Whenever a therapist listens to a hurting family, there are always
presenting issues and the deeper issues. Fourteen-year-old Timmy is
cutting class and piercing body parts, and sixteen-year-old Suzy is not
coming home at night and when she does, there’s alcohol on her breath.

The parents say to the counselor, “Timmy’s the problem; fix him, and
everything will be okay again.” Or, “Suzy’s drinking is tearing our family
apart, help her to stop and we’ll be whole again.”

But the therapist knows those behaviors are only symptomatic—the
presenting issues. The presenting issues must be separated from the deeper
issues in order to help the family deal with them openly and honestly.
Quite simply, the deeper issues cannot be ignored.

It’s the same in the hurting family that we love called The United
Methodist Church. For example, there is a widely-held misconception that
homosexuality is the issue that divides our denomination. If it were, that
would be enough of a challenge. However, it is only the presenting issue.

I have been part of numerous dialogue sessions within the Texas Annual
Conference in regard to the denomination’s stance on homosexuality. I
have listened and I have been heard. During these dialogues, I heard the
deeper issues beneath the presenting issue of homosexuality. They are the
same issues I have heard at recent General Conferences. In reality, there
are four issues dividing our church that cut to the very heart of what it
means to be a church family. They deal with truth, Scripture, revelation,
and Jesus Christ.

1. The Nature of Moral Truth.

Is moral truth determined by the unchanging character of God? Or is it
determined by the ever-changing experiences of human beings? Does the
character of God determine what is right and wrong? Or do we conduct
surveys and decide that a particular behavior is to be celebrated if a certain
percentage of persons in a given culture engage in it?

This is compounded when the people engaging in such conduct are good
people, people who go to church and care about justice. Some of them may
be people that we love, maybe even our brothers and sisters or our sons
and daughters. Are those reasons enough for us to change our views of
what’s right and wrong?

This is exactly what our African brothers and sisters were told on the
floor of General Conference several years ago after one of their delegates
spoke in favor of the denomination’s position on homosexuality as found
in The Book of Discipline. An American delegate rose and dismissively
stated: “Obviously homosexuality is more of a problem in some cultures
than it is in others.” The implication, of course, was that the practice of
homosexuality is not the same kind of problem for those of us who are
more enlightened. And one day it won’t be a problem for the Africans
when they have progressed and matured the way we in the West have.

Let me be clear. The historic faith of Christianity has always held that
moral truth is determined by who God is and what he has done, not by who
we as fallen human beings are or by what we do. And because we are
fallen in our actions and in our thinking, we do not believe that we will
discern moral truth using nothing more than our reason, experiences, and
traditions. As the Scriptures say, “There is a way that seems right, but in
the end it leads to death.” It is possible to believe sincerely that something
is right and good; but, in reality, it leads us away from the God of life and
truth. We believe God determines what is true. And for us to know that
truth, it must be revealed.

2. The Authority of the Scriptures.

Do they speak truth to all people in all cultures at all times? Or were
they wrong when they were written, culturally determined in their
declarations, and hopelessly out of date for persons enlightened by the
truth contained in the latest sociological surveys?

At General Conference in 1988 a United Methodist pastor from Iowa
spoke in favor of changing the current language regarding homosexuality
in the Discipline. In a moment of honesty, he explained why he felt
comfortable with his position by stating, “We don’t go back to the Bible
for the last word on anything.”

Though few are so open about their willingness to dismiss the authority
of Scripture for faith and practice, this pastor is not alone.

In 1995, the Rev. Tom Griffith, a pastor of a Reconciling congregation,
wrote an article, titled “Give a Cheer for our Evangelical Brothers and
Sisters,” in the now-defunct Open Hands. “Now it is our turn to get honest.
Although the creeds of our denomination pay lip service to the idea that
scripture is ‘authoritative’ and ‘sufficient for faith and practice,’ many of
us have moved far beyond that notion in our own theological thinking,” he
wrote. “We are only deceiving ourselves—and lying to our evangelical
brothers and sisters—when we deny the shift we have made….We have
moved far beyond the idea that the Bible is exclusively normative and
literally authoritative for our faith. To my thinking, that is good! What is
bad is that we have tried to con ourselves and others by saying, ‘we
haven’t changed our position.’”

Though I differ with him, I say: Hooray for Tom Griffith’s honesty and
willingness to talk about the deep issues that must be resolved if unity is to
be a possibility for our church.

In 2004, the Rev. J. Richard Peck wrote a particularly helpful and
insightful article, titled “Church Should Examine the Reason for its
Differences,” for the United Methodist News Service. He is a retired
clergy member of the New York Annual Conference and a former editor of
Circuit Rider and Newscope.

Peck correctly stated that before we can understand our differences on
homosexuality, we must understand our differing attitudes toward
Scripture. “Conservatives view Scripture as a single entity,” he wrote.
“They believe every book in the Bible is the inspired Word of God. They
quote Leviticus and the letters of Paul with equal certainty; they are likely
to assert: ‘The Bible says….’”

Later in his article he states: “Nearly all conservatives say the Word of
God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. No scientific claim and
no change in social standards can alter the fact that there is no passage in
Scripture that supports homosexual practice, and every mention of
homosexuality within that holy book is negative.”

He then describes how liberals (his term) view the Scriptures: “Liberals,
on the other hand, view the Bible as a library of books with different levels
of inspiration and truth. A quote from Leviticus carries almost no weight
with liberals. Liberals are not as quick to dismiss the letters of Paul. They
well know that Paul wrote some of the most insightful and inspirational
passages in all of Scripture. At the same time, they know that he was a
product of his times.”

When I read statements like that I always wonder if liberals ever stop to
think that maybe they believe what they believe because they are a product
of their times—a time and a culture that is highly secularized and overly
sexualized; a time where theology, as one of our bishops has said, goes
little deeper than “God is nice and we should be, too.” In our contemporary
culture, the highest virtue for liberals is tolerance, except when it comes to
tolerating views that disagree with what their hearts tell them is right.

“Liberals place Paul’s teachings about homosexuality into the context of
a time when lifelong committed homosexual relations were unknown,”
continues Peck. “While liberals value the words of Jesus above all other
teachings, even here they will distinguish between the early writings of
Mark and the later and more theological writings of John. If there were
teachings by Jesus in any of the Gospels about homosexuality, liberals
would find these compelling and debate might be ended.”

“Debate might be ended”—if Jesus had said what they have determined
Jesus would have and should have said. In other words, Jesus must be the
Jesus they want him to be and his words must agree with their desires if he
is to be valued as a source of truth. It reminds me a bit of the statement, “In
the beginning God made man in his image, and ever since we have tried to
return the favor.”

Amazing, isn’t it, that 21st-century liberal theologians look back 2,000
years and discover that a first century apocalyptic Jew named Jesus was
actually a 21st-century liberal theologian who had the same views they
possess.

Traditionalists and evangelicals know that there are parts of Scripture
that are difficult to interpret. We do not claim infallibility in our
understanding of the Bible. And we humbly and gladly admit that we need
the counsel of the entire Body of Christ rightly to divide the Word of
Truth. We need the witness of the historic Church and we need the insights
of our contemporaries, those who agree with us and those who do not.

However, we do not believe that the Scriptures point to the Word of
God. We do not believe that the Scriptures contain the Word of God. We
believe they are the Word of God. We believe the Scriptures are more than
the witness of godly men and women to God. We believe they are God’s
witness to us.

That means if the Bible contains it, it’s not our job to correct it. If the
Bible teaches it, it’s not our prerogative to twist it. And if the Bible states it
clearly and consistently, we don’t need this month’s copy of Psychology
Today or the latest Gallup Poll or some self-appointed pontificator of
political properness to tell us why the Bible got it wrong and how
enlightened folk, the new Gnostics, now got it right.

We choose to stand under the authority of the Bible, not over it. And we
will not sacrifice truth for the sake of unity; because we know that if we
do, we will end up with neither.

3. The Revelatory Work of the Holy Spirit.

Is it always in accordance with the Scriptures? Or can it amend and even
contradict the Scriptures?

Let me quote again from Richard Peck’s article. “Liberals may agree
with conservatives that God’s Word is the same yesterday, today, and
tomorrow,” he observes. “However, they believe the Word of God is
contained in the words of the Old and New Testaments and one must use
reason, tradition, and experience to find that Word within the words.
Liberals also believe that a living Christ offers new insights into God’s
Word.”

Peck’s article is well-written, seemingly well-intended, objective, and
honest. However, I take exception with the last statement. It is a little
unfair to state that liberals believe in the value of interpreting Scripture
using reason, tradition, and experience without indicating that most
conservatives do, as well.

But my real concern is with the statement that “liberals also believe that
a living Christ offers new insights into God’s Word.” Everyone believes
that. The most conservative Christians believe that it is the ongoing work
of the Holy Spirit to illumine the Scriptures, reveal more of their meaning,
and show us how to apply the eternal Word of God to the issues of our
contemporary time and culture.

But liberals, at least the more radical liberals, go much further than that.
They believe that the living Christ not only offers new insights into the
Scriptures but that he also corrects, amends, and even contradicts the
Scriptures. And it is the church’s right and responsibility to recognize and
codify these new revelations.

As one retired minister in my annual conference said to me, “The church
created the Scriptures so we can re-create them.”

This is where the battle will be fought in the coming years. Did the
church create the Scriptures and therefore now has every right to recreate
the Word of God? Evangelicals do not believe that the church created the
Scriptures. We believe the church received the Scriptures. Through the
work of the Holy Spirit, (and yes, it was a messy process) the church
recognized what God gave to his people to be the canon, the measuring
stick by which all claims of spiritual and moral truth are to be tested and
judged. And we believe God is consistent. He is true to his nature and he is
true to his Word. And we believe he got it right the first time.

We do not believe that when God revealed his Word in the Old
Testament, he was in his spiritual infancy. Nor do we believe that when he
revealed his Word in the New Testament, he was in his spiritual
adolescence. And we most certainly do not believe that God—2000 years
later, now that he’s all grown up and mature—has finally determined what
he really believes and is ready to amend his former writings.

Yes, God does new things. Of course, the Holy Spirit has new insights
for the people of God. But they will always be consistent with what he has
revealed in the past.

4. Uniqueness of Christ.

Do we confess him as the only-begotten Son of God, the unique Savior
of the world, and the supreme Lord of the universe? Or can he be
particularized to our experiences, relativized for a Western culture, and
trivialized into just one of many ways to God?

To confess “Jesus is Lord” is to affirm nothing less than the absolute
uniqueness of our Christ in a world which is full of cosmic competitors.

In the South Central Jurisdiction, we interview Episcopal candidates.
Candidates respond in writing to our questions, we review their responses,
and then we have an hour of dialogue with each one. When one candidate
was asked about the importance of witnessing, he responded that some of
his students did not feel comfortable telling others about their faith. He
stated they feel that to do so is “religious and cultural imperialism.”

He continued, “But I tell them that they can tell others about their faith;
simply because a man says to his wife, ‘You are my sunshine, my only
sunshine,’ it does not mean that other wives are not sunshine for their
husbands.”

I looked around the room and some delegation members were nodding
their heads. I raised my hand and asked, “Are you saying that in the same
way Jesus brings light and truth into our lives, other religious leaders do
the same for others?”

“Yes,” he answered. I pressed him, “So when I say that Jesus is the
Savior of the world, really I’m saying that he is the Savior of my world?”
Again the answer was affirmative. And then he said: “God is wholesale.
Jesus is retail.”

Let me translate for you. God is Tommy Hilfiger. And you can get
Tommy God at Jesus JCPenney’s or Buddha Bloomingdale’s or
Mohammed Macy’s. It doesn’t matter where you get Tommy Hilfiger, it’s
still Tommy. And it doesn’t matter where you get God, any retail outlet in
the mall of universal truth will do—it’s still God.

The good news is that this candidate was not elected to the Episcopacy.
The bad news is that he is a professor at one of our United Methodist
seminaries, teaching men and women how to preach the gospel and save
the lost.

Is Jesus just one of many—one of many guides, one of many lights, one
of many teachers—to be considered as we determine the truth about God,
the nature of reality, and morality?

When you talk about Jesus, you are talking about the one who suffered
thirty-nine lashes, his back torn apart with a cat o’ nine tails studded with
bone and glass and metal, and then nailed to a cross to die the most painful
and shameful death the Roman Empire could devise.

And he did this so our sins could be forgiven and so our hearts could be
changed. He did this so the curtain would be torn in two and we could
walk into the presence of God, washed in his blood and appearing holy in
the Father’s sight. When you talk about Jesus, you are talking about our
Lord and our love and our life.

There is no treasure, no threat, no promise, nor power that can cause us
to deny a single word that the Scriptures teach about who he is or what he
has done for us. He is not one of many guides. He is not one of many
voices. He is not one of many teachers. He is not my sunshine. He is the
sunshine. He is the way. He is the truth. He is the life. He is the one who
reconciles a sinful world and my sinful soul to God. Jesus Christ is not one
of many. He is the one and only.

Not Small Matters

The nature of moral truth, the authority of the Scriptures, the revelatory
work of the Holy Spirit, and the uniqueness of Christ are the deeper issues
—the real issues that divide and disturb the United Methodist family.
These are not small matters that can be ignored or denied for the sake of
unity. They must be addressed or true unity will be impossible.

We will not be made whole by singing “Blessed Be the Tie that Binds”
every four years on the last day of General Conference. I wish that would
work, but it won’t.

We won’t be made whole by denying our differences with nearly
unanimous votes at General Conference that proclaim our unity of mission
when sizable segments of the church are committed to breaking the
covenant that holds us together. Such votes, like a couple of aspirin, may
make us feel better for the moment, but they do not bring long-term health
and wholeness.

We won’t be made whole by people misquoting and misusing Wesley’s
sermon on the “Catholic Spirit” to buttress their belief that beliefs don’t
matter.

We will not be made whole by institutional responses by company men
and women, regardless if they are called bishop, district superintendent, or
pastor, because what we are facing is more than an institutional problem.

Furthermore, we won’t be made whole by getting the language right in
the Discipline, because what we are facing is more than a language
problem.

Neither will we be made whole by getting the right judicial decisions,
because what we are facing is not a judicial problem.

As important as the Discipline and the Judicial Council are, getting them
right will not be enough to make us whole. The people called Methodist
are facing a spiritual problem and we need our leaders to provide spiritual
solutions. We are facing the most important doctrinal issues that any
church can face and we need our leaders to guard the faith and give
doctrinal answers. The problem we are facing is a question of faithfulness,
and we need our leaders to give a response that worries less about being
inclusive of every view and worries more about being faithful to the
Scriptures.

In the past, some of our leaders have acted as if they are charged with
accommodating the faith instead of contending for the faith. We have had
leaders who accept every view no matter how radical.

Some of our leaders seem to believe that they cannot take a stand or
speak out on the controversial issues of the day because they represent “the
whole church.” Some of our bishops have intoned the mantra that they
must represent all views because they are bishops of the whole church. But
for that very reason they must speak and they must speak the message of
the church.

They do represent the church—the whole church. They represent the
church in Africa that has told us that if we change the traditional morality
of the Scriptures we will eviscerate their ability to speak to a continent that
is being courted and intimidated by the ideology of Islam.

If they represent the whole church, surely they know this means they
represent the historic church with its 2000 years of teaching and tradition.
They stand in the line of the apostles and have been given the charge and
granted the authority to guard the apostolic faith.

You never save a troubled institution by refusing to talk about what’s
wrong. You save an institution by doing what’s right. You don’t save a
hurting institution by maintaining the status quo. You save an institution by
changing its present dysfunctional reality. And as important as it is, you
don’t make a divided church whole simply by engaging in dialogues. You
must at some point provide courageous and, if need be, costly leadership
that others will follow.

Like a good counselor, the one thing our leaders must not do is to ignore
our deepest issues or act as if they do not matter. They must lead us to
those issues and they must speak truth to the Church so that, with a unified
voice, we will speak truth to the culture, that the world may believe.

Where are we? We are in a place where band-aid solutions, denial, and
institutional responses will not save us. We are in a place where we need
leaders to lead and we need people of biblical faith to be people of courage
and character.

Rob Renfroe has been the President and Publisher of Good News since 2009. He has been involved in United Methodist renewal and reform for many years, having served as the President of the Board of Directors of The Confessing Movement before taking the leadership role at Good News. Rob is also the pastor of adult discipleship at The Woodlands United Methodist Church in The Woodlands, Texas.