The Central Untruth that Unravels Centrism

The Uniting Methodists met over the last two days in Georgia, and I didn't attend.  I like most of the people associated with the caucus group, and find their goal of discerning a solution that will save the United Methodist marriage to be noble.  However, it is pretty clear that their efforts are doomed; and they are doomed for one central reason.

Compatibilism is not a theological position.

According to the "centrists" there are essentially four theological positions in the UMC with regards to the question of affirming the practice of homosexuality.  Tom Berlin, says more here, but the gist of what he says is this:

• Position 1 is progressive non-compatibility, meaning one believes that full affirmation of the practice of homosexuality is the correct course of action and the only solution is for every UM church and every UM pastor is fully affirming LGBT practice.

• Position 2 is progressive compatibility, meaning that one believes that full affirmation of the practice of homosexuality is the correct course of action, but is willing to let individual churches and pastors make their own decision.

• Position 3 is traditional compatability, meaning that one believes that full affirmation of the practice of homosexuality is not the correct course of action, but is willing to let individual churches and pastors make their own decision.

• Position 4 is traditional non-compatibility, meaning that one believes that full affirmation of the practice of homosexuality is not the correct course of action, and that churches and clergy should be held accountable to the current standards of the denomination.

Here in lies the problem.  Compatibilism, by definition, is not a theological position.  Because there are only two possible theological claims with regard to the full expression and practice of homosexuality:

• Claim A: God can be glorified by the full expression and practice of homosexuality. (Given a kind, self-giving, committed relationship)

• Claim B: God can not glorified by the full expression and practice of homosexuality. (Even in the presence of a kind, self-giving, committed relationship)

Now, it is legitimate to be unsure which of these claims is true.  But it is wholly insincere to suggest that both claims can simultaneously be true.

Compatibilism is a strategy of progressives to keep the institution together, with the assumption that those who do not agree with them will one day "grow up"

And honestly, it is far and away the best strategy for UM progressives.  But it is a strategy, not a theology.

Because a sincere progressive is unwilling to let the official position be that churches within their denomination may exclude an expression of God's creativity and grace.

And a sincere traditionalist is unwilling to let the official position be that churches within their denomination celebrate sin.


A Caveat

I do believe that there is a significant number of people who find the evidence muddy and have chosen to withhold judgment, and for this group especially compatibilism is very attractive.  Why not let both my friends on the right and the left do what they feel is right?

But even for the person who finds the evidence inconclusive, compatibilism should be a frightening proposition, because compatibilism institutionalizes relativism.  How can the official position of the church be that M Barclay and Rob Renfroe are both right?


To be fair, I don't think the Uniting Methodists are actually saying that both M and Rob are right.  I think what they are actually saying is that M is right, but that we don't have the guts to tell Rob he is wrong.  Which gets back to the whole issue of truth telling...