Answers to Questions Received from Online Viewers of Pastor Matt’s “Addressing the Letters” Presentation
Where does Heritage stand? Will we stay with UMC or leave and join the Global Methodist Church (GMC)?
Heritage is a United Methodist Church, and there is currently no official work being done at this time by your Administrative Council to consider exploring a move to the Global Methodist Church. There are members of the church who would like for the Council to consider it, and the upcoming presentation about both the UMC and GMC on September 19th by our district superintendent alongside a pastor of a church which is leaving to join the GMC was scheduled at their request.
What is the deadline?
There is currently no deadline in place for churches to decide anything. A church can begin to engage in a disaffiliation negotiation with the Florida Annual Conference Board of Trustees any time they choose, and I expect that, should they disaffiliate, the GMC would gladly receive them into the denomination–assuming that the church agree to abide by the GMC’s transitional book of doctrines and discipline.
The next General Conference, at which changes can be made to the Book of Discipline which governs a local church’s relationship with the United Methodist Church, will be in the Spring or Summer of 2024.
Do you personally believe that same-sex relationships are a sin?
This is a critically important question for churches to answer together.
The best I can surmise from studying the Scriptures is that the writers of the passages that address homosexuality (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, 1Corinthians 6, 1Timothy 1, and Romans 1) believed it was wrong for people of the same gender to engage in the kinds of sexual contact they were seeing at the time that they wrote. These included acts that were a part of the worship of false gods, acts that involved children, acts of prostitution, and acts that were not consensual. I believe each of these to have been sin then, and continue to be sin today, not to mention criminal!
The only model of marriage that the Bible seems to provide is between one man and one or more women. There does not seem to be any mention of sexual practices between people of the same gender occurring in the context of fidelity to a committed covenant relationship.
That said, just because marriage between people of the same gender is not mentioned doesn’t mean that they would have approved of it. From what they did write, there are good odds that they would not have approved, especially considering the need for families to produce as many children as possible to populate the new nation of Israel, to inherit the property of their parents, and to indicate that a relationship had the blessing of God.
As far as discerning whether we should consider same-sex relationships a sin today, the issue requires our best Biblical studies work. How will we decide on the best way to live in response to these ancient writings today? Sometimes, what was written by these ancient writers to their ancient recipients bears the fruit of the Holy Spirit today in the same way it did back then. Not stealing, telling the truth, not murdering anyone, etc. are all guidelines that make people better off regardless of the century that you’re in! At other times, what they wrote to address the issues of their day seems to not bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit, such as when they encouraged slaves to remain content in their slavery, required rapists to marry their victims, or reserving church leadership roles for men only.
I have done the best work I can to discern how to be faithful to these Scriptures, to consider them together by conferencing with others through the lenses of reason, tradition, and experience; and to observe which application of them produces love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control. I have come to the conclusion that same-sex relationships should not be considered sin, and that if a church agrees together to offer same-sex weddings or have an LGBTQ person as their pastor, they should be allowed to do so. Further, it should be the practice and culture of that church to offer training, counseling, and resources that would help that couple enjoy a lifetime of fidelity to one another in the same way they would for any other.
P.S. Why is this question so important? Many Christians say something like, “I’d be glad to have LGBTQ persons come to my church. They just can’t lead or get married.” A church can absolutely make this their official stance—in fact, it’s probably what most churches would say. However, this is not “full-inclusion” of LGBTQ persons. While this sounds welcoming and hospitable to those who are saying it, it does not feel that way to the LGBTQ person who is hearing it.
If a church decides together to become a community that is fully-inclusive of LGBTQ persons, it means that they have decided that their official stance is that they no longer see a same-sex relationship as a sin.
If the Book of Discipline changes, would you perform a same sex wedding?
The proposal by the Way Forward Commission in 2019, called the “One Church Plan,” is the model that most of those staying in the UMC seem to hope will be put in place in 2024.
Essentially, language in the Book of Discipline prohibiting same-sex relationships would simply be removed. Then, it would be the decision of each local church Administrative Council to decide whether they want to offer same-sex weddings or to have an LGBTQ person as a pastor.
Should the Book of Discipline be changed, I will abide by the decision of Heritage’s Administrative Council. If it was decided that Heritage would begin to offer same-sex weddings, I would ask that funds be budgeted so that the clergy at Heritage could receive training in how to offer premarital counseling that would meet any needs unique to same-sex couples, as our responsibility to prepare everyone we marry for a lifetime of fidelity to one another would continue.
So what from here? Will we have more meetings like this over the years for updates?
At the moment there is only one more meeting scheduled, on September 19th. My hope is that this meeting will answer any lingering questions and allow us to press ahead to focus on accomplishing our mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world by investing our best energies in the next generation, caring for those in need in our community, and becoming a neighborhood gathering space where everyone would feel at home whether they’re a part of our church or not.
Should new information emerge that affects Heritage, we will communicate it using any medium the information might warrant.
If we are trying to avoid tribalism in the church setting, it seems like a charged moment to invite a DS who’s staying and a pastor who’s leaving to share a stage. So why are we doing that?
That’s a good question, and to be fully transparent, I can’t claim credit for the idea. I’ve tried to avoid the subject and keep us focused on the mission mentioned above. However, some concerned church members reported to your Executive Team that (1) many church members very concerned about the issue of the including LGBTQ persons fully in the life of the church, (2) that there is a pervasive belief that information about the opportunity for Heritage to join the Global Methodist Church was being withheld from the congregation, and (3) that the information I shared on the church’s blog was made inaccurate and incomplete by my personal biases.
In response, the Executive Team agreed to invite someone from both the UMC and GMC to share their perspective so that members at Heritage could decide for themselves whether they’d prefer to stay or begin the process of leaving. Hopefully the result of the meeting is that it can be said that our leadership remained above reproach during this divisive season.
I don't think most people realize that if the church stays with the UMC, we are automatically progressive.
Not true. According to the “One Church Plan” that will most likely be put in place at the 2024 General Conference, each church would be able to decide how to best accomplish their mission in their context. Our Administrative Council would decide at that point how to address any requests we might receive to do a same-sex wedding, and whether it would help or hinder our efforts to accomplish our mission.
It would sort of be like the federal government avoiding passing legislation that would make something a “states rights” issue!
Have other questions? Feel free to add them in the comments below!
