Mirroring the soceity as a whole

Before Christmas my friend and debate partner wrote in response to my look at the options the United Methodist Church has in dealing with the gay issue:

I think the answer to "can we come to terms with the gay issue?" is no. I deduce that by examining this quote:

"The UMC, partly because it is the second largest Protestant denomination (after Southern Baptist Convention), mirrors the society as a whole."...

This is simply not true as stated. For example, a lot of Americans are detached or even alienated from organized religion -- surely UMC thinking does not encompass the thinking of such people, for it is religious in nature and spirit.

But this quote was undoubtedly written for an audience involved in and committed to organized religion. Is it then true?

If we assume that in context the writer really meant "The UMC... mirrors the religiously involved (church / synagogue / mosque / temple -attending, e.g.) portion of society as a whole", well, that is also untrue, for only Christian concepts and models are in play in the UMC.

Might the writer have really meant "The UMC... mirrors Christian (or Protestant) society as a whole"? I'm not Christian and cannot offer an expert opinion, but I perceive the full breadth of Christian thinking (e.g. on gay issues) as far broader than is found in the UMC and, at the same time, more divided into strictly defined narrow-minded channels -- channels that do not interact. I'm thinking here of Catholic, evangelical and other self-righteous self-involved views. If these channels are all present in the UMC, they are at least interacting (conflicting?) and up for broad cross-examination. That doesn't mirror the society.

By now I doubt there is any truth at all in the original quote. Perhaps its just the view of a writer who thinks his own views mirror the society as a whole -- that is, of a writer who is "right".

But no one is "right" in this debate, except relative to their own specific assumptions, stated or not. The factions have contradictory base assumptions that inevitably lead to conflicting conclusions. They are really not communicating with each other at all, nor apparently wish to do so.

First of all, the writer of that sentence was me, trying to (perhaps clumsily) condense a more complex thought that was incompletely stated in the original. Let me clarify what I intended (even if the original author didn't).

The UMC … mirrors society as a whole on the issue of what to do with gays. Within the denomination are leaders (including most bishops, but they don't create denomination policy) who believe that gays should be a part of all aspects of the church. They should be allowed to be pastors (and bishops). Their loves and commitments to life partners should be honored and affirmed by our pastors in our buildings just like any straight couple. Their view is as progressive as any outside the church.

Also within the denomination are members and leaders (probably including some of those on the judicial council, the denomination's high court) whose view of gay's sinfulness is as extreme as the Fundies in other denominations. The denomination is already going too far in the scraps of acceptance that have been tossed to gays to keep them in their place.

And all the viewpoints in between are represented among the members. So, yes, the UMC, when discussing gays, does mirror the society as a whole. Both ends of the issue are represented in the society, whether religious or not. And, no, the diversity of opinions about gays is not far broader outside the denomination than in. Also, no, this is not strictly a Christian issue. Jews struggle over it too with various groups taking the same ends of the issue.

The issue will not break apart the Southern Baptist Convention because the official policy is that gays are not welcome and dissenters are shown the door. Instead the SBC may shrink until it is irrelevant. The issue also won't break apart the United Church of Christ because as a liberal denomination they have already said that gays are welcome at all levels. It is only in churches like the UMC which don't dictate much doctrine and thus allow both liberal and conservatives to be included, that may split over the issue or may suffer a decline because they allow conservatives to rule on the gay issue.

My friend is right in one aspect. The factions are not communicating with each other about gays and the only wish to do so is to tell the other side they are wrong.