Closed Hearts, Closed Doors, Closed Minds

 As a former Methodist I was sad to hear that the Methodist Bishops have concluded there is no compromise available on the issue of non-heterosexual marriages and clergy so the church will split.  The conservative wing, those who will not support same-sex marriage and homosexual clergy, will establish a new Methodist Church known as the Global Methodists.  As I recover from my sadness I begin to laugh.  So much for the motto, “Open Hearts, Open Doors, Open Minds.”

In 1785 Methodists officially opposed slavery and called for emancipation.  Southern Methodists fought back and the church at first mollified its position, then reinforced the original position.  Members of the church who supported slavery, left the church.  In hindsight, it should be safe to say that bigotry drove the split.  Today is no different.  Those who not only do not recognize the existence of the LGBTQ community are splitting from a church that recognizes same-sex marriage and heterosexual clergy.  Geeze.  Some Methodists are slow learners and the new “global” church shall be scorned in years to come by those who continue to have imaginary friends.  For some, politics and religion are a sacrilegious mix worse than gays and straights.

(I would further suggest the moniker for the new churches should be "Provincial Methodists," as the term "global' implies a worldwide view and liberal thinking.)

As the new church begins its lobbying efforts to attract current Methodists to join them the issues will look like they are logistical:  what happens to church property?  What happens to established fund balances?  etc.  Moot as far as I am concerned.  The issue is bigotry versus love and acceptance as equals those humans who are different from the majority, the same issue present in discussions of racial bigotry.  Rejecting a person because of their race is the same process as rejecting someone because of their sexual preference. 

No doubt both sides will rail against the other side citing Bible verses and interpretations to sanctify their sanctimonious positions.  I find that equally laughable as the Bible is so full of conflicting statements that almost anyone can find a verse supporting their particular point of view.  I would simply point out that those who support inerrancy and the literal so-called truth of the Bible stand on shakey ground if they do not support stoning to death anyone who has premarital sex, anyone who commits adultery, anyone who gets a divorce, and anyone who disobeys their parents.  The 4,000year-old Bronze Age philosophy reflected in the Bible is simply not appropriate for the 21^st Century any more than the owner's manual for a Model T is useful for reference on a model Tesla.

It may not be immediately obvious, but I suspect this split will accelerate the growth of the fastest growing group in American religious categories:  The “None.”  As science advances, as fact replaces faith, in fact, faith only exists without facts, the number of people opting out of organized religion is escalating.  If facts confirmed Christianity everyone would be a Christian.  Or, if prayers were answered there would be no doctors.

Still, for mostly historical and sentimental reasons, I regret to see the split.  I have long held that there is no such thing as a conservative Christian and this split continues to prove my point.

Regardless of faith or lack thereof, I support Open Hears, Open Minds, and Open Doors.  Those who judge others by superficial characteristics and/or characteristics determined at birth, who would build walls against other people, who would exclude other people from a place at the table, and who would perceive that some humans are superior to others are not the people who will advance humanity in generations to come.  They represent roadblocks to improvement and to faith.