Month: October 2023

Building Upon the Rock as United Methodists

This post was inspired by a comment on my personal Facebook page yesterday. It was deleted by the author so I have generalized my response.  At the end is a quote from Wesley that is worth much pondering, in my opinion:

To all who call us to bless one another and move on as we divorce, I want you to know that you never lost my desire to bless you. This hope is still there. I did not want this divorce. I do not believe it is a good witness. I wish we were still “arguing” at Annual Conference together and I lament if there is anything I said or did that made you come to the conclusion that divorce was the answer.

Even when I was in the strong minority with my advocacy for those who continue to be harmed by our current stance in the BOD, I did not threaten to leave or want others to leave. This goes against our calling, as I see it, to be a witness to a love that is patient, kind, and humble; a love that does not insist on its own way; a love that is not arrogant or rude, a love that leads with less judgment and more compassion; a love that keeps vows and seeks to grow in this same love especially when disagreement occur; a love that honors contextual freedom for engaging in ministry and honors where people are on their faith journey; a love that seeks first to understand; a love that does not end in divorce, disaffiliation, and so much demonizing; a love incarnate in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Drawing upon Wesley’s word, Jesus Christ is the rock, whose character does not change, who remains faithful, and who calls us to build our lives upon the love given to us. As we all live into the harm and hope of disaffiliation, I continue to be blessed and challenged by this word from Wesley, which captures a consistent theme in his witness. I quote it directly, and please forgive the lack of inclusive language:  “How nearly then does it concern every child of man, practically to apply these things to himself! To diligently examine what foundation he builds, whether on a rock or on the sand! How deeply are you concerned to inquire, ‘What is the foundation of my hope? Whereon do I build my expectation of entering into the kingdom of heaven? Is it upon my orthodoxy, or right opinions, which, by a gross abuse of words, I have called faith? Is it upon my having a set of notions, supposedly more rational or scriptural than others have?’ Alas! What madness is this! Surely this is building on the sand, or, rather, on the froth of the sea!” (See Matthew 7:21-27 and Wesley’s 13th Discourse on the Sermon on the Mount).

I truly hope to be a part of a church that strives to build upon the rock and not the froth of the sea. This is why I remain faithful as an Elder in the United Methodist Church. May we move onward in this way.

Affirming the Connection and the Role of the Annual Conference (2553 and one more special session)

In recent rulings the Judicial Council has affirmed connectionalism in the strongest terms, calling it “a distinctive attribute of Methodism,” and “a bedrock principle of United Methodist constitutional polity.” It is “the opposite of congregationalism.”  Connectionalism is “the universal thread out of which the temporal and spiritual fabric of the Church is providentially woven, creating the relational ligaments that wonderfully link and sustain the diverse parts of the community of all true believers under the Lordship of Christ.” 

In hearing this assessment at a recent Conference, I asked why ¶2553 was ruled constitutional when connectionalism and the trust clause have been so beautifully upheld in other decisions. The answer has to do with the required vote of the Annual Conference.  The Annual Conference can set the criteria and allow congregations to step out of the connection. The Annual Conference, however, cannot separate from the General Church as a whole, per Decision 1444. As a body, the Annual Conference represents and affirms the connection. 

This explains a lot. It explains why the Annual Conference passed “principles” rather than “rules” for how we hoped the process would be followed. It explains why cases get passed on to the Annual Conference even when some believe that the process was not followed, or deadlines were not met. As we have interpreted and practiced this process, the Annual Conference is the decision-maker.

In this coming special session, for example, there are questions about several congregations that started the process after the recommended deadline based on the “minimum three-month discernment period” and the principle that “all materials…must be submitted to the Conference Trustees a minimum of three weeks before the Annual Conference session…” In a confusing statement, we read that a minimum three-month process begins with the initial contact from a congregation, but this is followed by the expectation “that the congregational meetings will be conducted over a full three-month period, since discerning a vision for God’s purpose requires both time and prayer.” While questions can be asked about how our principles are followed, we can assume that the Annual Conference will decide how we want to deal with timeline issues. (And for an update, the website will distinguish those received before and after the 3 week deadline).

The responsibility is great!   Motivation to vote comes from multiple considerations – concerns about the winner-take-all outcome, whether we help or harm our future witness, avoiding future conflict, honoring majority votes, and commitments to connectionalism, to name a few.

Members of the Annual Conference must decide! Next Sunday will be our last vote using ¶2553.  After this is over, may United Methodists come together and discern how to move forward as a connected witness, where all relational ligaments are woven together to create a life-giving witness to the love of Christ. Isn’t that a beautiful thought?