“Why do we need to point out people’s ethnicity or sexuality?” “Why can’t we just say that we welcome all people?” I’ve had this conversation recently and found it helpful to remember how Jesus called attention to particular identities – Samaritans, Gentiles, Women, Eunuchs. In all of these cases, the purpose of naming these identities, is not to push a “Samaritan Agenda,” (or fill in the blank with the other identities); the purpose is to stand with those who have been harmed and to go the extra mile in honoring them as beloved children of God – and to put these two purposes together in a way that illuminates the calling that comes from God through Christ.
To use the term “Samaritan” as an illustration, we see multiple examples of this counter-cultural calling. In the famous parable of the Good Samaritan, we are given an example of how we are all to be good neighbors (Luke 10:25-36). It was shocking to the religious ones who heard the parable. In the story of ten persons being “made clean” with only one returning to give thanks, we are directly told that this one was a Samaritan, and he became an example of not only being made clean but also being made well or healed. (Luke 17:11-19).
To the shock of even his disciples, Jesus takes time to talk to a Samaritan woman at a well. She becomes the first preacher, we might say, and many believed because of her testimony (John 4:1-42). And she is just one example of Jesus honoring women and giving them a place and a voice at the proverbial table (See Luke 8:2; 10:38; 23:55; Mark 7:24-30; John 4:39; Acts 1:14, 2:14-17, 8:12, 9:36, 16:14-15, 21:9; Rom 16:1; 16:3; Phil 4:2; Gal 3:28; and more).
At one point Jesus is called a “Samaritan” and it is not meant to be a compliment. This is followed by the accusation that he has a “demon within him.” This accusation occurs in a conversation with religious leaders who firmly believe that God is on their side. Jesus makes it clear that this practice of using religion to divide and judge only serves the “father of lies.” (John 8:39-58).
This big lie can be illuminated by what John Wesley called the “wildness of enthusiasm.” In this condition, we confuse our own opinions and biases with the will of God. In another place Wesley uses the term “bigotry” to describe this big lie. He defines bigotry as an extreme attachment to one’s own party, opinion, or religion to the point of causing bitterness and division, often in the name of God. Jesus names particular identities in the hopes of challenging this evil among us.
As we address the religious tensions among us today, naming particular identities is challenging. Accusations of bias and bigotry flow from multiple sides. It is true that Jesus treated all with honor and respect, wanting all to know God’s love and to be able to live into this love. In this light, the scriptures make it clear that we are all one in Christ and that God shows no partiality (Gal 3:28; Acts 10:34). And, from the other side, the scriptures also name particular identities, not to promote what we might call “secular agendas” but to call attention to the sin that divides and demeans, often in the name of God. In Christ, both of these approaches can be true, for biblical truth is that which reveals love and opens the way for true togetherness. In the spirit of grace and truth, we can hold both of these perspectives together. (Alethia – John 17:17; I Cor 13:8; Eph 4:1-16; Col 3:5-17).
My hope is that this analysis will help us all make good decisions about how to be more welcoming. How can we go the extra mile in showing Christ-like love and cultivating opportunities for all to grow in this love, without putting up barriers that get in the way? May we find the courage to do this well.
As we arrived at worship, there was a man standing on the corner of our property with a two-sided handwritten sign. One side said, “Trans Women are Men.” The other side said, “Repent or Perish.” Needless to say, this was upsetting to many.
When I hear this targeted message – in the name of the gospel – my heart goes out to some people that I know. For one example, I think of one dear soul in the church who was born as a male. Few knew this. To most she was known as a sweet woman in the church who sang in the choir and served in the food pantry and shared the love of Christ. I suspect that there are persons with similar stories in many congregations, and they have had to live in fear while wanting to be faithful.
I am grieved when people come to church and have to encounter bigotry in the name of righteousness. (And to be clear, I define bigotry, with the words of John Wesley, as an extreme attachment to one’s own party, opinion, or religion to the point of causing bitterness and division, often while thinking that they are in service to God). It is hurtful when beloved souls are targeted and used to promote other agendas. I think of the Greek word “pornia,” which can be defined as the objectification of persons so that they can be used for our pleasure and purposes. As I read the scriptures, those who engage in such practices are not giving witness to the kingdom of God.
When it comes to repentance and the dangers of siding with that which leads to death (the other side of the sign), we all need to start by looking in the mirror. In this act of repentance, God will open the way to God’s forgiving, life-giving, eternal love. This love does have the power to transform us, into the image of Christ – but let’s focus on the right things (II Cor 3:17-18). The hope is that we would be transformed from an eagerness to divide and judge to an eagerness to hold one another in love, with patience, kindness, and a humility that does not insist on its own way. The hope is for a transformation from “arrogance of spirit” to a desire for “unity of spirit.” The hope is to give witness to the God and Father “of all, who is above all, and at work through all, and in all” – a big God. (See I Cor 13:1-8; Eph 4:1-6; Col 3:12-17; Rom 12:1-18, just to start).
May this experience give us the courage to be bold in our witness – as a congregation and as individuals. Many beloved souls in our community need those willing to stand with them in a time when the lies of division, judgement, and objectification are being masqueraded in such obscene ways as truth (Aletheia -that which opens the way to what is life-giving and glorifies God).
Just recently, for another instance, we have had people take fragments of curriculum that we have used and weaponize it by telling lies about what is being taught. And before we judge too harshly, know that we all need to pay attention. It is so easy to be tempted by the “father of lies,” to borrow a term from Jesus. Jesus uses this term in a conversation with religious leaders claim that God is on their side and who call Jesus is a “Samaritan” (it is not a compliment) with a demon in him (John 8:39-59). Promoting faith in that way is the opposite of truth.
May we be among those who live into the words of the Creed, that we proclaimed last Sunday, as those “kept in perpetual remembrance of the truth of Christ,” a truth found in a God “whose mercy is over all his works,” a truth that “manifest itself in the service of love” (as defined above), a truth “set forth in the example of our blessed Lord, to the end that the kingdom of God may come upon the earth. Amen (may it be so).”
No doubt we are moving into a new season in the life of the church. In order to navigate this reality, I am convinced that we need to look into our past as much as we look towards the future. Or maybe a better image is the need to attend to our roots in order to branch out and bear good fruit.
With this motivation I, along with Lauran DeLano Grosskopf, have written a series of books where each chapter contains a paraphrase of one of Wesley’s sermons, a devotion on the same theme, and resources for reflection. With this series, Wesley’s sermons have been rearranged to fit within the liturgical year, thus connecting them to our weekly rhythms. My hope is that these resources will help us reacquaint ourselves with inspiration from our past and lead us to good fruit as we move into a new season as United Methodists. This would be a good way to go through the year with Wesley.
Below is a brief description of the latest book from the publisher. Within the book there are testimonies from Paul Chilcote, Ashley Boggan, Bishop Deloras Williamston, Ken Willard, Adam Hamilton, Bishop Laura Merrill, Rebekah Miles, and more.
“Awakening Through Wilderness invites readers on a transformative journey through Lent, Easter, and Pentecost, exploring timeless truths through the voice and vision of John Wesley. This third installment in this acclaimed series builds on previous works, Wanting More and Radically Blessed, continuing the mission to make Wesley’s foundational teachings accessible and deeply relevant for today’s church.
In this book, each chapter offers a devotional paraphrase of one of Wesley’s classic sermons, followed by a modern devotion and practical questions for reflection. Each chapter masterfully connects Wesley’s original passion for renewal and reform with the liturgical rhythms of the church year, guiding readers through themes of fasting, self-denial, temptation, grace, and resurrection.
The wilderness becomes a powerful metaphor for life’s trials, doubts, and spiritual dry seasons-those times when God seems distant and faith is tested. Through Wesley’s insights and pastoral reflections from Michael and Lauren, readers discover that the wilderness is not merely a place of hardship but also a space for awakening, transformation, and renewed purpose.
Whether read individually or used in a group study setting, Awakening Through Wilderness offers a clear, engaging path for spiritual growth. Each chapter’s discussion questions and reflection resources make it ideal for small groups, Bible studies, or personal devotion, especially during Lent.
The books in this series are written with warmth and clarity, drawing on deep knowledge of Wesleyan theology and a pastoral heart for today’s church. Throughout we are reminded that “God’s love comes to us on its way to others,” inspiring readers to grow in grace and to live out their faith with courage and compassion.
You are invited to step into the wilderness and emerge awakened to the transforming power of God’s love.”
These books are available through Market Square Books, Cokesbury, and Amazon/Kindle. I would be honored if you would take a look (you can get a sample through kindle) and if you feel so led, share these resources with others. If you would like to talk about this, please know that I would love to have that conversation. Many Blessings!
The word “exposed” is meant to be provocative. Other terms would be “revealed” or “illuminated.” Going back to Wesley, a lot of misconceptions have existed around the use of the word “method” in Methodism. Its deeper meaning is often lost.
The method of Methodism is often defined as the disciplined and intentional practice of the Means of Grace – prayer, worship, searching the scriptures, conferencing, service, etc. There is truth in this, but we miss much inspiration if we stop here. [i] While Wesley does give praise for the Means of Grace, he balances this praise with strong warnings. We can engage in all of these practices, and they can still sink us into a living hell. The Means of Grace can be more of a burden than a blessing. They can lead us into the form of religion without the power. This happens when we turn the “means” into the “end,” and begin to think that faith is found in the practices themselves. [ii] (For more see the notes below)
When Wesley uses the term “method” he most often speaks of the method that God uses to bring us into life.[iii] Wesley describes God’s method with the word “reconciliation” in one place. In another place, we are told that Jesus is God’s method for healing souls that could never be healed by human endeavor. The outcome of God’s method is the renewal of the image of God within us.
In more than one place, Wesley gives us an outline of how this method typically works. [iv] The first step is an awakening in the soul to the mystery and reality of God. This awakening often starts with fear. We recognize our sin and how short we fall from the glory of God. How can we ever be justified – in alignment and harmony with God? How can we ever be saved? This fear often leads to attempts to justify ourselves. And these attempts always leave us wanting. When religion is defined in this way, we only bring God down to our level. From here, we are led into the heart of God’s method. We are awakened to God’s eternal love and this changes everything. It leads us into a desire to practice the Means of Grace, along with disciplined and daily self-examination, with the hope of being transformed, from one degree to another, into the very image of Christ and Christ’s love. This is a way to describe the method that God uses to bring us into life.[v]
And now, here is a more poetic way of describing God’s method, using a Charles Wesley hymn as inspiration:
This is how it works.
Love comes first.
It opens our heart to a new reality.
We sense that we’re a part of something bigger than ourselves,
And more than any finite thing.
This love works to pave the way
And plants the seeds of living faith.
This is how it works. God’s love comes first
And it leads to,
A faith that works by love, a faith that works for love. Love!
This is how it works, our hearts are changed;
We turn towards life-giving grace.
We sense that heaven has begun in us,
And new life has been won.
This love works to make us whole,
And forms the Savior in the soul.
This is how it works. God’s love comes first.
And it leads to,
A faith that works by love, a faith that works for love. Love!
(Lyrics to a worship song entitled, “Faith that Works for Love,” inspired by the Hymn “Let Us Plead for Faith Alone.” For a version of the song, additional verses, and commentary on how this method contrasts with other understandings of faith, see Hymn Inspired Worship Songs, YouTube, Michael Roberts. This was a part of my pandemic project)
[i]It is worth noting that Wesley does not tie the word “method” to the Means of Grace. In the sermon on the Means of Grace, for example, no version of the word “method” or “methodism” is found.
[ii]Moving in the other direction, in Wesley’s famous pamphlet entitled “Character of a Methodist,” he does not directly talk about the “means of grace” or focus on what we do. In fact, he says that our “schemes of religion” are “quite wide of the point.” For methodists, faith is so much more than “just believing” or “accepting” what God has done for us. A methodist is one who has been awakened to God’s love. In faith, we give ourselves into this love. The experience of this love leads to peace with God and this peace leads us to “abound in love and in good works.” To paraphrase Wesley, “Methodists are those who think, speak, and live, according to the method laid down in the revelation of Jesus Christ. Their souls are renewed after the image of God, and in all true holiness. Having the mind that was in Christ, they walk as Christ also walked.”
[iii]Key sermons from Wesley on this topic include Righteousness of Faith where we read of God’s “method of reconciliation.” In the sermon Original Sin we hear that Jesus is God’s method for healing souls that could never be healed by any human endeavor. Through Christ God heals our “functional atheism” by giving us faith – that divinely given conviction that God is with us and that nothing can separate us from God’s love. This leads to repentance, to trust, and transformation into the love of God. In the sermon Laying the Foundation we hear, once again, that methodism is not a new religion. It is the restoration of the image of God, centered in love, which is the summary of all the law and the prophets. Methodism is about intentionally cultivating the blessings of love, joy, and peace in the Holy Spirit. It is not rooted in orthodoxy of opinion. In this sermon Wesley speaks of this divisive temptation and then gives thanks for being delivered from this misguided zeal. God’s method is never meant to lead to the arrogance of spirit that causes division and harm within the Body of Christ. In the sermon Use of Law we hear that the ordinary method of God is to first convict us of our sin and our need.
[iv]God’s method involves movement along the Way of Salvation. This movement is described often with the key terms of Justification to Sanctification (and later others built upon what Wesley said about Preventing Grace and added Prevenient Grace as a way to describe the movement of God in our lives). In another place, this movement is described with different States of Being in which we may find ourselves. In our Natural State there is a false peace with no thought of God. This can lead to a Legal State, where there is no peace at all. Next is the Evangelical State or the State of Love where we experience the peace of God.
[v]Perhaps more than practicing the traditional Means of Grace, (or perhaps at the heart of this practice) we participate in God’s method through disciplined and regular self-examination. Wesley consistently posed questions to the people called Methodists, calling for daily reflection. Is heaven in your heart? Is your heart being transformed into the likeness of Christ? Are you growing in holiness, defined by the virtues of patience and kindness and a humility that does not insist on its own way? Are you attending to the means of grace that will open the way for this love? Are you becoming less judgmental and more compassionate? Do you know the peace of God? Do you let other theological/political matters distract you from our core purpose? Do you understand that the narrow way leads us into the wideness of God’s mercy and the wide way of the world leads us into narrowness of spirit? These are the kinds of questions that Wesley posed over and over again as a way for us to participate in God’s method.
Marriage! This word that signifies coming together in unity and love has also been used to create so much judgment and division in our denomination. In the midst of this tension, I recently had an appointment to do pre-marital counselling and was inspired to approach this meeting in a new way. I started with the Book of Discipline. It can be so helpful to actually look at what the B.O.D. says. With the changes and additions at the last General Conference, we have renewed our focus on the values of marriage that are life-giving for all – “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.”
Imagine using this list as a theological and moral foundation to move into conversations about all the topics in a pre-marital meeting – family history, birth order, finances, religion and faith, expectations, personality types, etc. And to be clear, this particular list is found under Clergy Qualifications but can definitely be used to help us understand the values needed for a healthy marriage and for life-giving relationships in general.
We can also use the Book of Discipline to affirm marriage as “a sacred and lifelong covenant.” Marriage is a union with “one another and into a deeper relationship with God and the community of faith.” Marriage “reflects a continued willingness to grow together in Christ and a commitment to cultivate a covenantal bond that encompasses intimacy, grace, and love.” And there is so much more.* These statements are important because they call those getting married in the church to be a part of the faith community. Imagine using these statements to explore how being a part of the larger community can be a blessing.
We can compare these statements to what we see in another methodist denomination, which says: “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 might ask: Is this the only way to understand human sexuality? Our new statements give us the opportunity to view human sexuality in a larger context, 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, and teachings of the church can be helpful all along the way. And we can share this grace with a focus on calling, character, faithfulness and fruitfulness – and do this for all without having to automatically exclude some.
As evidenced by the recent Judicial Council ruling, tensions remain.* These tensions, however, do not have to divide. We do not have to give in to the arrogance of spirit that causes so much harm and keeps us from honoring one another. To come full circle, as if it was a ring upon our finger or a seal upon our heart, perhaps the way we relate to one another can be inspired by the values we want marriages to model. How might these values this understanding of marriage be life-giving for the church as a whole?
* For more see: “Beyond Soundbites and Towards Holy Conferencing (A Series on the Actions of General Conference)” at connectedinchrist.net One section in the document on marriage has been revised after the recent decision from the Judicial Council giving clergy the responsibility for deciding whether they will perform the religious marriage service of a couple within the church, and in light of the call of our bishops who expect pastors 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. Looking at what the BOD actually says can be so helpful.
While waiting on my hardcopy of the new Book of Discipline (BOD), I turned to the PDF version. I was inspired to do a quick comparison using the wonderful search feature.
I started by searching the word “incompatible” hoping to see a “zero.” I was a bit disappointed to see that it does appear one time, but in a quote of the previous BOD and in reference to moratoriums on judicial proceedings. By comparison, in the 2016 BOD this word appears eight times with four of these naming one practice or group of people. In another place we read that war is incompatible with the teachings of Christ. In other places we read that military service, science, and abortion under strict circumstances are not incompatible. The new BOD deals with these topics in similar ways but without using this specific term.
My next search was for the word “fidelity.” This word appears seventeen times in the new BOD and eighteen times in the previous version. In both, four of these call for fidelity to the Apostolic Faith and the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church. Another five deal with finances. In both versions the remaining references focus on standards for clergy.
In the 2016 BOD the phrase “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness” appears seven times. The word then appears twice in a definition of marriage. These statements were often used to keep us from considering the calling and character of some. Too often, they came up only when there was a desire to exclude or punish. I am glad they are behind us.
In the new BOD, we see a focus on virtues that are life-giving for all and give witness to the “highest ideals of the Christian life.” There was an effort to strengthen our sexual and moral ethic, without a double standard and without some of the confusion around definitions of terms. This following statement appears seven times, calling for “the exercise of responsible self-control by personal habits conducive to bodily health, mental and emotional maturity, integrity in all personal relationships, social responsibility, faithful sexual intimacy expressed through 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.”
I do not see this as a move to the radical left – or whatever language might be used to characterize these developments negatively and to cause further division among us. As a person who was at the General Conference and who worked on a committee that initiated some of these changes, I witnessed a beautiful effort to be faithful and to be responsive to the high and holy calling we have been given to love one another well. With God’s grace and guidance, I believe our General Conference did good work that will bear good fruit.
As I opened this new version of the Book of Discipline, my first response is to give praise to God and then to give thanks for all who worked to make this new and faithful witness possible.
I do look forward to getting a hardcopy. I will place it among other treasures that mark significant moments in my life. This one was big.
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.
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.”
Connected In Christ 