A Way Forward third solution

The Way Forward Commission of the United Methodist Church is to propose a list of revisions to the *Book of Discipline*, the denomination’s governing document. They are to do this by next summer. Whatever they propose is supposed to get us all beyond the LGBTQ issues. Schism? A way to stay together? Include LGBTQ people? Exclude? Make the decision local?

They’re not saying right now. And they’ve been pretty good about not saying – though LGBTQ advocates are miffed at being barred from commission meetings.

And while the commission is silent, both conservative and progressive voices are trying to sway debate, at least across the denomination, though perhaps not in the commission. On the conservative side is the Wesleyan Covenant Association. Their position comes down to: do it our way or we split. And their way is complete exclusion of LGBTQ people.

On the other side are the LGBTQ advocate organizations, such as Reconciling Ministries Network and Queer Clergy Caucus. They demand full inclusion of LGBTQ people, to end the harm, the spiritual violence, the church is perpetrating.

Rev. Jeremy Smith and his blog Hacking Christanity struggles with a third proposal, put out by the Uniting Methodists Movement. Their goal is to prevent schism, that we remain a united denomination even if we disagree. A couple of their positions: Clergy are neither compelled to nor prohibited from officiating at same-sex weddings. Local regions are neither compelled to nor prohibited from ordaining LGBTQ persons. This proposal is a local option, meaning each region or congregation decides whether to be inclusive or exclusive.

Reconciling Ministries Network’s response is that LGBTQ people will continue to be harmed. That leads to Smith proposing a few questions, a couple of which are:

* Can LGBTQ people support this proposal without participating in their own oppression?

* Does this proposal fragment the alliance between LGBTQ people and allies?

Smith turns to the story of Jonah from the Bible. God tells Jonah to preach in Nineveh, a city in Assyria. These people have a reputation for telling others be conquered or die. Jonah flees in the other direction and there is the thing about being swallowed by a whale. Once the whale spits Jonah back on land he does go to Nineveh – and in seven words convinces the city to repent and be saved. But Jonah sits under a fig tree and grumbles.

Why that ending? Didn’t Jonah do what God wanted? Shouldn’t he be happy?

Smith quotes Rob Bell’s book, *What Is The Bible?* This sounds a lot like my frequently repeated discussion of ranking in my other blog.

The story demands non-dual awareness: many see the world in dualistic terms where there are good people and bad people, sinners and saints, us and them, a world in which people stay true to the labels and categories we’ve placed them in.

This story wants none of that. It blasts to pieces our biases and labels with the declaration “God is on everyone’s side,” extending grace and compassion to everyone, especially those we have most strongly decided are not on God’s side.

So, if God does something new will the people accept it? The reason for the strange ending of the Jonah story is because Jonah would rather die than accept this inclusive community.

Smith says the same sentiment is strong in the United Methodist Church.

Is God doing a new thing? Will we see it if He does?

Several commenters don’t like Smith’s comparison. They say a key point of the story is that Nineveh repented. They haven’t seen the conservatives in the denomination do that. From personal experience I learned forgiveness can’t depend on repentance.

After describing his struggles with the local option Smith says he prefers it. Yes, some LGBTQ people will still be harmed. But incremental movement is better than no movement. Some people aren’t ready for the big step. Going from full exclusion to full inclusion takes a period of struggle, where nobody is pleased. And for Smith unity in diversity remains a top goal.