Tag: Calling

“Can You Imagine?” A Stay UMC Presentation

I’ve been the speaker at several meetings within the discernment process on disaffiliation. Here is a written version of a new presentation, inviting people into a vision of what the UMC is and can be. It is centered around questions that start with “Can you imagine…?  

“Can you imagine being a part of a church that is built around core doctrines that connect us to the holy catholic or universal church, while at the same time, invites us all to “think and let think” around concerns that do not strike at the foundations of our faith?”

There are 30,000+ United Methodist pastors in the US. We keep hearing about a handful of examples of those who have stood at the edges of theological interpretation in some way. The vast majority of us fall within a broad middle with a shared commitment to the historic orthodox faith of the church and have given our lives to sharing this faith. It is a lie – an official fallacy – to take isolated examples and to generalize those to include others. That is wrong. It does not build up the Body of Christ. And this is not to say that some of these perspectives are wrong; it is to say that they do not necessarily reflect the whole or that you must affirm them. That’s not who we are.

The United Methodist Church stands rooted in the historic and core doctrines of the holy catholic church, and in this rootedness, we honor the perspectives and interpretations that grow out of this shared faith. We “think and let think,” to use Wesley’s language, trusting that the Holy Spirit is at work among us to keep us centered as a whole and aligned to God’s will, while also trusting that sometimes this work of the Holy Spirit is a call to appreciate the spirit of those who are serving on the edges.  It might be that perspectives from the edges of doctrinal interpretation serve a valuable purpose. Such perspectives can help to keep us all humble and growing. And to be clear, such perspectives will always be found within the larger church. Disaffiliation will not stop that. In this light, perhaps what we need is more spiritual courage to honor those who think differently and to spend less energy trying to shut them out. The energy being put into excluding and dividing through this process is so spiritually damaging, in my opinion – to the church, to our witness, and to our own souls.    

“Can you imagine a church that makes room for all and invites all into a life of faithfulness and love?” 

As United Methodist Christians, we have a history of honoring diversity within the Body of Christ. We see this as a blessing. Since we are here to talk about disaffiliation over matters of human sexuality, and since this is the only legitimate reason for disaffiliation right now, I want to share my perspective, and ask you to discern if we can still be in communion together, even if you have a different perspective.  That is a key question. I start by saying that I do not understand matters of sexual orientation and identity. I believe we need to approach this topic with a lot more humility and less judgment.  I also believe that we need to focus more on the things that we can all affirm as a community of faith. We can affirm values that we know are life-giving for all – monogamy, faithfulness, commitment, and the virtues summed up with the word love. This is a perspective deeply rooted in scripture.

And when it comes to assessing who can be a leader in the church, I stand with those who want to focus on calling and character, rather than making blanket judgements around personal identity that would keep us from even considering one’s calling and character. Setting up double standards like this falls short of faithfulness, in my opinion. (And I’ve written more on this scriptural connection. If you want more see my post of Wesley and Human Sexuality, Parts 1 and 2).

I also want to say that disaffiliation will not bring an end to this debate.  I had a conversation recently with something committed to disaffiliation and joining the GMC. This person was in a church where the music director was gay. This person wanting to disaffiliate loved this music director and genuinely appreciated his giftedness and the spirit he brought to worship. I pointed out that, in the GMC, a gay person who wanted to live in a faithful relationship with another and grow in God’s love through that relationship, could not work in a church, even as a lay person. That would be grounds for dismissal.

That’s just one example. I also want to let you know that recently I had a Baptist pastor and then a Church of Christ pastor come to me and say that the same questions are surfacing in their congregations and they both said, in different ways, how much they admired the UMC because we could talk about it.  Being able to struggle through this together in love was seen as a good thing.

“Can you imagine a church that honors the call to hold one another in love, with patience, gentleness, and humility, being eager to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace?” (Ephesians 4:1-3).

The Apostle Paul begs us to live our lives in the light of this calling. We are called to a higher unity, represented by something more than uniformity of opinion. Our unity is to be rooted in a holy love that is patient and kind. It is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way, as the scripture says. That is a needed word for us in the midst of this discernment. In an environment or bubble where all think the same, there is less of an opportunity to practice these virtues. From a spiritual standpoint, we would miss out on a central need for us to be shaped in the image of Christ.

In a letter from the Council of Bishop around this tension, we read: “We cannot be a traditional church or a progressive church or a centrist church…Our churches must be more than echo chambers made in our own image arguing with each other while neglecting our central purpose.”

And, then we read, “Instead, we must be one people, rooted in scripture, centered in Christ, serving in love, and united in the essential [of our shared faith].” I love that and think that it is worthy of our commitment. Giving this witness would truly glorify God. And note – this is an official word from our leaders.

And to be clear, and in light of key scriptures like this, there will not be a time when any congregation will be “forced” to do something against what they believe is right. That is just not who we are.  Some of us are asking, however, that the church give the freedom to engage in ministry as we feel so led, when it comes to these matters, just as we give this freedom in so many ways.  We do want to be transparent about this hope.  

“Can you imagine a church where clergy and congregations covenant together to hold all property in trust for the purpose of serving a larger mission that is bigger than any of us?”  

There is this idea, deep in our culture, that we should own our own property and “control our own destiny.”  In response to this, I want to affirm our calling to be in covenant together to share the gospel as United Methodist congregations. I like knowing that I can go to any United Methodist Church and say, “That’s my church.” “I am a part of this community of faith.”  “We share in ministry together.” 

Together, we have built a global church that makes such a difference in the world. We can think of UMCOR, Global Ministries, United Methodist Women (now United Women in Faith), United Methodist Men, Africa University, Discipleship Ministries, World Class Seminaries, Colleges, Camps, Retreat Centers, and Hospitals just to name a few. Let’s build this witness rather than tear it down.   

To divorce yourself from this will raise more questions, not less. In one conversation like this, someone said, “But we would still be methodist, right? Just not United? I had to tell her that the church would have to decide at that point who you were and what you believed and what your policies would be and how you would secure pastoral leadership and so forth. Would you practice open communion? What liturgy and hymns would you use? The questions that will need to be answered will be endless. It is a good thing, in my opinion, to be rooted in the larger church where some direction can be given, where there is a foundation upon which to build, and one that gives you a lot of freedom to respond to your calling and community needs. You may not get that same freedom in another denomination. You may agree with a stance in one area, but what about the next one or when the next generation has a different view?  

“Can you imagine being a part of this Christ-led witness?”

I could go on… with thoughts about Scripture, Doctrine, General Conference, Seminaries…And I have written about many of these topics…But I want to end this formal part of the presentation by asking again: Can you imagine being a part of a church where we are one people, rooted in scripture, centered in Christ, serving in love, and united in the essentials of our shared faith.  Can we rise up to this higher calling and indeed give this good witness to the world – a witness of unity rather than divorce and division, a witness of understanding and care for one another rather than insisting on our own way? Can you imagine continuing to be a part of that kind of witness? You are invited to join the multitudes of us who want to make this light shine, believing that God is calling us into this work. Can you imagine?

Our Calling Amid Possible Schism

IMG_4576The decision is in.  While I was hoping for a different result from the Judicial Council, I don’t believe we can blame the messenger.  I do wonder if they grieved over this decision, knowing that it would contribute to the schism that is likely to come.

Before General Conference, I wrote about Wesley’s view on schism.  Now I find myself revisiting his advice from a different perspective.  At the end of his sermon, “On Schism,” Wesley acknowledges that leaving a church, or forming a new church, can mean multiplication rather than division. It can be good for the body of Christ, as long as this move is not motivated by condemnation or personal comfort.  Withdrawing into “like-minded camps” is generally not the best way to glorify God.

In this sermon, Wesley actually defends heresy. It is a bit shocking – and very relevant for us today. Different perspectives – even factions or heresies – serve a positive purpose within the body of Christ. A variety of perspectives teaches us how to love and how to break bread together. There is likely some level of “heresy” in all of our stances and opinions.  Acknowledging this in humility leads us into life-giving community.  On the other hand, claiming right belief, and making this the focus of what it means to be the church, only breeds self-righteousness and creates “a present hell for those involved.” That’s Wesley’s take.

So where does this leave us? We are in a strange place where those who advocated for biblical unity are in the minority. After this ruling by the Judicial Council, the green-light has been given to a plan that moves us from unity in love to uniformity by law, with strict mandatory penalties, strengthened definitions that cause harm, and accountability taken away from bishops and the annual conferences. (If you are following the process, this is all old news).  I am glad that the provision for requiring oaths to serve in certain leadership positions was ruled unconstitutional, but it was still the will of the majority at General Conference. On the issue at hand, there is no room to do ministry from a different perspective. Those who want to make this room are being asked by many to “just leave” – or be subject to the new “inquisitional court” that will be established. That is where we are.

So, what’s next?  As we work through our grief, my hope is that we will join with others and focus on the calling God has given us – to bear one another in love and seek true unity of spirit (Eph 4:1-6).  Let us increase our resolve to make room for all, including those with traditional, centrist, and progressive perspectives, as we seek to listen and learn together, in respect and grace (that is possible and truly glorifies God), and in light of our current conversation, especially work to honor the gifts of our LGBTQ+ siblings and make room for them.  Let us promote a high(er) view of scripture where we honor the whole and seek God’s intended message in our time, using the royal law of love as our guide.  Let us affirm Wesleyan Holiness, defined through the virtues of humility, patience, and gentleness, as oppose to holiness defined by judgment of others, and zeal for our own righteousness.  Let us promote a strong sexual ethic rooted in the values of monogamy, faithfulness, and the virtues summed up with the word love.  Let us work towards policies built on a shared ethic of calling and character, as opposed to policies that make judgments around personal identity.   In sum, let us join with others to form a church that glorifies God.

Yes, some sort of division or “branches” is likely at a denominational level.  I hope that this possibility will increase our witness to the values we share. I believe that this is the calling we are being given, in this time, as we stay open to God’s work through us.

Pastor Michael, Would You…? (Personal Responses on Ordination, Marriage, Incompatibility, and the Way Forward)

IMG_4577Would you vote to approve someone for ordination if part of their identity was characterized as LGBTQ? 

In answering this question from our Way Forward Bible Study, I start with matters of calling, character, and competencies, as well as faithfulness, and fruitfulness in ministry.  As United Methodists, we have a long and involved process for this discernment, which includes seminary, psychological evaluations, internships, residencies, with lots of written responses and interviews along the way. Many who start the process do not end up ordained.  If someone is deemed to have a clear calling, evidence of faithful character, and who bear good fruit in ministry, it would be hard for me to not affirm them for ordination. As a part of the above criteria, I would have trouble voting for anyone who wanted to use ordination to push a particular personal agenda. Ordination is for those who submit to a higher calling to proclaim and teach God’s word to all, to share the sacraments with all, to order the whole church for ministry, and to cultivate opportunities for others to serve Christ. This is not a position to be used to promote a personal agenda.  After this discernment, I would also trust the bishop and cabinet around issues of making appointments. This is already a consideration at many levels – divorce, multiple-marriages, violation of covenants and repentance, and to be totally honest, we still deal with issues around ethnicity, gender, language, and theological orientations, all in consultation with congregations who are able to share what they want in a pastor. Finally, if a person was actually asked about their sexual orientation, it might be worth hearing someone say that they are a “self-avowed practicing Christian” and that their sexuality, wherever it might be on the wide spectrum of sexual orientation, was submitted to this primary identity and that they were seeking to engage in all relationships in ways that honored this calling.  In my mind, that would be refreshing and would help all of us focus on our higher calling.

Reflection Questions:  What are your expectations of a pastor?  What is the pastor’s role in a congregation? (These are the issues that have led us to this General Conference. In the midst of them, we are called to find common ground in values at a higher level.  When we do that God is glorified).

“Would you participate in the marriage of a same-sex couple?

In answering this question, I must start with the purpose of marriage as outlined by John Wesley and his commentary on scripture. Beyond “repairing the species,” as he called it, the purpose of marriage is to “further holiness.”  In other words, marriage is an institution where we can cultivate the virtues of holiness – patience, forgiveness, gentleness, humility, self-control, peace, and joy. That’s what makes marriage good for individuals and for society as a whole.  In Wesley’s language, marriage is meant to “temper” us.  In working with any couple, I want to encourage them to make a commitment to practice faithfulness and to grow into this kind of holiness.  If a same-sex couple expressed interest in a relationship with the church as a way to cultivate these commitments, I would feel led to invest in them.  From here, we would engage in a discussion about current disciplinary restrictions and ways to honor this commitment without violating the covenant we share in a global church with diverse perspectives.  In this discussion, I would lift up the call of all Christians to sacrifice their own feelings and opinions in order to build relationships with others.  I would invite this couple to respect those who desire to support more traditional understandings of marriage.  I would share some of the implications and blessings of being in a global church, with diverse cultural perspectives. In this light, I would share my preference for keeping the traditional and beautiful liturgy for marriage intact, while at the same time, express my hope for being able to offer another liturgy that would bless the covenant between them and affirm the legal union between them.  In a spirit of Christ’s love, these two understandings of marriage and covenants are not mutually exclusive.  Both can be honored.  In the history of marriage, we see many changes — from issues of property to divorce to roles –  and yet some things do not change. For all couples who feel led to unite in this way, I would lift up the same biblical values — monogamy, faithfulness, and a desire to grow in holiness together.  This is not about the pushing an agenda and is certainly not about saying “anything goes;” my pastoral concern is how to faithfully respond to anyone who wants to practice faithfulness and grow in the love of Christ. That’s the lifestyle that the church is called to cultivate.

Reflection Questions:  What is the purpose of a marriage relationship?  How is marriage itself – in terms of sacrificing our opinions to build relationships and practicing holiness – a model for the church?

“What is your opinion about the statement that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings?”

I believe that this language needs to go. The word “homosexual “is an offensive term. We’ve been asked not to use it by many for whom this term is used. It is hurtful. Until recently, this term was used to define a psychological disorder. Beyond this, it defines people by their sexuality and puts them into a box of negative stereotypes. We don’t define others in this way – and if we do, it is often in a derogatory way. Even for those who see this as a sin — unredeemable by grace and by the virtues of faithfulness, commitment, and love — we don’t label others by what we see as their sins. And next, when this word is used in some translations of the Bible, it is used to translate words that connote abusive behavior, or words that suggest being soft, carefree, or hedonistic.  Such behaviors can be seen as incompatible with Christian virtues, but to use this term, and these insinuations, for persons who want to practice faithfulness, commitment, and to grow in the virtues of holiness, is both unfair and harmful.  Those labelled in this way can legitimately say that this term, with these connotations, does not describe them.  In my opinion, it is a shame that this next General Conference will be focused around a word that hurts and de-humanizes people.  At the very least, I believe that this language needs to be removed from the Book of Discipline.  This does not mean it should be replaced with language that says it is compatible.  I believe we should leave that for continued holy conferencing and seeking God’s guidance, and that we should allow (and protect) clergy and congregations to follow their conscience on how to love others in this regard, and in a wide diversity of cultural contexts.

Reflection Questions:  How can we approach this “issue,” knowing that we are talking about real people?  What practices are needed to help us cultivate healthy community, in a way that is faithful and does not bring more harm into the world?  What is your responsibility as an individual?  

What is your hope for this congregation in the light of decisions that will be made at General Conference around issues of human sexuality?

Throughout our conversations, our theme verse has come from the Apostle Paul, who urges us to live into the calling that we have been given, “with all humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing one another in love, and eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Eph 4:1-6). It is clear from these words, that unity is not the same as uniformity.  The virtues would not be needed if we were meant to retreat into “like-minded camps.”  Rather, we are called to honor a variety of gifts and perspectives and to practice our “calling” in the midst of our diversity.  That’s how we prepare ourselves for the kingdom of God.  My hope is that this calling would be strengthened among us and would be at the heart of our witness.  May Love Grow Here!

Reflection Questions:  Looking at this chapter of Ephesians, what is the difference between unity and uniformity?  What values do we want to promote and cultivate?  What different will this make in the world?