Another post in the series – Beyond Soundbites and Towards Holy Conferencing (A Series on the Actions of General Conference). This series includes the topics of Abortion, Clergy Qualifications, Marriage, Israel, Pronouns, and Disaffiliation.
It is a common reaction: “I don’t want my money going to something I can’t support.” In response, I want to start with a perspective on giving in general, using my Annual Conference as an example. Several years ago, our Conference moved away from a traditional apportionment model to a Tithe Initiative, expecting each congregation to tithe. I love the model and witness that this provides.
The tithe represents first fruits, given to support the larger community. The tithe reminds us that we are a part of something bigger than ourselves. As we give in this way, we put our trust in the collective wisdom of the community. We invest in the common good. We give up personal control. And in turn we are blessed beyond measure. The countable funds overflow in abundance and our hearts are opened to the “immeasurable riches of God’s grace.” (Eph 2:7). That’s the hope of this spiritual discipline.
Tithing is a way to acknowledge that we are “the Body of Christ and individually members of it.” (I Cor 12:27). With our first fruits, we build up the whole body with its many and diverse parts, gifts, perspectives, and contexts. At this first level of giving, the goal is not personal engagement with all the ways the resources might be used; the goal is the expansion of ministry and growth in love – love that is patient and kind and serves with a humility that does not insist on its own way. (I Cor 13:4-8). Our giving leads to this transformation within. As a word of caution, withholding can lead to hardness of heart.
At this level of giving, we give beyond our “party,” be it political or theological. We acknowledge that the word “party” is built on the word “part.” We can make a loose connection with taxes and a commitment to the united work of the nation. To only give to support a “part,” or to stop giving because of a disagreement, is dangerous. It can become a disease that infects the whole, opening the way to the destructive spirits of fear, mistrust, division, and other spiritual cancers.
Biblically and positively, we are called to give in a way that illuminates the wideness of God’s mercy. We put our trust in the living God who is at work for good among us, who is “above all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:6). The call is to clothe ourselves “with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another, dealing with complaints with forgiveness, and to clothe ourselves, above all, with love which binds everything together in perfect harmony.” (Col 3:12-17). We are to give in this spirit and to promote this witness (See II Cor 9:6-8). If we only support those things within our narrow level of comfort, and seek to build that up, we miss out on the opportunity to practice this kind of love.
Giving in this way helps us to “grow up,” and keep from being “tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming.” As we give in this way, we build up the whole body, “joined and knit together,” with each part promoting “the body’s growth in building itself up in love.” (Eph 4:1-16). We are called to give in support of this kind of growth. With our first gifts, we are called to give into the community as a whole, and in support of all we share in common. And practically speaking, it helps to realize that, on the whole, a very small percentage might go to that one thing that we don’t like.
As a spirit of schism and division moves among us, with the promotion of parts rather than the whole, one way to avoid the trickery and scheming that Paul talks about is to move beyond soundbites and towards holy conferencing. That’s the title of this series. I believe it is also a way to characterize the calling we have been given. Soundbites on the actions of General Conference – on the topics of abortion, Israel, marriage, ordination, and more — are often meant to stir up more division. Giving as God intends, in faith, is a way to grow up and to be blessed by the “immeasurable riches of God’s grace.”
Beyond the tithe, we also promote offerings, where individuals give to specific projects or causes that are dear to them. This is a good thing. There is room within the whole body for parts to be promoted and supported. However, from a larger perspective, we bring harm to the whole body when we place a priority on these gifts rather than seeing our offerings as over and above the giving of first fruits. This creates stress on the whole, and can lead to an unhealthy competition between parts, driven by a spirit of scarcity rather than abundance.
At General Conference, we did approve a 42% decrease in our connectional budget. While there are many factors that lead to this reality, one is disaffiliation and schism within the larger body. As we build again, there is a need to repair the fractures among us. What would it look like if this was our focus, as opposed to giving energy to the continuing efforts to divide? How can we “grow up,” and do a better job at being the people that God has called us to be? How can we expand the table rather than shrink it down to our comfort zone? How can we glorify God rather than our own opinions? To use an image from Wesley, to build a community around a “part,” rather than the whole, is not only to build our house on sand, but on the froth of the sea.
Another post in the series – Beyond Soundbites and Towards Holy Conferencing (A Series on the Actions of General Conference).This series includes the topics of Abortion, Clergy Qualifications, Marriage, Israel, and Pronouns.
Paragraph 2553 is no longer an option for disaffiliation. And it is true that General Conference did not approve another plan where congregations could disaffiliate based on disagreements with certain positions in the Book of Discipline. General Conference did approve a Reaffiliation Plan to welcome churches home and to offer opportunities to rejoin the United Methodist Church. In some ways, these two acts could be seen as sides of the same coin.
There may still be ways to bless those who want to leave the denomination, and processes could be developed, but looking at these two decisions together, the hope would be for something very different than what we found with 2553. This paragraph, inserted in 2019, caused great harm. It forced us to focus on division rather than unity, disagreements rather than building community, and voting rather than discernment, with a winner-take-all outcome. It assumed that churches were objects that could easily be moved, when in fact the old saying is true – the church is the people. It divided families, friends, and communities. It continued to turn siblings in Christ into issues and problems. It promoted the use of political tactics that do not honor the calling we have been given – to practice the love of Christ, with patience, kindness, and a humility that does not insist on its own way. If we are to be faithful, we can’t be in the business of schism based on disagreements. This is not who we are called to be. (See Eph 4:1-3; I Cor 13:4-8; Col 3:12-17, for starters).
It may be helpful to note that those who disagreed with our policies around human sexuality between 1972 and 2024, did not have an exit plan, nor was one requested. That was not the focus. The focus was on advocacy, conferencing, and working for change, hopefully in a spirit of holy love and commitment to the Body of Christ. As one who would identify as more conservative on these issues, said to one who had worked for these changes (me), “You didn’t leave when you were in the minority all those years. I admire that. Why would I leave now.”
Another factor in not developing a new exit plan based on disagreement is the overall movement towards contextual freedom, rather than forced agreement. With the actions of General Conference, pastors and congregations have more ability to engage in ministry in their particular contexts, as led by the Holy Spirit. The hope is to live more completely into the Wesleyan spirit of learning how to love alike, even if we don’t think alike about everything.
To live into this hope, it is important to move beyond soundbites and mischaracterizations that are often intended to create more division. (This has been the motivation of this whole series). To review one example, we can point to the accusation that we now say that it is okay for single persons to have sex. This is based on the removal of the line, “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness.” This phrase was a part of the qualifications for ordination. The soundbite ignores the statement that replaced this one. In what is arguably a stronger statement, the call is to practice “fidelity, monogamy, commitment, mutual affection and respect, careful and honest communication, mutual consent, and growth in the grace and in the knowledge and love of God.” The point, in this context, is the kind of character and witness we want from our pastoral leaders, rather than focusing on a marriage license. And still, if legal marriage is the concern, we can note that it is affirmed in multiple places in our doctrine and discipline, as the best way to live out this character and to provide the needed legal protections for both spouses and children involved.
If we assume the worst in people, there may be ways to justify behaviors that would not be approved by some, but that could be true with the previous statement as well. People could have claimed that they were not “single,” or turned to the traditional definition of celibacy as meaning “unmarried.” But that was rarely a concern because the primary purpose of the previous statement was to keep some out. As the new statement stands, a high and holy calling is lifted up for all. There is certainly nothing here to warrant schism.
Moving beyond soundbites and towards holy conferencing is key to life-giving discernment. To do this in a way that honors Christ and our calling, we must find ways to limit the false accusations that cause so much harm – including the claims that we now promote immorality, or don’t believe in the resurrection or in the Bible (on this one I would invite you to read the post, “Wesley and Human Sexuality (and his commentary on often cited verses).” If it is up to the Annual Conference to develop a process, strong safeguards must be developed to guide us in a much better direction than we experienced with 2553.
To consider a request to exit the denomination, a review of key sections of the Book of Discipline might be in order, including our Doctrinal Statements, The General Rules, The Ministry of All Christians, and the section on the Local Church. Based on this understanding of who we are, the questions might be: What is it that leads you to a desire to move in a different direction – beyond one concern over recent decisions, which do not force any changes in how a congregation engages in ministry? Is the room for mutual support? Is there a way to come to an agreement that does not dishonor the sacrifices of generations and a future United Methodist witness within the community?
As was mentioned, General Conference called upon every Annual Conference to develop a plan for Reaffiliation, in a “spirit of grace.” This is what we are about! Welcoming! Practicing Hospitality! Supporting one another in mission! Being in ministry together, as a part of a connection that is larger than our own expression! Learning how to love alike, even if we don’t think alike about everything! Understanding that a methodist is not distinguish by our opinions or styles, but by the love of God written upon our hearts, to paraphrase Wesley’s words. This is who we are!
We would love to help congregations that previously disaffiliated, to begin a process of discernment, which might include an assessment of the General Book of Discipline and our core understanding of who we are, along with an understanding of what it means to be a part of a connection. Stay tuned for more information, as this process is developed.
This series is intended to give a more complete and graceful read on the actions of General Conference in 2024, and to help us move beyond the soundbites and critiques that are often meant to stir up more division. It has been written with input and support from the delegation of the Arkansas Conference of the United Methodist Church.
Topics include Abortion, Qualifications for Ordained Ministry, Marriage, The Israel-Palestine Conflict, and Pronouns. The complete series, to date, is below:
General Conference and Abortion
In some communications circulating about what happened at General Conference, what is being said about Abortion is particularly shocking. On this topic, we read that General Conference affirmed a “right to abortion,” renounced “abortion bans,” and adopted an overall position that is “pro-choice.” The words in quotation are in the commentaries. They are not, however, found in the actual statement that came out of General Conference.
In the statement from the Social Principles, there is one sentence that says, “In these limited circumstances, we support the legal option of abortion.” This is not described as a “right.” It is a conviction shared out of love and concern. The limited circumstances include when the life of the mother is in danger and there are no other medical treatments and when severe abnormalities threaten the viability of the fetus. The whole statement shares a “commitment to the sanctity of human life.” It “unconditionally rejects it as an acceptable means of birth control or a mechanism for gender selection.” It “supports measures requiring parental or guardian…consent.” It opposes “late-term or partial birth abortion.” It urges the seeking of “medical advice and pastoral counseling…” It also speaks against “bullying or shaming people for their decisions or actions.” There are also strong statements in support of access to reproductive health, especially for those who often have limited access. There are statements supporting treatments for infertility. There are no statements about “abortion bans” and the phrase “pro-choice” is not used at all.
In one letter that is being circulated, we read of how the following words were deleted: “We are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child” (a statement from the previous Social Principles). With the new and revised Social Principles, vetted through multiple sessions of holy conferencing around the world, these exact words are not there. The sentiment, however, is expressed throughout, speaking of “the sanctity of life,” the “tragic conflicts of life with life,” and “the life of the fetus.”
In this context, it may be worth comparing our statement to that found in the Social Witness of the GMC. On the topic of abortion, the GMC statement is relatively short. It is only two sentences long. It uses the term “sacredness” instead of “sanctity.” With a similar statement of exceptions, it “compels us to resist the practice of abortion, except in the cases of tragic conflict of life against life…” It says, “we do not accept abortion as a means of birth control or gender selections,” where the Social Principles of the UMC uses the phrase “unconditionally rejects.”
The GMC statement could possibly be considered a brief summary of the much more detailed and arguably stronger UMC statement. It would be so very-extremely-incredibly wrong to use this brief statement to stir up division, without conversation, based on what it does not say or to make it say something that it doesn’t to support one’s own agenda. That would be deceptive, to put it mildly. At the very least, the differences here are not enough to warrant schism and the great harm that that causes within the Body of Christ.
To prepare for holy conferencing, and at the beginning of this series, it may be helpful to note that the Social Principles of the UMC do not carry the weight of doctrine or foundational teachings. They are “not church law” but instead “represent the prayerful and earnest efforts of the General Conference to speak to issues in the contemporary world from a sound biblical and theological foundation.” These principles are “intended to be instructive and persuasive in the best of the prophetic spirit,” while recognizing that the church is a “living body gathered from the many and diverse parts of the human community,” with a calling to love one another well in the midst of diverse understandings. For a brief comparison, the preliminary Social Witness of the GMC, to be brought to their convening Conference, is intended to offer a “consensus vision transcending cultures” with expectations for congregations and those in leadership to affirm, endorse, and subscribe to the positions therein. In preliminary documents, it will require a three-quarters majority vote at the convening General Conference to make changes to the statements.
For more information, a draft of the Revised Social Principles is linked here. The final version is being prepared for publication. The full statement on this topic can be found on pages 28-29.
General Conference and Clergy Qualifications
When it comes to who Churches and Boards of Ordained Ministry can consider as candidates for ministry, one restriction was removed. That one restriction centered around the word “incompatible” for one group of people. Now candidates can be considered based on their calling and character, faithfulness and fruitfulness, without this one barrier standing in the way. Putting this in context, it is worth noting all the qualifications that remain. The qualifications to be considered for ordained ministry include faith in Christ, gifts for ministry, affirmation of the holy scriptures, accountability to the doctrinal standards of the church, and more. This list is long and life-giving for the church as a whole. In all of the rhetoric, with much of it intended to cultivate division, this context is important if we are to make faithful decisions.
General Conference also removed the statement that called clergy to practice “faithfulness in marriage and celibacy in singleness.” This has led to accusations of opening the door to polygamy, fortification, adultery, and immorality, even when there are other statements that directly address these concerns. Putting this in context, it could be said that the call to a moral life was strengthened, not weakened. The General Conference added a call for “fidelity, monogamy, commitment, mutual affection and respect, careful and honest communication, mutual consent, and growth in the grace and in the knowledge and love of God.” What blessings might come if our ministry focused on the cultivation of these values for all? This statement opens the way to evaluate relationships by much more than a marriage license, especially when, up to this point, some legal marriages would not have been recognized by the church because of a statement that was used to keep people out.
Since much of the negative rhetoric is coming from those committed to the GMC, it may be good to make some comparisons. Most of the qualifications in their statement resonate well with those of the UMC. On this one consideration, the GMC statement calls for “fidelity in a Christian marriage between one man and one woman” and “chastity [rather than celibacy] in singleness.” In the GMC, this criteria also extends to laity serving in the church. In the experience of pastors, more and more couples who have come to talk about getting married are older and already partners together. That is reality. Some are active in the church and perhaps called to explore ordained ministry. Depending on how this rule was enforced, they could not be considered. General Conference, in 2024 and in the contexts in which we find ourselves, has opened the way for us to name and encourage the values that are life-giving for all, and to affirm the blessings of marriage for all who feel called into this commitment (which will be the topic of the next post).
General Conference and Marriage
Information beyond soundbites may be the key to the faithful work of finding agreement, building consensus, and making faithful decisions. What does the Book of Discipline say about marriage? Marriage is affirmed as “a sacred and lifelong covenant,” a union with “one another and into a deeper relationship with God and the community of faith.” This is important because it calls those getting married in the church to be a part of the faith community. In terms of policy, it might be helpful to start here, trusting that marriages in the church would be for those whom some in the congregation, including the pastor, would have already given a blessing. A relationship would have already been formed.
Our new principles allow for the understanding of marriage to be between two persons or between one man and one woman. This change opens the way to consider matters of human sexuality with humility and to focus on the virtues that are life-giving for all, rather than a double standard for some. It allows us to remain true to the primary purpose of marriage, in the Wesleyan tradition – to grow in holiness and to “reflect a continued willingness to grow together in Christ…and cultivate a covenantal bond that encompasses intimacy, grace, and love.” We can turn once again to the call for “fidelity, monogamy, commitment, mutual affection and respect, careful and honest communication, mutual consent, and growth in the grace and in the knowledge and love of God.” (For more on this statement see the previous post on Clergy Qualifications; that is the context for this understanding of the values needed for a healthy marriage and life-giving relationships in general).
Next, there is an affirmation of civil marriage, the legal recognition of domestic unions by the state which is vital for guaranteeing family stability, regulation of inheritances, and assuring the rights, benefits, and protections for spouses and children. This is why marriages through the church also require a license. With the expansion of our understanding, room is made to bless marriages in different cultural contexts and to honor the norms and laws in different countries. One country does not get to dictate the practices of another.
There is so much more within the statement, including paragraphs on child marriage, polygamy, and a careful statement on divorce, which “may become a regrettable but necessary alternative when marital relationships are strained beyond repair or become destructive…” It is made clear that “we do not support efforts to withhold ministry from divorced persons…”
In making faithful decisions, it may be helpful to note what the GMC says. There is one short statement: “We believe that human sexuality is a gift of God that is to be affirmed as it is exercised within the legal and spiritual covenant of a loving and monogamous marriage between one man and one woman.” One question might be: Is this the only way to understand human sexuality? From a UMC perspective, human sexuality is expressed in many ways, from our style and dress to our natural attractions, to how we interact with one another. It can be expressed through our desire for intimacy at all levels of relationship, from holding hands, to a kiss, to decisions about commitments and how we might express the values listed above. The affirmation, support, forgiveness, grace, and teachings of the church can be helpful all along the way.
Within the GMC Provisional Discipline, marriage comes up in one other place, in the non-discrimination policy for lay persons in ministry. We read, “There shall be no discrimination on the basis of gender, race, color…” and then there is one exception: “As a part of our witness, individuals employed by the church shall subscribe to the doctrinal and moral standards of the Global Methodist Church and give evidence of the same in their life and ministry.” And early version of this statement interpreted and added these words – “including faithfulness in marriage, understood to be between one man and one woman, or chastity in singleness.” A person who may not fit into this strict definition cannot serve in ministry, regardless of calling, character, faithfulness and fruitfulness.
As an update to the document, the Judicial Council recently ruled that clergy hold the responsibility for deciding whether they will perform the religious marriage service of a couple within the church. Wedding Policies cannot circumvent this authority. At the same time, as our bishops have said, pastors are expected to “exercise their authority with deep pastoral sensitivity to the congregation and community to which they are appointed.” This means that Holy Conferencing is always in order. Rushing into a vote is often divisive and causes harm. As we have with so many tensions that have surfaced within the church, we can approach these tensions with grace. They do not have to divide us.
For one more new statement, the Book of Discipline says that no one, pastor or congregation, will be “penalized for performing or refraining from performing a same-sex wedding.” As with so many statements in the Social Principles, the hope is to make room and give grace. The focus is more on how we treat one another than it is on giving hardline stances. The hope is unity, not division. As we navigate this new territory, It might be helpful to compare our life together in a faith community with that of a marriage, remembering that the scriptures also use this analogy. What might this look like? How might we navigate our discernment together through this lens? How might we love with patience, kindness, and with a humility that does not insist on its own way?
General Conference and the Israel-Palestine Conflict
The way this conflict is being used in soundbites, for the purpose of cultivating more division, needs to be challenged. In one document that is being shared, it is reported that the General Conference voted “to lobby the U.S. government to end military aid to Israel.” The insinuation is that the UMC is anti-Israel.
One petition that is being used to cast shade on the UMC, in its original form, focused on the lack of “a just and lasting peace for the Palestinian people.” (Resolution R6111, found in the Book of Resolution since 2004). Through the committee debate, this was changed to “both peoples.” The original petition urged “the U.S. government to end all military aid.” This was changed to “all governments.” Even the original petition did not say military aid “to Israel,” as the report claims,” but “in the whole region.” The call was to redistribute funds to support the work of “humanitarian health and educational work…” The resolution calls for support of ecumenical and interfaith bodies that advocate for Palestinian self-determination, while affirming “Israel’s right to exist within secure borders.” It calls for “the Palestinian Authority and Palestine religious and political leaders to continue to publicly condemn violence against Israeli civilians and to use nonviolent acts of disobedience to resist the occupation and the illegal settlements.” This, and the other resolutions that deal with this conflict, are calls for peace, according to the call of Jesus and the scriptures.
It is important to note that this came to the Conference in the form of a Resolution. Any and every United Methodist can submit a resolution to be considered with the title of their choice. We should not be drawn in by the title alone. The Israel-Palestine conflict was the subject of several resolutions that were debated and voted upon in committees. On the whole, these resolutions are non-binding and have no financial implications. Those that pass (sometimes with significant alterations) become the perspective of the majority within the committee at General Conference, offered for guidance and discernment – not as law.
Given the nature of Resolutions in general, and the content of these resolutions, there does not seem to be enough to warrant calls for more division among us. All of us can find resolutions with which we would disagree, or at least would restate in another way. They are offered for guidance and discernment, from elected delegates from around the world. They do not justify schism and the harm that brings to the body of Christ.
General Conference and Pronouns
In response to videos that are circulating to show people introducing themselves at General Conference, with the intent of stirring up division, it is important to remember that there were thousands of speeches at General Conference, on the floor and in committees. These videos, making the rounds on social media, show a selective and small sampling. They are acts of deception. The slow cadence that is highlighted and made fun of was encouraged as a way to honor the many languages represented and to assist interpreters. The encouragement for each speaker to identify themselves as clergy or laity, along with their conference, age, ethnicity, sex, and with other identifiers important to the speaker, was about making room for all voices and honoring all children of God. This was monitored and on one day it was reported that just over 50% of those speaking at mics that day were female, which was a first in the history of General Conference. It is sad to see people making fun of what could be described as an intentional effort to model the very kin’dom of God.
In many gatherings in our world today, there are those who encourage the naming of pronouns as a part of the way we introduce ourselves, typically using the phrase, “my pronouns are he-him, she-her, they-them, he-they, etc.” This was not required at General Conference, nor was it something asked for by the monitors. Many did choose to add these identification markers. From the perspective of many, receiving this graciously and with an open heart was (and is) a good thing. Even if there are only a few (or even only one) who prefer non-binary pronouns, giving such grace can be seen as a way to love one another well. Even if there is disagreement, why dis-grace this perspective? What purpose is served by casting negative perceptions with words like elitist, woke, and accusations of not believing in the Bible? These are some of the comments that are being widely shared among us. Truth is found in a more complete and gracious read.
This past Sunday we celebrated Trinity Sunday, which sparked these reflections (which were shared in our weekly church newsletter). In my mind, these thoughts seem so relevant in a time when the spirits of division and fear are so active among us.
As United Methodists we believe in the Trinity. It is the first doctrinal statement in our Articles of Religion. All of our official creeds are written in trinitarian form, and we use one of these creeds in all of our worship services almost every Sunday. In the sanctuary, we also sing the doxology regularly, giving praise to our triune God.
My question right now is “so what?” How does this affirmation affect our actual living? First of all, this understanding helps us to know that God is always bigger than any one perspective or description. The God we worship is more than creator, savior or spirit, judge, redeemer, or sustainer, parent, friend, or bestower of gifts. No one name will suffice, when trying to comprehend the fullness of a God whose ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). This perspective helps to keep us humble, curious, and open. It has the power to spark a desire to grow in the ways of God (Psalm 85:10-13).
For another answer, this understanding of God gives us an option to the binary way of thinking that gets us in such trouble. Either/Or, Win/Lose, Red/Blue, In/Out. The outcome of this perspective too often leads to division, judgment, competition, exclusion, and so much fear. Is there a better witness?
What would a trinitarian witness look like? Within the Trinity we see cooperation rather than division, mutual trust rather than competition, grace rather than judgment, inclusion rather than exclusion. Within the Trinity, the value is not power over others; the value is love. And we know what this love looks like. It is patient and kind. It serves with a humility that does not insist on its own way (I Cor 13:4-8; Eph 4:1-6). It is so different from a witness that calls for uniformity of opinion rather than unity in love.
I invite you to take a moment and reflect on these two different witnesses? Which perspective gives glory to God, honors Christ, and bears the fruits of the Holy Spirit? Which perspective is more likely to be life-giving for relationships? Which perspective comes closer to illuminating the fullness of God?
We believe in the Trinity! So what? “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you” (2 Cor 13:14).
Let me count the ways for why I am proud to be a United Methodist in this moment and give thanks to God:
* Because the word “incompatibility,” as it has been used to create a judgement and a barrier only for some, is gone!
* Because barriers have been removed that have kept us from considering candidates for ministry based first on calling and character and commitments to Christ.
* Because we have new Social Principles that focus more on how we are to treat one another rather than offering hardline stances that divide and are intended to be general enough to find meaningful application in different contexts and cultures.
* Because we can now more freely promote values and virtues that are life-giving for all, rather than setting up a double standard for some.
* Because a path has been opened to practice ministry in ways that honor different contexts and cultures, while also emphasizing our unity in mission and in sharing a Wesleyan witness in the world.
* Because there is a spirit of grace among us that honors those who are not as eager to celebrate yet are willing to give room for this and who continue to be in community. Thank you! After General Conference 2019, I (and many) had to make decisions about staying/remaining/abiding, as Christ calls us to do. Reasons included those that we have heard in recent appeals from the Conference – a resolve to share convictions in a spirit of trust, humility and grace, in great appreciation for a community of faith where we can struggle together and love one another even as we disagree. This is the United Methodist way. It is hard. It is beautiful. And it is sometimes pretty messy as well.
* Because there is room for all in the wideness of God’s mercy. And as human beings we all need this!
How might you name this joy? What language would you use to invite others into this hope, and into a new season of ministry as the UMC?
General Conference is in the books! It was historic, messy, and beautiful. Worship with siblings from around the world was profoundly centered in Christ, deeply rooted in scripture, and sooo inspiring. The spirit of the Conference was like nothing I have experienced before in this setting.
Throughout the Conference, there was an attentive gracefulness to hearing the gospel shared through a wide diversity of perspectives. There was an intentional effort to make room for all voices. And the “wideness of God’s mercy” was lifted high. From my perspective, it was inspiring to see delegates live into this practice of radical hospitality that started with introductions that allowed persons to identify themselves as clergy or laity, along with their conference, age, ethnicity, sex, and with other identifiers important to the speaker. This practice helped all of us to be attentive to the goal for a balance of voices and to help us all reflect on our own place at the table.
It has been hard to read attempts to dis-grace this work with name-calling and accusations. I wonder what purpose was being served by casting such negative perceptions with words like elitist, completely corrupt, radically liberal, woke, and accusations of not believing in the Bible. I could venture a guess.
Some big decisions were made, and much of the attention has centered around matters of human sexuality. While this accounted for only a few of the petitions before us, these were big! So much of our focus has been around these matters. In my opinion, we are able to set some things right.
I was blessed to work on the Faith and Order Committee which brought forth legislation to remove harmful language that has served as a barrier to some for decades. Now the door is open to consider all candidates based on their calling and character, faithfulness and fruitfulness. While one barrier was removed, it is worth noting all the qualifications that remain. The qualifications to be considered for ordained ministry include faith in Christ, gifts for ministry, affirmation of the holy scriptures, accountability to the doctrinal standards of the church, and more. This list is long and life-giving for the church as a whole.
We approved language that gives pastors and local churches agency and freedom around marriages of same-sex couples. No one will be penalized for performing or refraining from performing a same-sex wedding. The language is now neutral. From my personal perspective, some leaders are making a little too much of how congregations don’t have to change anything. While that is true. I also think this is an opportunity to invite change. This contextual freedom will give us an opportunity to focus on the virtues that are life-giving for all when it comes to marriage, rather than being bound to a double standard that has caused great harm to some.
I love the perspective of one who identifies as “conservative” saying that the rules that have been in place were not only restrictive but were also condemning. By removing them we are simply making the church look more like the kin’dom of God. To sum it up in a sentence, the word “incompatibility,” as it has been used to create a judgement and a barrier only for some, is gone! Glory to God.
We approved new and revised Social Principles. I love the way these principles focus more on how we are to treat one another rather than offering hardline stances that divide. These principles are intended to be general enough to find meaningful application in different contexts and cultures.
There does seem to be a powerful propaganda machine with the purpose of causing further division in the Body of Christ. For one example, I saw a report that we now promote polygamy, with the follow-up question, “What’s next?” This came with a quote of the general statement on human sexuality in the Social Principles, while leaving out the statements directly on marriage that include the word monogamy, and a direct statement saying that we do not condone polygamy.
Others have said that we now promote immorality, when in fact we strengthened our understanding of morality rather than weakened it when it comes to marriage and sex. We added words calling for fidelity, monogamy, commitment, mutual affection and respect, careful and honest communication, mutual consent, and growth in grace and in the knowledge and love of God. This came out of my committee as well.
For a personal commentary, the Greek word often translated as sexual immorality is the word “pornia.” It could be defined as any attempt to turn another child of God into an object or an issue, to be used for personal pleasure or gain. Attempting to define this word by only pointing to one group of people may just be the heighth of immorality. There is nothing biblical about this projection.
Moving on. 2553 is gone! May healing come from the great harm that was caused and may we confess our role in this as a conference. We may be able to find ways to bless those who desire to leave the UMC, but I hope we never again endorse and implement a process for congregations to vote in this way, especially when the winner takes all. That never felt very Christian to me. And by virtue of my position in the Conference I have directly seen the great harm that was caused – and yes, our own policies and the way we implemented them are implicated as well.
On the last day, and after days of debate, a budget was approved that amounted to a 42% decrease. This is a “rubber hits the road” acknowledgement that we are moving into a new season as a denomination. We will have to find new ways to live into our calling. Perhaps we have no choice but to see this as an opportunity.
And perhaps the biggest development of all was the passing of a plan for regionalization and the concept of giving contextual freedom to engage in ministry, while supporting one another in mission and in the calling to be a Wesleyan witness in the world. This concept, contrary to some reports, had broad support at General Conference across the board, including from Central Conferences in Africa, the Philippines, and Europe.
To close for now, I want to say that it was an honor to be in the room where this all happened and to play a small role in it all. The whole delegation was amazing and worked, prayed, worshiped, and played hard – and a lot of this happened long before we arrived in Charlotte. Thanks to the Arkansas Conference for entrusting me and us to this holy task.
And during conference, some of us got together and made the decision to change our Facebook forum from “Arkansans Staying United” to “Being UMC Arkansas.” Here’s to Being UMC! The new season has begun! May God be glorified!
Many have heard this post-Easter story recently in worship, found in John 20:24-29. The anxiety was high. The disciples had locked themselves in a room, worried about what would happen next. And Thomas was really acting out. We can hear him going off, giving ultimatums about what he would do or not do if he didn’t get what he wanted. He says, “Unless I see the nail marks with my own eyes, I will not believe.”
We can make some loose comparisons to the times when we give anxiety-fueled ultimatums to God. “Oh God, if you will just do this (we can fill in the blank) then I’ll make a commitment – as if faith was transactional. Or we might think of church conferences, like the upcoming General Conference, where it can be tempting to make ultimatums about what we will do or not do if certain decisions are made. Many are experiencing this anxiety right now.
In this light, there are a couple of things to note in this story. First of all, note that Thomas is still there. He stays connected to the community of faith, even with his uncertainty and fears and demands. It is also worth noting that he is not willing to believe what the other disciples believed about the resurrection – not in that moment. But we get the sense that this is okay. He is still there, included in the community.
Secondly, if we read it carefully, we notice that Thomas does not do what he said he would have to do to believe. The risen Christ appears to the disciples, behind the locked doors, and says, “Peace be with you.” Shalom. It is a word that suggest harmony and coming together and it is the first word spoken by the risen Christ in this moment. It sets the tone for what resurrection means for us. And then Christ speaks directly to Thomas. Christ offers to him exactly what he said he wanted. “See my hands. Touch my side.” But there is no indication that Thomas does any of this. He seems to have forgotten his ultimatum. He simply exclaims, “My Lord and my God.”
In this lesson, Christ speaks of those who will believe without seeing. That would be us. Thomas was able to see, but he discovered that faith is not found in seeing or receiving some sterile proof. Thomas comes to believe because of an experience with the risen Christ and the peace that comes from this relationship. Thomas receives presence more than proof. He encounters God’s steadfast and eternal love, and this is so much more than the answers he had demanded. We are able to come to faith in this same way, as the living Christ continues to come and reveal this love for us, in us, and through us.
Like with Thomas and the first disciples, may we be given the grace to turn from our human arrogance and turn to the One who has opened the way to so much more. May our encounters with the living Christ move us beyond locked doors of fear, beyond our personal assumptions and biases that can cause harm, and into a commitment to love more fully, with patience, kindness, and with a humility that does not insist on its own way. May we be less focused on answers and more on questions that will lead us into life-giving relationships with those who come up with different answers than we do. This is the kind of believing that God wants for us.
At General Conference, delegate-disciples from around the world will be confined together in a room. There will be a diversity of answers proposed, along with a variety of expressions of faith. It will produce anxiety. It can also be seen as beautiful, with the possibility of being a life-giving witness to the world. May the living Christ, who is our peace, be encountered and may we all be moved to a bigger faith.
I was at the funeral of a beloved aunt and will admit walking into the familiar funeral home with much pain. This pain was mostly work related, and for me work means church. I was surrounded by extended family and was particularly sensitive to how tensions in relationships, often around matters of life and faith, are felt in such settings.
It was also an opportunity to sit in a pew and receive. I took solace in the Hymn “When We All Get to Heaven.” As one who studies hymns and uses them regularly for devotion, I reflected on this one as memorials were given. This hymn, by Eliza Hewitt, debuted at the Great Auditorium just outside Asbury Park in New Jersey. It is a place known for the Methodist camp-meeting movement and famous for being a place where early American hymnody developed. Just think of this hymn and add Blessed Assurance and Great is Thy Faithfulness, to name a few. The street leading up to Great Auditorium is called the “Pilgrim Pathway,” referenced in the hymn.
“Sing the wondrous love of Jesus. Sing his mercy and his grace.” At the funeral God’s love was a theme. We heard from I Corinthians 13 and were told that this was read repeatedly during the last season of life. We really can’t get enough of this — this hearing that love is patient and kind, not arrogant or rude, and does not insist on its own way (verses 4-5).
I sat there and reflected on how some do not feel welcomed at occasions like this because of the judgement that is felt. I hear this a lot. It is hard knowing that you will be judged, not by character or calling or a desire to be faithful, but by dimensions of one’s life that are a part of your incarnate being. It can be hard to know that you are seen, even in church and family circles, as an issue rather than as a person. It is hard to be in an environment where some see “insisting on our own way” as a mark of courage and even righteousness. As I reflected on the love being described, it became clearer to me that the weight of concern must go to those who feel hurt and harmed. Love demands that.
“While we walk the pilgrim pathway, clouds will overspread the sky.” Oh yes. It can seem that the clouds can overcome the light. I thought of the line in I Corinthians 13 of how we see dimly in the present age and can only know in part (verse 12). This is truth. This is the arena that makes love even more important, even essential for life. And still, it is hard to be humble in this way, especially when there are such loud voices calling for something so different. As I reflected, I wondered if this reality could be a call to sing even more of love, mercy, and grace, especially in the midst of cloudy confusion – internal and external.
And this leads to the call – “to be true and faithful, trusting, serving every day.” My aunt was described with words like this. I was especially drawn to the word “elegant.” I had never thought of this virtue as something to which I needed to aspire, but I was inspired by it. Refined. Graceful. Sophisticated. Beautiful in a way that causes others to appreciate and aspire. This was all true of her, in a worldly sense, and in a spiritual sense. I liked this new thought of spiritual elegance. I was truly moved when one family member used the description of wisdom in the book of James. “The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace” (James 3:17-18). That’s it! I want to practice this kind of elegance. And I also know that there are those around who can be especially helpful in showing the way.
“When we all get to heaven.” All! That is such a good thought. There we shall “tread the streets of gold.” I recall the commentary that pointed out the political reality of this image. In the world, golden streets would only be for those behind the walls of power and privilege. In God’s economy, all will walk along this pathway together.
It will be so good to walk among those who have been so transformed that they (we) will be able to practice spiritual elegance in this way. In the meantime, may we be among those who are able, at least at times, to give “just one glimpse” of this “beauty we’ll behold.”
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.
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?
Connected In Christ 