In a recent development that has sparked significant conversation within the United Methodist Church (UMC), a progressive advocacy group known as Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN) has stirred the pot by using female pronouns to refer to God in a communication to its supporters. This email, sent out to commemorate the anniversary of a pivotal UMC General Conference vote, has reignited discussions around theology, gender identity, and inclusivity in the church.
RMN, an organization dedicated to advocating for the inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals in the UMC, highlighted the ongoing struggles faced by queer and transgender individuals within the church. In their email, they noted, “We wish we could say that this was an ending — a happily ever after for LGBTQ+ folks in our Church.” They emphasized that while progress has been made, many still face discrimination, particularly in ordination processes and from church leadership.
The use of female pronouns to describe God is a significant departure from traditional Christian language, which predominantly employs masculine pronouns. This shift has drawn criticism from conservative theologians. Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion & Democracy, expressed concerns about the theological implications of RMN’s language. He stated, “Scripture and Christian tradition use masculine pronouns for God while citing some feminine qualities. Citing God as ‘she’ or ‘mother’ is more pagan than Jewish or Christian.” This perspective highlights the tension between traditional interpretations of scripture and modern understandings of gender and identity.
Founded in the early 1980s, RMN has worked tirelessly to change the UMC’s stance on LGBTQ+ issues, which have historically labeled homosexuality as “incompatible with Christian teaching.” Over the years, many congregations have affiliated with RMN, becoming “Reconciling Congregations” that support its progressive agenda. However, this movement faces internal challenges, as indicated by the UMC Judicial Council’s ruling that individual congregations could not align with unofficial advocacy groups.
The email also pointed to the broader societal challenges faced by LGBTQ+ individuals, stating, “the world is more dangerous for queer and trans folks than it’s been in a long time.” This sentiment resonates with many advocates who argue that the church must take a more active role in addressing these injustices.
In a related development, a former RMN employee filed a complaint alleging wrongful termination and gender identity discrimination against the organization. This incident underscores the complexities of navigating identity and advocacy within faith communities. Although the complaint was later withdrawn, it raises important questions about inclusivity and the treatment of individuals within advocacy organizations.
As the UMC continues to grapple with its identity and mission in a rapidly changing world, the discussions surrounding RMN’s recent email reflect a broader conversation about the role of language, identity, and inclusion in the church. The question remains: How will the UMC reconcile its traditional teachings with the evolving views on gender and sexuality held by many of its members?
For those interested in exploring the intersection of faith and LGBTQ+ advocacy, resources such as the Human Rights Campaign and the United Methodist Church’s official website provide valuable insights and information. As the dialogue continues, it is clear that the journey toward inclusivity and understanding within the church is far from over.