A reader emailed me recently, stating that her Methodist congregation was in the middle of a discussion about whether or not it should disaffiliate itself from the United Methodist Church regarding gay marriage. A reader shared both the arguments from her moderately conservative congregation and asked me what my thoughts were. I was unable to see the “stay” arguments in her list. There were many propositions that were deceptive or self-deceptive. Wishful thinking. As she explains, the stay argument is: If we leave, it will mean that we are breaking relations with a national organization which has been kind to us. We will also be siding with closed-minded people who don’t welcome diverse viewpoints. We want to be open to all. We have also been assured by state leaders, that they will respect the autonomy of our congregation and will send us pastors who will be a good fit for our conservative congregation.
I explained to the reader that all this eyewash is nonsense, regardless of whether those who are promoting it realize it. Although I don’t know the congregation, I can imagine that some conservatives aren’t at all ideological. Growing up in a Methodist Church in the 1970s and 1980s, one could say it was conservative. But its conservatism had little to do doctrine or politics. It was rooted in stability and a desire to keep things the same. When I was twelve and thirteen years old, I experienced a brief period in Evangelical intensity. I asked my mother to take me to the local Baptist church to worship, as they took doctrine more seriously. Our family’s Methodist church was not liberal. It simply avoided taking stances on any topic, and people seemed to enjoy it that way. My childhood memories show that its conservatism was temperamental. The point is that “conservative” can refer to many things.
Family members who are still there told me that the congregation is currently in the process of deciding its future. It’s easy to imagine there being people in the congregation that aren’t in favor of same-sex marriages in the church. However, they find it difficult to leave the national church. Although it is a small church with beautiful architecture, I can easily imagine how people are protective of it. Because I have lost touch with them, I don’t know how the congregation will end up. Tonight, I am wondering how Ruthie, my sister, who was an active member, would vote. Although I am fairly certain that Ruthie would vote for the conservative side, it is not likely that she would have voted to go. She believed church was about the community. If she felt that maintaining the community would require her to compromise on the LGBT issue, she may have done so. Or not. It’s hard to say. But the fact that she was exactly one of those church members whose conservatism wasn’t theological but was dispositional tells me that it’s impossible for me to predict how the congregation will vote.
To those who think their congregation can remain conservative in a liberal church, I’d say the same thing to them as I did to my Methodist reader: this position is just not possible today. We have a lot of evidence based on the experiences of liberalized churches that the promise of tolerance for traditionalists dissenters is gone once progressives take control. It’s understandable. If homosexuality is truly a blessing from God and you believe same-sex marriage to be a good thing, why would you allow congregations to treat gay people as second-class Christians. Is it more important to maintain church unity than justice? If I was a progressive, I would tell you that it is not. Progressives, religious or not, consider homosexuality the moral equivalent to race. A national church would not allow congregations to refuse to marry interracial couples or people of color. It’s not something I can see. If I was in a church asking its members to accept congregations that practice open racism, it would be unacceptable. It is not persuasive to think that the United Methodist Church will tolerate and support conservative congregations after its traditionalists have left this year.
These are issues that I believe in. The Scriptures are so strong and clear on the issue of homosexuality, I couldn’t stay in a church that considered the question of same-sex marriage a matter for local opinion. It doesn’t matter if you’re pro-SSM or anti SSM, it’s a big deal because of what the practice says about Scripture’s authority and the Bibles teachings about sex, marriage, and married love, and what it means to be created in God’s image. This is a huge issue. I can’t see Christians agreeing on this matter within the same communion. It seems as though something so important to Christian life should be secondary to the actual work of the Church. I attended a private meeting shortly after the Obergefell decision and listened to Evangelical laity discuss their churches’ future stance. A woman with a prominent job in a liberal company, who was clearly frustrated, said, “I wish this could just be over and we could get back to preaching the Gospel!” Her definition of “proclaiming the Gospel” was to get people to pray the Sinner’s Prayer, and to receive Jesus into their hearts. That was my understanding of Christianity. Rest were details. Although I did not know her, I can bet she would have told me, if I had asked, that Christian living is more than simply accepting Jesus into your heart. Knowing her job, it was easy to see the pressure she was feeling to conform to the progressive views of her professional environment. She was searching for a way to escape that would allow Christ to be felt in her. That way doesn’t exist, I think.
However, the Church of England continues to search for it. Recently, the Church’s bishops voted no to gay marriage but voted to bless same-sex couples with a rite. This is not going to work as Carl Trueman explains. He cites a letter from Penny Mordaunt (a Tory politician) asking the House of Bishops for gay marriage. Trueman responds to the Mordaunt correspondence:
It raises two questions. First, Mordaunt, who represents the Conservative Party, asks what conservatism means today. Trump’s phenomenon was a sign of a lack of ideas in political discourse. It thrived for a short time in a world in which the left seemed detached from the reality of people’s concerns, and where the right seemed to be defined only by its reaction. Trump is in decline, just as Brexit is for the British people. What can conservatives offer the future? It seems that progressive pieties are all they have left is traditionalist veneers. What are they trying to preserve? If Mordaunt is representative, it is not much (and she is certainly no political outlier as Leader of the House). Penny Mordaunt’s conservatism seems to have adopted anti-conservatism’s basic principles.
This applies to the American debate within the churches. It has become clear that political conservatism is more open to LGBT people than ever before. now shows that a mere majority of Republican voters approve of same-sex marriage. As older GOP voters age, these numbers will only increase. Even in conservative churches, there will be pressure for the Biblical teaching to be moderated. If not, then to reduce its importance. This information is purely anecdotal. However, I believe many conservative pastors avoid talking about the topic or about sex in order to avoid controversy. They won’t be able avoid it forever. What happens if the gay child or son of a prominent church family wants to marry there? Since the discovery of one of their children being gay, many conservatives (even Christians) have turned against the issue over the past 20 years. It is impossible to imagine that conservative churches could not confront the issue honestly, given the trend towards normalization of homosexuality in society, even among those on the Right. We can expect conservatives to be more open to “progressive pieties” with traditionalist veneers in politics, given that very few GOP politicians have been able to defend traditional marriage in public over the past 20 years.
The head of the Greek Orthodox Church of America, Archbishop Elpidophoros got into trouble last summer when he traveled to Greece and baptized children from a couple who were gay. One-half of them is the son of Chicago’s rich Greek family.
A number Orthodox lay commentators and Greek bishops protested that this was not within the bounds of the church, and the first step toward accepting same-sex marriages in the conservative church. The Ecumenical patriarch of the Greek church seemed to be in favor of the liberal Elpidophoros.
Similar, Catholics continue to support the affirmation of LGBT Catholics through Father James Martin, a Jesuit priest. He is careful to not cross any doctrinal lines, as he is a Jesuit after all. However, nobody can be fooled by his position on these issues. Nobody. Pope Francis has praised Martin’s work on several occasions. Francis has also promoted bishops like Newark’s Cardinal Tobin and Chicago’s Cardinal Cupich, who signal LGBT affirmation while not openly rejecting Catholic teaching. The majority of German bishops have rejected Catholic teaching. If Francis nominates Heiner Wilmer , a progressive, openly gay German bishop, to lead the CDF, Catholic Church’s doctrinal offices, as it is rumored that the Pope plans, what will Catholics around the world think of Catholicism’s teachings on homosexuality? It would be a case where progressive pieties are disguised as traditionalists.
Here’s Andy Stanley, a pastor at the Atlanta megachurch.
This is what will make churches last many years.
Trueman continues:
The Church of England, being the established church, must consider the views of the political classes. Even though its cathedrals and parish churches are not relevant to most people, it has a prominent position in English law and English life. This status implies that society can expect it to reflect its values and practices. The letter of Penny Mordaunt is, although it may seem absurd to Anglicans, still has some logic. On other issues, such as the ordination for women, the Church has often obliged by following the social norms and expectations of the wider English society.
Although there isn’t an established church in the United States of America, Trueman’s point remains relevant. Many churches today and many others in the future will not be openly LGBT-affirming. This will lead to them being seen in public as pariahs, even though they aren’t relevant to most people. You are wasting your time if you believe it won’t happen. Take a look at the pain that a Russian Orthodox hockey player from Philadelphia is experiencing right now. He didn’t wear LGBT regalia on Pride Night because it was against him conscience. It was never true that dissent could be tolerated. Always.
Although we don’t have a church established, most American Christians have been more or more in line with American society’s social norms and expectations. Many middle-class congregations of almost all denominations will find it difficult to sell themselves as being outside the mainstream on major issues. One of my talks was given to a group Hungarian students. She asked me why the US churches haven’t been more aggressive in fighting against gender ideology and queering. She said uncomprehendingly, “America is so Christian.”
I explained to her that American Christians are more concerned with maintaining middle-class respectability, access to bourgeois institutions, and group memberships than about unpopular Biblical teachings. It’s been a long time since middle-class American Christians had to endure anything meaningful for the truths they believed. Those days are quickly ending. There will be many rationalizations to abandon inconvenient truths, and to capitulate to culture. But God is not fooled.
Trueman says:
Sign up today
Receive weekly emails to your inbox
The fate of the Church of England is a sign for all churches in the West, whether they are established or not. We will not be saved by our culture warriors if we try to please them with fine distinctions, extravagant rhetorical apologies and endless blathering about social justice. Archbishop Welby will be saved by blessing civil partnerships. In the realm of progressive culture laws, anyone who is guilty at one point is guilty at all.
He’s right. These people are impossible to please. Ever. My Methodist correspondent informed me that there was no way to avoid the theological disagreement that is dividing the church. Everyone will have to make a choice. People who think there is a third way to do things are lying to themselves. The congregations who choose tradition will most likely suffer more for their decision. They will have demonstrated that they fear God more than others. To my knowledge, every church which has followed the formal affirmation route has been in decline. Yes, there are declining numbers of conservative churches. In twenty years, many places will see fewer people attending church.
These disputes also center on the question: What’s church for? Liberals and conservatives both believe it’s the community praying, and they value unity over truth. Liberals and conservatives believe that certain issues are so important that one must stand up for truth, even if it means breaking the community’s unity. The question of same-sex marriage and, more generally, sexual morality, identity and gender is one of these questions. There are also liberals who agree with me on this issue. The churchgoers who think compromise is possible to save unity in their congregations or local congregations are deceiving. There is no middle ground after decades of dispute.
