusion long ago, and I am proud to serve such a church. If there is division in our congregation, it is over how long to tolerate the denomination’s conservative stance on marriage and ordination. I have been criticized for not acting more clearly in defiance of the denomination, and a letter addressed to Emory President Greg Fenves even suggested that our congregation be removed from our facilities for not disobeying the UM Book of Discipline. Threats of retribution, it seems, can come from many sources. Life isn’t simple, so we follow Christ and serve justice as faithfully and lovingly as we can.
Back when I worked for the Wesleyan Christian Advocate, I often received letters saying, in effect, “Mr. Editor, if you will only print this letter in full, I believe we can put this entire issue of the Bible and sexuality behind us.”
I suffer no such illusion about my own thoughts. I will not settle things here (indeed, I’m more likely to stir disagreements), but I want to lay out some of my personal views, recognizing that my thoughts might seem simplistic to those of you who are far more articulate on this issue than I.
I am for full participation by all people in the rights and rites of the church (I certainly hope that’s clear by now). I believe the motivation for inclusive rights is scriptural and true to the fundamental mission of the church. I believe the movement of the gospel of Jesus Christ, propelled by the Holy Spirit, is always outward, and that God’s definition of “us” is ever expanding. Church leaders, being decidedly human, have tried more than a few times to name who’s in and who’s out, only to have God overrule them. We glorify God and strengthen the body of Christ when we welcome all, bless holy commitments, and acknowledge, with wisdom, grace, and accountability, that God can call anyone to God’s service. I cannot imagine my life in Christ without the diversity of individuals and families here at Glenn, some of whom have felt unwelcomed elsewhere.
As a lifelong United Methodist, ordained as an elder 36 years ago in the Glenn sanctuary, I seek to honor my vows to serve Christ through the church.
I also respect our Book of Discipline, of human origin to be sure, but rules and guides we have agreed to hold in common. Therefore, I want to see the Discipline changed, not ignored. That is why I have not been willing to disregard our UM church law. As it is now, we offer the sanctuary and chapel for any Christian wedding properly officiated. As for me, I will continue to welcome all people into Christ’s fellowship and strive to involve everyone fully in ministry, while also working to change the Discipline’s language that devalues too many lives.
I confess I am a “big-tent” Methodist. I believe we are stronger together than apart and that conservative and progressive Christians need each other. I believe the construction of twin towers of Babel, allowing us to dwell exclusively with those who agree with us, is harmful to the realm of God.
I’m realistic enough to know that separation might be the only way forward, but should that day come, I will not rejoice in severing ties with people I love and with whom I have shared Christian service for years.
I long for the day when our current disciplinary language is changed, when respect for conscience guides our relationships, and we work together joyously to serve the Savior who claims us all. Imagine us UMs united in love and intentionally inviting all people to experience the grace of Christ. Imagine us trusting the Holy Spirit to move in surprising ways. It is in intentional inviting that we progressive UMs can learn a thing or two from our more evangelical brothers and sisters. It is in the affirmation of all people that our more conservative siblings can learn from us. It is in trusting the Holy Spirit that we can all learn and grow together.
Recognizing the limits of my own knowledge and words, I remain,
Yours in Christ,
The Rev. Mark Westmoreland, Senior Pastor