As churches and ministers have been disaffiliating from the United Methodist Church over disagreements about fully including and affirming our LGBTQ2S+ siblings in the life and ministry of the denomination, many of those who are disaffiliating have made the claim that the primary reason they are leaving is that the United Methodist Church is not holding to the “orthodox and historic” doctrines of the Christian faith and that our differing views about human sexuality stem from our deeper disagreements about ‘doctrinal orthodoxy.’

It is not surprising that there are many persons staying in the United Methodist Church who would like to defend the denomination against what they perceive as disparaging comments about our lack of ‘doctrinal orthodoxy’ being made by some who are disaffiliating. In response, there are some persons within United Methodism who are attempting to hold together an affirmation of the “orthodox and historic Christian faith” and full inclusion of persons who are LGBTQ2S+ in the life and ministry of the United Methodist Church.

For those who are attempting to hold together doctrinal orthodoxy and LGBTQ2S+ affirmation and inclusion, I think it is important to remember that the “orthodox and historic Christian faith” denied women ordination, used state sanctioned violence to enforce adherence to its doctrines, and definitely was not LGBTQ2S+ affirming. Fully embracing the “orthodox and historic Christian faith” and fully including women and persons who are LGBTQ2S+ in the life and ministry of the church are not easily reconcilable positions unless you are radically redefining what has been generally accepted as the “orthodox and historic Christian faith.”

The problem with ‘doctrinal orthodoxy’ is that it codifies the theological interpretations of a particular time and place in an attempt to make them true and unchanging for all times and places, thus making it very difficult to engage new theological insights, much less learn from and be transformed by them.

Another problem with insisting on adherence to ‘doctrinal orthodoxy’’ within the Christian tradition is that the doctrines most commonly accepted as ‘orthodox’ were developed within patriarchal and hierarchical cultures that expressed their interpretations of ‘doctrinal orthodoxy’ in patriarchal and autocratic symbols and imagery. These expressions of ‘doctrinal orthodoxy’ have contributed to the difficulty of Christian traditions to accept the equality of all persons regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identities, to let go of hierarchical and autocratic political and ecclesial structures, and to embrace the value of pluralism within a democratic society.

The hierarchical thinking in the cultures in which ‘doctrinal orthodoxy’ came into being was not limited to supporting hierarchies within human society. It also contributed to a view that humans are above nature. It is not an accident that such doctrines were easily coopted to perpetuate systems of domination of both persons and nature.

Rather than adhering to a version of ‘doctrinal orthodoxy,’ perhaps commitment to the Truth is better expressed in a realization that we as individuals, communities, cultures, political groups, and religions will never fully possess the Truth and therefore ought to proceed with great humility about truth claims concerning the what, how, and why of Reality and that which is Ultimate. This is not equivalent to moral relativism as we have significant consensus that we should do no harm to others and help each other flourish as persons. It is an attitude of humility that allows us to appreciate truth, goodness, and beauty in our own perspectives without absolutizing them in ways that diminish the perspectives of others.

I see the sacred writings and traditions of the world’s religions as a vast reservoir of theological insights from which to draw inspiration for a life of love and justice in the world rather than as a completed edifice of unchanging doctrines in which to dwell. I believe that our human community is enriched by religious pluralism. Our society is better when we have persons who orient themselves to religion differently. My hope is that all persons might find the ways to orient themselves to religion that help them become the most loving and flourishing persons they are able to be.

Followers of Jesus would bring more good into the world if we kept our focus on work for love and justice rather than telling people how or what they have to believe in order to experience salvation. Racism, sexism, economic injustice, social injustice, injustice for persons who are LGBTQ2S+, oppression, poverty, violence, war, the climate crisis, and the sixth great extinction will not be solved by doctrinal purity or by the second coming. We will need each other in all of our different beliefs and perspectives as we work together to address the fierce urgency of the challenges we are facing.

Some of the very worst atrocities in the history of humankind have been committed by persons and societies who understood themselves to be doctrinally orthodox. Religious wars, inquisitions, torture, executions, colonialism, slavery, and genocides have been perpetrated by persons and societies who saw themselves as being doctrinally orthodox. If we truly want to follow the way of Jesus, perhaps we need to be less concerned about holding on to doctrinal orthodoxy and be more concerned about loving others, working for justice for all, treating the stranger as a friend, helping the poor, and liberating the oppressed. Perhaps if we cling less tightly to doctrinal orthodoxy, we might be able to free up our hearts and hands to embrace more fully the community of all creation.