Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it

While not surprising, given all we've learned this semester, the comparison between how the United Methodist Church handled/handles issues of racism and how the church handled/handles issues of sexuality are striking.  We've discussed issues of slavery/race already, but we haven't discussed the debate regarding sexuality as much.

Richey outlines the the inception and continued debate over issues of human sexuality from 1968 - 2000.  He notes that the UMC, as progressive and forward thinking as the church seemed to be about some things, also housed a more conservative contingent.  This perhaps isn't surprising either, as some of the rhetoric coming out of the temperance movement appeared pretty conservative too, but in contrast to the progressive energy from parts of the denomination, it stands in contrast.  Richey goes on to say that the UMC was resistant to the socio-cultural environment post World War II, particularly related to sexuality.  After hearing the current debates on this issue, it makes sense that the UMC has always resisted properly addressing this issue.  His description of how the language of "incompatible with Christian teaching" ended up in the Principles, and the BOD, fascinates and horrifies.

As Richey outlines the debate on whether or not the sexuality of a clergy person matters, I was struck by the reaction of the COB in 1984.  Even then, there was resistance to claiming any authoritative response to issues of sexuality; by saying each conference can do its own thing, there was seemingly no leadership on how the UMC should actually address the issue.  This book stops in 2000, but as we've seen every quadrennium since, this issue gets more and more polarizing.  The COB was asked in 2016 to take a stand on this issue by identifying a path for the UMC to address this issue so we can move on, one way or another.

Given the history of the UMC and how we have dealt with this issue for the last 40 years, I wonder what it will look like to have the COB, based on the Commission, take a stand and give us a direction in which to go.

I also wonder how Wesley would have seen this issue, how he would have handled it.  I used to think that he would be all about inclusion, making disciples, and all of that, but after learning in this class all of the nuanced limitations placed on leadership, I'm not so sure he would advocate for the ordination of not straight humans.  That said, he wouldn't have been okay with ordaining women either, so it's probably good that his preferences aren't the only guide marks in our denomination/theology.