Contested Spaces – Bishops, Conferences, and Policy Debates
Leadership within the UMC has often found itself at the heart of the LGBTQ+ inclusion debate. Bishops and other leaders have faced the challenge of balancing their roles as enforcers of church law with their personal convictions about justice and equality. The Letter to the Clergy of the Rocky Mountain Conference (1981) provides a compelling example of this tension. Written by Bishop Melvin E. Wheatley Jr., the letter defends his decision to appoint Julian Rush, a gay man, to a pastoral role in the Rocky Mountain Conference. Wheatley’s letter is both a theological reflection and an institutional argument, asserting that sexual orientation does not diminish one’s calling to ministry. He frames his decision as consistent with the church’s broader mission to love and serve all people.
The article After Wheatley, What? explores the aftermath of Bishop Melvin E. Wheatley Jr.'s decision to appoint Julian Rush, an openly gay pastor, to a position in the Rocky Mountain Conference of the United Methodist Church. Published following the controversial 1981 appointment, the article examines the broader implications of Wheatley's actions for the denomination, highlighting the deep divisions within the church over human sexuality and the role of LGBTQ+ individuals in ministry.
Bishop Wheatley’s appointment of Rush sparked widespread debate, as it directly challenged the UMC's official stance that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” While some viewed Wheatley’s decision as a bold act of justice and theological integrity, others criticized it as a violation of church law and an erosion of traditional values. The article reflects on how this moment became a flashpoint, bringing the church’s internal struggles over inclusivity, doctrine, and the authority of bishops into sharper focus.
After Wheatley, What? contextualizes this decision within the broader cultural and ecclesiastical debates of the time. It considers the impact of Wheatley’s actions on future leadership decisions, the role of regional conferences in addressing LGBTQ+ issues, and the growing momentum of grassroots advocacy for LGBTQ+ inclusion within the church. From an archival perspective, this article captures a critical turning point in the UMC's history, offering insight into the complexities of navigating change within a global denomination. It serves as a vital record of both the courage and the conflict that have characterized the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights in the church.
A Model for Thinking Theologically About Homosexuality by M. Kent Millard, presented to the Dakotas Area General and Jurisdictional Delegates of the United Methodist Church in 1980, is a pivotal document that reflects the denomination’s efforts to engage in thoughtful, theological exploration of human sexuality. Written during a time of growing tension and polarization over homosexuality within the church, Millard’s report offers a framework for engaging with these issues through education, dialogue, and reflection rather than immediate doctrinal decisions or conflict.
The report emphasizes the importance of theological reflection guided by the Wesleyan Quadrilateral—Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Millard suggests that understanding homosexuality requires integrating biblical interpretation with insights from behavioral sciences, historical analysis, and personal testimony. He critiques approaches that rely solely on literal readings of Scripture, arguing instead for a nuanced understanding that accounts for the historical and cultural contexts of biblical texts. This approach encourages the church to consider not only what the Bible says but how its teachings can be applied with compassion and justice in contemporary society.
One of the report’s most significant contributions is its call for congregations to engage in study and dialogue as a means of grappling with the complexities of human sexuality. Millard recounts how his local church in South Dakota held study sessions using resources like the Kinsey Report and theological materials to inform their conversations. These discussions, which included diverse perspectives, revealed the value of creating spaces for open dialogue, where members could wrestle with their beliefs in a safe and respectful environment. The report underscores that such processes are essential for fostering understanding and reducing fear and prejudice within the church.
Millard’s report also addresses the tension between personal convictions and institutional policies, particularly regarding ordination and the appointment of LGBTQ+ individuals. While affirming the need for moral and spiritual discernment, he argues against blanket prohibitions or assumptions about a person’s worthiness for ministry based on sexual orientation. Instead, he emphasizes the importance of assessing individuals on their gifts, graces, and calling to serve.
This report is reflective of the UMC’s history, capturing a moment when the denomination sought to navigate deep divisions over LGBTQ+ inclusion. Its emphasis on theological reflection, education, and dialogue offers a model for addressing contentious issues in a way that prioritizes relationships and shared faith over polarization. The report’s enduring relevance lies in its ability to frame complex debates within a process of thoughtful and compassionate discernment, challenging the church to embody its mission of love and justice.
The California-Nevada United Methodist Review from April 1999 illustrates the United Methodist Church’s ongoing struggle over LGBTQ+ inclusion, focusing on the repercussions of the holy union ceremony for Jeanne Barnett and Ellie Charlton. Held earlier that year, this ceremony, officiated by 69 UMC clergy, was a bold act of defiance against the denomination’s prohibition of same-sex unions. The review provides a comprehensive examination of the controversy, documenting the formal complaints filed against the clergy involved, the reactions of church leadership, and the broader implications for the UMC.
The review situates this event within a larger conversation about the UMC’s identity, mission, and ability to navigate cultural and theological change. Bishop Melvin Talbert’s response to the complaints reflects the tension between upholding church law and addressing what many viewed as a moral injustice. While referring the complaints to the Conference Committee on Investigation, Talbert also called for ongoing dialogue and discernment, emphasizing the need for the church to wrestle with the complex realities of human sexuality in a spirit of compassion and humility.
The document also highlights the role of district convocations in fostering dialogue among clergy and laypeople. These gatherings, described as opportunities to “name the elephants in the room,” aimed to address the deep divisions within the conference over LGBTQ+ inclusion and the broader implications of the church’s policies. By focusing on open communication and relationship-building, the convocations sought to model a way forward for the denomination.
The Confessing Movement Newsletter, April-July 2018 provides a window into the theological and cultural tensions within the United Methodist Church during the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The document reflects the Confessing Movement’s efforts to preserve what it considers the core tenets of traditional Christian doctrine in the face of evolving societal attitudes, particularly regarding human sexuality. This movement arose as a response to what its members perceived as a drift away from biblical authority and orthodox theology within the UMC.
In this particular newsletter, the Confessing Movement focuses heavily on the ongoing debates over homosexuality within the denomination. The document critiques proposals to adopt more inclusive stances, such as the removal of restrictive language about homosexuality from the Book of Discipline or allowing local congregations to decide their policies on same-sex marriage and ordination. It positions these efforts as a departure from biblical teaching and a threat to the unity and doctrinal integrity of the church. The newsletter also highlights key legislative efforts, the role of bishops, and broader cultural shifts, reflecting the movement's broader goal of steering the UMC back toward what it sees as a more faithful adherence to scriptural authority.
At the same time, the newsletter emphasizes the importance of upholding accountability within the church. It calls for stricter enforcement of existing church law and critiques what it views as the failure of some clergy and conferences to adhere to denominational standards. Through its tone and content, the document underscores the Confessing Movement’s dual role as a theological watchdog and an advocacy group for traditionalist perspectives.
This newsletter displays the strategies, rhetoric, and theological underpinnings of one of the denomination’s more conservative factions, providing insight into the broader cultural and religious forces shaping the church’s debates on human sexuality. This document complements other archival materials by illustrating the deep divisions within the UMC and the efforts of various groups to influence the church’s direction.