Methodist leaders shouldn't kick the can

By Jeff Long

"I don't think we can kick the can down the road and let our grandkids solve that problem."

The epigram above is a familiar sentiment. Most of us will understand immediately what "kicking the can" means. To "kick the can" is a colorful and mildly critical way of describing what happens when work is delayed or deferred on a task or an issue.

I'm hoping, without a lot of optimism, that my denomination, the United Methodist Church (UMC), won't kick the can again -- this coming weekend.

Finally, the United Methodist faithful have been led to believe, we will have a decision on human sexuality at a worldwide meeting of United Methodists, to be held Feb. 23-26 at America's Center in St. Louis.

For as long as I've been a part of United Methodism in Missouri, dating back to my entry into the system in 1991, the rules have been clear. "Self-avowed" and "practicing" homosexual persons are not permitted to serve as clergy. Gay marriages may not be officiated by UMC clergy nor may such unions be celebrated in UMC churches. But the landscape has changed. There are U.M. clergy who are gay. Not a guess. A fact. Such unions have been celebrated in U.M. churches. Again, factual. And, what is really bringing the issue to a head for the world's second largest Protestant faith group, an openly gay ordained minister, Karen Oliveto of San Francisco, who is married to a woman, was elected as a bishop in July 2016, and is now serving in the UMC's Western Jurisdiction.

The rules are clear. What is just as clear is that the rules are being violated. So, what do we do about the rules now? That's what next weekend is supposed to resolve. The temptation to kick the can again will be immense. Any decision made in St. Louis will probably mean a split in the denomination -- and few want that outcome. Unity is the song being sung by all, but unity is unlikely if any decision is made.

Without getting into the theology of it, which will take many more words than this newspaper will reasonably allow, and without getting into the weeds about the three options available for the St. Louis decision makers, here's the fear: that nothing will be done.

Leaders lead. They make a choice and let the chips fall. It's time for this to happen in the tradition that green-lighted my entry into ministry long ago. I am retired and no longer serve a congregation, and I look on this process as an older man with cautious optimism but also a lingering sense of dread. Dread that unity will be elevated over a clear direction for the U.M. church, a church whose overall numbers are declining in the U.S. but are rising in Africa.

Unity, we're told, is the goal. But unity at what price? Those who fail to take a stand, whatever it is, ultimately stand for nothing.

I have an opinion which is formed by my theological understanding. More to the point, my hope is that the decision makers will choose a certain outcome. But in the main -- I just want an outcome. My fear is we won't get one -- that the well-meaning leaders in St. Louis, serious and loving people all, will decide that "the issue needs more study." That's not leadership. Please, friends, stop kicking the can.