Recently, eight teenagers went through confirmation classes at a United Methodist Church in Omaha, Nebraska, and when the time came for them to join the church, they said thanks, but no thanks. Instead, on Easter Sunday, they read a letter to their church explaining their reasoning. The reason for the decision didn’t have anything to do with their Omaha congregation. Their church had taught them that “gay families were just like any other family”; that people were of differing gender identities and that was OK; that taking part in the Pride Parade was an expression of community involvement; and that there is nothing strange about having a woman for a pastor. These children had fond memories of their church, of Vacation Bible School, back to school picnics, and they were taught that church was a place for children. They felt loved and affirmed by their congregation in every way. 

The problem was not with their local church. The problem was with The United Methodist Church. They were disappointed in the direction the denomination decided to take in St. Louis regarding the “Traditional Plan” and its attitude towards LBGTQ+ clergy and laity. It was decided then that The United Methodist Church should start rigidly enforcing its insistence that the practice of “homosexuality” is incompatible with the Christian faith; that “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” would not be ordained; and that any clergy member who performed a same-sex wedding would be brought up on charges. The Judicial Council of The United Methodist Church upheld these rules in its recent decision. 

Those in support of the “Traditional Plan” and the enforcement of the rule on homosexuality apparently saw this as an implicit status confessionis. This means homosexuality is seen by many as an issue that puts the integrity of the Church’s witness to the gospel at risk. The General Conference in St. Louis was a call for a clear and public declaration on the issue of homosexuality as something worth dividing over. 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer evoked status confessionis in response to Hitler and the Third Reich. The church in South Africa used status confessionis in response to apartheid. In the intervening period, Karl Barth made a distinction between status confessionis and adiaphora. Adiaphora is something that is debatable or even spiritually neutral, but not something that merits schism. The question that must be determined by United Methodists in the light of decisions made in St. Louis is this: Is the issue of homosexuality to be seen as an issue that merits status confessionis, or is it a matter of adiaphora, something non-essential and indifferent? 

In the nineteenth century, groups left the Methodists no less than ten times over issues ranging from questions about episcopal authority to whether Black Methodists should be allowed to own their church buildings where they could worship separately from their White coreligionists. But there was only one instance that called for a “plan of separation”—slavery. In 1844, a slave-owning bishop was elected, which prompted a schism that created the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church South. Slavery, like the Third Reich and apartheid in the following century, was seen as something that merited status confessionis. The question that now plagues The United Methodist Church is whether the issue of homosexuality does too.

Those supporting the Traditional Plan argue that the issue of “homosexual practice” is a matter of status confessionis. The argument runs something like this. Homosexuality as an orientation is not in and of itself sinful, but the practice of homosexuality is. Whether homosexuality as an orientation is a matter of nature or nurture is immaterial to the argument. You may be a “self-avowed homosexual,” but if so then you must be celibate or in extreme cases go through “conversion therapy” to change one’s orientation. The practice of homosexuality is seen as the issue that becomes a status confessionis. There are no other options and no allowances for conscience. 

On the other hand, there are those who see the issue of homosexual practice as an example of adiaphora. This issue is indeed debatable, and space should at least be created for conscience. Same-gender attraction is something you are born with, like having blue eyes. You can’t “pray the gay away.” The life of celibacy should be a vocation or a choice, not something that is forced upon an individual. LGBTQ persons should be given the option of celibacy, in the same way as their heterosexual Christian siblings, such that should they not choose celibacy then they should also be allowed to see same-gender attraction as an equally legitimate expression of their humanity as heterosexual relationships. They should also be allowed to enter into the covenant of marriage. This is not a matter of status confessionis. “Homosexuality” and “heterosexuality” are not simply choices one makes. They are the way gay and straight Christians live in the world. 

Seeing this issue as a status confessionis forces individuals to make difficult choices. It forced a group of eight teenagers to make a collective decision and take a stand. After a year of learning about the Christian faith and clarifying their personal beliefs, they decided to take a pass on church membership. The reason? They were disappointed about the direction The United Methodist Church is taking. They were concerned that if they joined at this time it would send the wrong message. They did not want to covenant with a denomination where LGBTQ+ clergy and same-sex marriage are deemed immoral. Put another way, the issue of “homosexuality” is not a matter of status confessionis but one of adiaphora. They closed their statement with this: “Because we were raised in this church, we believe that if we all stand together as a whole, we can make a difference.” 

“And a child shall lead them.” 

Image: Eight members of the confirmation class of First United Methodist Church of Omaha, Nebraska, read a letter to their congregation on Easter Sunday to say that they've decided not to become members of the church at this time. (Photo Credit: First UMC Omaha)