Rev. William R. “Bill” Bouknight served for 41 years in full-time ordained ministry, and is now an Associate Director of the Confessing Movement within the United Methodist Church. He offers this reflection of the United Methodist Connectional Table’s livestream of a sexual morality dialogue held earlier this week.
On April 29, the Connectional Table of the United Methodist Church (UMC) offered a panel discussion on human sexuality. After an opening presentation by the new leader of the General Board of Church and Society, the Rev. Susan Henry-Crowe, a devotional message by Bishop James Dorff focused on Jesus’ plea in John 17 that the church “may be brought to complete unity.” He expressed the hope that even though United Methodists disagree on matters of sexual morality, hopefully they can still “be one of heart and mind.” Interestingly, his lesson began with verse 20 and did not include verse 17—“Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.”
Including Henry-Crowe, there were five speakers. Bishop Dorff attempted to be neutral in regard to the Church’s position on homosexuality. The other four speakers split three to one in favor of changing the Church’s position. In addition, the moderator of the panel, Bishop Hope Morgan Ward, though scrupulously fair in managing the discussion, has a history of promoting change on this issue.
It was a cause of concern that no question was raised about the seven specific Scriptural passages that are quite negative toward homosexual practice.
The token conservative on the panel, Dr. Mark Teasdale, pointed out the conflict between the Wesleyan tradition and the American tradition. Wesley’s high view of Scripture and his focus on holiness caused him to regard homosexuality as sin. By way of contrast, American tradition focuses on “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Every person’s pursuit of happiness is legitimate, without regard to religious approval or disapproval. The conflict between the Wesleyan and American traditions is being reflected in the UMC today.
The real heart of the UMC struggle over sexual morality may have been addressed by Bishop Daniel Arichea, Jr., of the Philippines. He stated that some parts of Scripture are “timeless truths” and other parts are “time-bound messages.” Those time-bound messages, and he includes the passages about homosexuality in this category, need to be adjusted by science and modern scholarship.
One of the problems with Bishop Arichea’s view is that it disagrees with the official United Methodist position that ALL SCRIPTURE is “the true rule and guide for faith and practice” (Paragraph 104, Article III).
Furthermore, if one presumes to designate parts of Scripture as “first-class” and others parts as “second-class,” such a position expresses extraordinary arrogance and lack of respect for the ancient church councils which, led by the Holy Spirit, decided which books to include in the canon. To put the church on that slippery slope is to risk ending up where the people of Israel were at the end of the book of Judges: “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (Judges 21:25).
The April 29th discussion of sexual morality may have been well motivated, but it was a monotonous repeat of what we have seen so often—an attempt to change orthodox, traditional believers into the liberals’ point of view. But as Bishop Dorff admitted, not many United Methodists are on the fence anymore. Most know where they stand on the presenting issue—sexual morality—and, more importantly, on the fundamental issue—the authority of Holy Scripture.
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on May 2, 2014 at 11:38 am
Another problem: stating that “time-bound messages need to be adjusted by science and modern scholarship” presumes that science and modern scholarship are a) conclusive generally, and b) more conclusive than Scripture. Neither is the case…except in Hollywood or the world of sensationalist media or biased political groups.
(As a person with a doctoral level of training in science I just love it when pastors, particularly liberal ones, sanctimoniously inform us about what science has “proven” in the areas of sexuality, climate change, economics, etc….this is often little more than political speech deceptively packaged as erudition or moral enlightenment)
Comment by Marco Bell on May 2, 2014 at 1:32 pm
Dear Cleareyed…
You may have to admit that Science has done a lot to change Humanity’s view on the human condition, ie: How the many vital organs perform (and in some cases aren’t even necessary anymore), and thus even, human beings evolve… therefore, so should doctrinal dictates from the ancient past evolve to stay truthful to the facts.
I am not criticizing Scriptures intent to inform and guide followers, I’m just trying to face the likelihood that they (the Scriptures) might be wrong, or obsolete on some topics.
EVERYTHING IS CONSTANTLY EVOLVING! To deny this, is to be profoundly arrogant, and dare I say, ignorant.
With much respect for your academia.
Marco
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on May 2, 2014 at 8:07 pm
Hi Marco!
You mention “facts,” by which I assume you mean mainly scientific facts. Let’s review just a few things that have been considered scientific “facts” in the past (I purposely pull these from hard sciences which, unlike psychology–and the study of sexuality–are considered more objective and less malleable):
Newtonian gravity model – superseded by general relativity, to which it is an excellent approximation unless typical speeds approach that of light in a vacuum. The anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury was the first observational evidence that Newtonian gravity was not totally accurate.
Steady State Theory, a model developed by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle whereby the expanding universe was said to be in a steady state, and had no beginning. It was a competitor of the Big Bang model until evidence (e.g. “red shift”) supporting the Big Bang and falsifying the steady state was found.
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: shows, somewhat counter-intuitively and contrary to prior observations, that both the location and speed of an atomic particle cannot be known simultaneously.
I could go on, but you get the point. If these observations from the hard sciences have been shown incorrect, then how much more so might those from the softer sciences like psychology, sociology, etc.?
Yes, we are “evolving,” but we have no real reference point–apart from revelation–regarding where we might be in the process. How do we know that acceptance of alternative sexual behavior is an error that may cause tremendous harm and need to be corrected later? In fact, apart from revelation, we don’t.
Ecclesiastes 1:9:
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Peace.
Comment by Marco Bell on May 3, 2014 at 11:07 am
Thank you Cleareyed… for providing facts to back up my point. You probably didn’t intend to defend my position, but in fact you did it well.
Your observation of the ‘hard’ sciences that have over time been revised and retested prove that just like all things in Nature, we/they evolve.
There will always be skeptics. Those who prefer to stick with what has been taught over the millennia, and those who recognize changes that inevitably occur, and become accepted, standard knowledge.
The “steady state” model is in question, mostly by those who believe in Intelligent Design over Natural systems of evolution.
I, like you, am amazed at the complexity of our universe, and have much awe and admiration for the strides we, as mere humans have made in being better custodians of such wonder.
My apologies for such digression, but my point of all things constantly in flux, needs to be made. Just like clinging to a solid rock hurdling through space seems to be something we have little control over, so too do we need to recognize that we are only one of billions of matter trying to survive our follies.
Science and Religion don’t need to be mutually exclusive.
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on May 3, 2014 at 2:15 pm
Well, Marco, at least you are paying attention even if you have little idea of what I said.
Of course I was not saying religion and science were mutually exclusive–indeed, historically it is reasonable to say that Christianity was the midwife of western science–the point is that a) science IS evolving and, therefore, must always be viewed with some skepticism, and b) the moral truths of the Bible have proven more transcendent than any other philosophical system.
(By the way, the steady state theory has pretty much been discarded by modern astrophysics, totally apart from ID.)
Comment by Marco Bell on May 3, 2014 at 6:13 pm
Christianity is only one of many Religions that can claim to be the absolute Truth, so let’s not be smug about any single religion.
Actually, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to form a Church or Religion around the truths of Science.
One might extrapolate that the first humanoids practiced science before they practiced religion?
Which makes one wonder why Science didn’t win-out over the latter? They both offer great things!
Comment by Lowell Herlinger on December 5, 2014 at 9:10 am
I can claim to be a Big Mac. Claiming it doesn’t make it True. An interesting point on truths of science is how they continue to evolve. Comparison of Masoretic text of the Book of Isaiah with the unfragmented Dead Sea great Scroll of Isaiah show 17 individual Hebrew alphabet characters differ, all but 3 are just textual variants and therefore only 3 total “errors” exist that do Not Change Subject matter. AND it’s a scientific fact the state of art Radiocarbon dating from a University in Arizona shows the Qumran Scroll to be 1000yrs older than the aforementioned Masoretic text. Also, all Old Testament books (except Ester and Ruth) are found in the cache of Qumran. Then consider Prophecy, a unique aspect of Judeo-Christian texts as opposed to those other religion’s. Many fulfilled . Many yet to be, but evidence is mounting daily as the stage is being set for the culmination of end times . Who has persecuted the Christians most? Besides the profit of piece? Its the professing church, that claims faith, but denys the Thruths of Judeo-Christianity. More people have died for their Christian faith in the most recent 100yrs than in the previous 1900yrs combined.
Claiming truth, and evidence for that truth should be considered together. .
As for science as a religion, I believe it is so already for those in Scientism, yet they only accept that which supports their position. Like so many so called faiths. Just look at how “scientists are treated when they differ from currently held position . Ignaz Semmelweis could be an example. As for “change” of some who hope for, just look at the modern astrophysicist who has vacillated on the origins of our universe……
As for time-bound, Christ created time as well.
Grace and Peace,
Ps 118:8
2 Cor 5:21
Lowell
Comment by james d bright jr on May 2, 2014 at 2:16 pm
I believe that the bible was inspired by the holy spirit and to change it just might anger our righteous fathere some people belive the bible and some dont. I choose to belive it.GOD HAVE MERCY.
Comment by clearthinkingandinformed on May 2, 2014 at 10:05 pm
Marco, The biggest problem with the revisionists is that their knowledge of scientific developments is so often flawed and uninformed. Specifically on the issue of sexuality, extensive research has so far disproved any biological determination for homosexuality. Indeed, there is more genetic impetus for political behavior. Just ask the people who did the human genome project. The harder researchers have looked for the “gay gene” the more they come away empty-handed. Identical twin studies have strongly disproved a genetic connection. But ask these same self-professed enlightened revisionists to truly and rigorously educate themselves, you will be attacked. They operate completely out of ideology.
Comment by franklin thompson on May 3, 2014 at 12:48 am
I know that I will be severely criticized by saying this, but I can’t help but notice that the vast majority of the pro-homopsexuality is promoted by the women in the UMC.
Comment by Brent White on May 3, 2014 at 3:19 am
Of the two dozen or so women clergy I know well enough to know their stance on homosexual practice, only a couple favor the UMC’s traditional view. Here’s a theory: In general, women clergy believe they benefited from the church disregarding or reinterpreting (to some extent) words from scripture that had previously (for nearly two millennia) excluded women from ordained ministry. How is the homosexuality debate not the same?
Well, it’s not the same in a number of ways. We have scripture on our side: Mary Magdalene literally commissioned as the first apostle to bring the good news of Christ’s resurrection to the (mostly male) disciples. We have Junia called an “apostle” by Paul in Romans 16, not to mention other prominent women leaders in the church. We have Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28.
Not to mention—and I say this with tongue in cheek, but I think you’ll see my point—being a woman isn’t judged sinful in the strongest possible terms in both Old and New Testaments.
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on May 3, 2014 at 2:36 pm
There are at least 2 reasons for this (although I have read commentary from some female clergy who strongly oppose marriage redefinition, still favoring Biblical standards for sexual behavior).
1) the argument for acceptance of alternative sexual behavior historically considered sinful is based mainly in emotion (note all the many meetings, “holy conferences,” etc. where people have given their heartrending personal stories of rejection).
2) some conservative theology schools still uphold Biblical teachings advocating male pastors; therefore, female pastors are more apt to go to liberal theology schools where they are more likely to be indoctrinated into liberal theology (which usually goes hand in hand with modern liberal politics).
We recently had a young female pastor who was a guest speaker at our church. She had recently finished her studies at a liberal theology school and found–surprise!–the Easter message to be one primarily advocating acceptance of women and gays (she began by noting that it was women who found the tomb empty).
As the old saying goes, when all you’ve got is a hammer everything starts to look like a nail—when these young pastors are trained by liberals they are given a big hammer of skewed reality making historic Christians out to be narrow-minded, intolerant, unloving people. It is a sad fact of modern life in mainline denominations.
Comment by gary on May 5, 2014 at 6:31 pm
love it cleareyed!