Tag: Disaffiliation

Building Upon the Rock as United Methodists

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

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

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

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

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

Can You Imagine? (a theological edition in the context of much misinformation)

Expanding on a previous post –  “Can You Imagine?” A Stay UMC Presentation -with this post I want to focus on some of our core doctrines as found in our bedrock Articles of Religion. These doctrines are so much more than a “check list” for judging one’s rightness. They have the power to transform our lives and how we relate to one another.

Can you imagine a church deeply rooted in a trinitarian faith and a church that sees this doctrine of the trinity as a guide for how we are to live in relationship with one another?”

One accusation that we are hearing is that the UMC is becoming unitarian.  The truth is we stand committed to the doctrine of the trinity.  We love how this core doctrine reminds us that God is always bigger than any one perspective.  This doctrine helps us to honor theological exploration and a diversity of interpretations, in relationships where we can learn how to love more fully.

A relationship with the triune God can also challenge our binary perspectives where life is divided into either/or, win/lose, red/blue, us/them.  From this binary view, it is easy to see life in terms of division, judgement, and competition. Through the lens of a trinitarian perspective, we see something very different. We see cooperation, mutual dependence, trust, and kindness. Within the Trinity, the value is not power over others; the value is learning how to love with patience and kindness and grace, never insisting only on our own way – as the scripture says.

Every time we baptize someone, or sing the Doxology, we enter into this holy mystery where we proclaim that God is One, but not one as in a monotone voice but as harmony. God is One as togetherness, as relationship, as love itself.  Can you imagine this kind of witness to the glory of God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Can you imagine a church that affirms a Christ who is fully divine and fully human and seeks to understand how this doctrine transforms how we relate to one another? 

As we affirm Christ’s full divinity and humanity, we acknowledge the temptation to lean one way or the other, focusing on the divine Christ who forgives and saves us for heaven or the human Christ who calls us to feed the hungry and have compassion for the poor.  As United Methodists, we hold these two poles together and we are blessed by the spiritual energy that is created.  

The cross is often used as a way to illustrate this faith.  The vertical dimension is illustrative of our relationship with God and the horizontal dimension illustrative of our relationship with one another. We are called to love God and love your neighbor as a part of ourselves. In our current debate, some have used these two dimensions of the cross to support division, saying that our two different perspectives create so much tension that we would all be better off to go our separate ways.  I have heard the call to divide the cross in this way. As United Methodist Christians, we believe that these dimensions belong together and the tensions that hold them together can give the energy we need to a light to the world. It is a good thing.

As a part of our doctrine, we are called to be a people of the “via media,” the “middle way.”  In the cross, we can claim a both/and perspective – grace and holiness, knowledge and piety, evangelism and social justice, traditional and progressive positions. We know that God’s ways are always bigger than one perspective.  Rooted in this doctrine, we acknowledge that the word “party” is built on the word “part.”  To work to make the “part” the “whole” is among the much harmful things we can do as the Body of Christ.

“Can you imagine a church that not only affirms the resurrection of Jesus Christ but also strives to live and serve as resurrection people?”  

Contrary to some accusations that are being made, belief in resurrection is at the core of our faith. We do, however, want to resist narrowing this holy doctrine to fit what we can understand. It is more than resuscitation.  It is both physical and spiritual. We honor the stories of how the risen Christ appeared and disappeared, and how the risen Christ was not recognized and then recognized. 

As the scriptures proclaim, our God can take what is perishable and put on what is imperishable.  What is sowed as a physical body is raised as a spiritual body.  This is the backdrop for us being able to truly say that we believe in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.

By the resurrection of Christ, we are able to trust that life is so much more than what is right before us.  God is able to take our memories, relationships, thoughts, struggles, and even our physical identities and redeem them for life in the kin-dom.  Christ has opened the way. Can you imagine focusing on a witness that shares this hope for all?

Can you imagine a church that seeks the Holy Spirit through a Wesleyan lens of understanding?

Wesley shared multiple sermons and teachings on the Holy Spirit. And his teachings are a part of our doctrine!  For our current context, the Holy Spirit helps us to avoid two big dangers – mere formality, on the one hand, where we go through the motions without the power of faith, and on the other hand, the “wildness of enthusiasm” where we mistake our own opinions with the witness of the Holy Spirit, when we start thinking that it is our job to get everyone to see things our way.  Wesley warns against this “dreadful delusion” where we become “presumptuous self-deceivers,” “haughty and assuming,” “slow to hear and swift to speak,” and “impatient with contradictions.”   Wesley calls us to “strike a middle course” between these extremes, where the fruits of the Spirit are formed – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and temperance.  This is how we assess whether it is the Holy Spirit, or some other spiritual force, at work in our lives. The witness of Spirit manifest itself as we become “more meek, gentle, and teachable, swift to hear and slow to speak, ready to learn from anyone.”  That is the spiritual challenge before us. 

In posts about recent Conference from the GMC and the UMC, there have been lots of affirmations of the Holy Spirit’s presence. I wonder if some of this feeling is due to the lack of tension between “sides.” Perhaps the comfort of likemindedness and not having to be in conversation is confused as the work of the Spirit. Recently, our Council of Bishop gave this guidance, saying that if we are to be faithful, we cannot be a traditional or progressive or centrist church only. “Our churches must be more than echo chambers made in our own image arguing with each other while neglecting our central purpose. Instead, we must be one people, rooted in scripture, centered in Christ, serving in love, and united in the essential [of our shared faith].” With this plea, our bishops reflect a very Wesleyan view of the Holy Spirit.

Can You Imagine? 

The intent of these honored teachings is influence and inspiration, not control, force, or judgment. Doctrines are meant to lead us into love.  If they lead in any other direction, their purpose is perverted. This understanding is at the heart of a Wesleyan approach to doctrine.  

As was highlighted in the previous post, Wesley used the phrase “think and let think.”  This is not a blessing for all thoughts, as if they are all thoughts are equal and good.  It can be seen as a word of encouragement, calling us to engage these core doctrines together, ask questions, and seek deeper meaning.  What we discover is a diversity of perspectives and insights that bless us all and help us into faithfulness and fruitfulness.

For guidance into this thinking together, Wesley says, in many places, and captured in this quote, “This is religion, and this alone…not this or that opinion or system of opinions, be they ever so true, even scriptural….those who support this to be religion are given up to a strong delusion to believe a lie…Religion is no less than living in eternity…and hereby walking in the love of God and humanity, in lowliness, meekness, and resignation. This, and this alone, is that ‘life which is hid with Christ in God.’”  Can you imagine being a part of a church that has this kind of courage? 

Walking in the Truth (and through disaffiliation)

I gave a presentation – similar to the one in the previous post “Can You Imagine?” A Stay UMC Presentation– and someone still asked, “why does the UMC no longer stand on the truth of scripture?” I have written about the scripture passages in question. Here I want to take a deeper dive into the concept of truth.

The Greek word for Truth is the word “Alethia.” It means to “un-cover” or “reveal” what is real, good, and life-giving. In the scriptures, the term gospel is used to define truth (Gal 2:5, 2:14, Eph 1:13, Col 1:5).  We also hear that Christ, as the Word made flesh, is truth (John 1:14; 17:17).  Christ reveals and illuminates the ways of God.

Then we are called to act; we are called to walk in this truth (II John 1:1-4; III John 1:3).To walk in truth is to have an undivided heart (Ps 86:11).  To walk in truth is to seek justice and peace (Is 59:1-21). To walk in the truth is to “love one another” (II John 3-5; I Pet 1:22).  And we know what this love looks like.  It is patient, kind, and humble.  It does not insist on its own way. To practice faith with these virtues is to “rejoice in truth” (I Cor 13:4-8. See also Eph 4:1-3 and Col 3:12-17).

We read that truth is the sum of God’s law and word which leads us to how Jesus summarized all the law and the prophets, by calling us to love God and to love our neighbor as a part of ourselves (See Psalm 119:142,160; Matt 22:40).  Likewise, Paul summarized the law with the phrase “love your neighbor” (Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14).  And James calls this the “royal law” (Jam 2:8). It is the law through which we interpret all action and all scripture, as Wesley reminded us, leading us into truth (See also I John 3:18; 4:7-8; II John 1:3).

If truth illuminates and reveals, its opposite conceals and hides. The opposite of truth is found in injustice, human judgment, and showing partiality (Rom 2:1-11; Jam 3:13-18). Truth is concealed when we expect others to live by a double standard beyond the values of faithfulness and love to which we are all called. Truth is hidden by our judgments, often based on criteria that keeps us from considering another’s calling, character, and commitment to Christ.  Truth is obscured when we let parties and positions take precedence over royal law to which we are all called. And note that the word “party” is built on the word “part.” Working to make the “part” the “whole” is among the most destructive things we can do. Truth is found in the whole where we are able to honor one another and learn how to love more fully.

As we walk in the truth there are many danger signs along the way. We are warned about hypocrisy, which means to hide behind a mask. The very word is the opposite of truth (Matthew 7:1-5; 23:27-29; James 3:13-18). We are warned of the falsehood of imagining that godliness is a means of gain (I Tim 6:5). We are warned of all who distort truth in order to get others to follow them (Acts 20:30). We are warned about “deceitful spirits” and the “hypocrisy of liars” (I Tim 4:1-5).  The examples given are those who “forbid marriage” for some and then “abstain from certain foods” as judgment on others.  On a positive note, we are told the truth in this passage – “that everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving and sanctified by God’s word and by prayer.” For all who truly believe in a living God, take heed!

Walking in the truth starts with self-examination (Psalm 51:6; Matt 7:1-5; II Cor 13:5-10).  We all have our biases. None of us see the whole on our own. We all engage in what is unnatural for us, used by Paul as an illustration, not as a justification for judgement. We all exchange the truth for lies in some way — through injustice, envy, covetousness, malice, deceit, strife, gossip, boastfulness, and more. If we judge others we condemn ourselves. To believe that we have escaped the judgment of God is to believe that we are above the riches of God’s kindness, patience, and love for us. This is Paul’s point (Romans 1:24-2:4, for more see Wesley on Human Sexuality (and his commentary on often cited verses). This is why WE need truth – not only that THEY need truth!

Our calling, as the church, is to speak the truth/the gospel/the Word-made-flesh in love, so that we all might “grow up in every way into the one who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together, with each part working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love (Eph 4:1-32).  That is truth!  

May we all experience the joy and freedom that comes when we walk with “Spirit of Truth” (John 8:32; 16:13; I Cor 17-18; Gal 5:1).  Let us join together on this path that leads to life.

“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?

Front Row Seat (Reflections on a Church Conference to Disaffiliate)

As a representative leader of the UMC, I sat on the front row of a Church Conference where I heard of how the UMC is led by people who are “incompetent and immoral,” who “trade God’s Word for the secular ideology of the world,” who “abandon doctrine” in order to not offend anyone, and who want to bend our will to “pagan cultural Marxism.” It was all part of a continuing effort to build a “damning case against the UMC.”  Damn! Condemn! Declare as evil! As I listened, I could not think of any leader who deserved such hurtful and judgmental attacks, even considering isolated examples. The main speech concluded with a prayer calling for us to part ways as Paul and Barnabas did and to love one another even if from afar – familiar talking points, shared as pleas to God.

To counter this narrative, I heard grace-filled speeches calling for unity in love, even in the midst of different perspectives.  I heard of how a few isolated examples do not represent the whole. I heard of a trust in the Holy Spirit to keep us all centered, allowing us to honor perspectives that stand at the edges of theological interpretation. This is a dynamic that has always been a part of healthy congregations.   I heard much love for the UMC and for our doctrine, liturgy, mission, and ministry. I so appreciated the spirit with which these truths were shared.  

When the votes were counted, however, division won the day – by 4 votes.  It was winner-take-all! There were no provisions for those who want to remain UMC, many of whom have given of their tithes, taught Sunday School, and shared in holy communion and potlucks for years. There was no honoring of the larger church that had given pastors, provided equipping and resources and offered an opportunity to be a part of a global mission bigger than ourselves.  I thought of the person who said, after hearing of a love for our doctrine and discipline, “the videos I watched told me you would say that and that you would be lying.” That’s the spirit that won the day.   

For me, it felt as if the Spirit of God left the room, leaving the space as something other than holy.  I then looked up at the stained-glass image of Jesus, and I sensed the presence of Christ.  Knowing that Living Lord was there for all, I especially sensed his presence with those whose hearts were broken and who were fighting back tears. I want to stand with these beloved and faithful souls as well.   

A Personal FAQ on Disaffiliation

Here is my personal FAQ, with answers to real questions that I continue to hear from those leaning towards disaffiliation.  I am thankful for all who are willing to engage in the conversation.

  • How can we stay in a denomination with such doctrinal drift?
  • How can we stay in a denomination where people are praying to a “Queer God?”
  • How can we accept something that goes against the Bible? (This is at the heart for many).
  • If we disaffiliate, won’t we be able to put this debate behind us, stop talking about sexuality, and get on with the business of being the church?
  • But we would still be methodist, right?  Just not united?
  • Is this our church or does it belong to the Conference? Is this not an opportunity for us to control our own destiny?
  • Will we be forced to accept views or policies that do not align with our conscience? 
  • What will happen at General Conference next year?
  • How can we conference together in ways that glorify God and give a good witness to the world?

How can we stay in a denomination with such doctrinal drift?

In the conversations around disaffiliation, some claim that there is a movement to change the beloved doctrines of our church.  In this regard, it is true that isolated examples can be found.  There are those within the church who stand at the edges of doctrinal interpretation. There always has been and always will be. To use isolated examples, however, as a justification for disaffiliation must assume that this will not happen in a new denomination. That is unlikely. 

Our seminaries are getting much blame for this supposed doctrinal drift.  I do not believe it is founded.  If we want to judge our seminaries, then I would encourage you to read the ordination papers of students applying to be ordained.  Read what they have to say about the trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, justification and sanctification, the calling of the church, what it means to be ordained, and more.  I get to do this every year, and it is inspiring. The holy apostolic faith will continue to be shared in powerful ways.

In response to accusations that our seminaries teach heresy, it is true that students can learn about other expressions of faith and explore other ideas. The trajectory, however, for those seeking ordination in the UMC is to be able to share the holy orthodox faith of the church in faithful and fruitful ways and to do so within the context and times in which they are called. For a comparison, I suspect you could go to the School of Business at the UofA and take a class on the economics of socialism, but it would not be fair to say that the school is trying to lead students in that direction.

In this larger debate about doctrinal drift, it is worth noting that there are over 30,000 United Methodist pastors in the U.S. In most discernment processes, the same handful of examples are used of people who have stood at the edges of theological interpretation and then used fallaciously to cast shade on the whole.  Is it fair to base this decision on such a small sampling?

How can we stay in a denomination where people are praying to a “Queer God?”

In many places where there are people promoting disaffiliation, this has become a major talking point.  It is true that such a prayer was recorded at a seminary, during Pride Month, and at a service designed to welcome members of the Plus community.  Can we give this a “generous read?” As explained by students, the term ‘Queer” can be used for all who feel like they are different and who are judged because of that.  It is not only about sexuality.  In this case, the hope was to show that Christ stands with these beloved souls. There is much scriptural backing to say that Christ identified with the outcast, the marginalized, the judged. 

In this particular case, was it shocking to hear? Yes, for many.  Remembering that this came from an un-ordained student in the process of formulating how to best express her faith, was this worthy of being weaponized and used in ways to cause her harm and to cast unfair concerns upon the church as a whole?  The answer is “no” in my opinion.  If there is judgement to be made in how this is being communicated, the weight of that judgement should not be put on this one student in her twenties and still in school.  

How can we accept something that goes against the Bible?

This question, formed in many ways, is at the heart of it all for many.  Staying UMC will necessitate a willingness to accept that there may be different faithful interpretations of the passages before us.  I would be among those who want to approach the matter with more humility and less judgement, a deeply rooted biblical perspective.  I don’t fully understand matters of sexual orientation and identity.  I do, however, stand firm on the biblical virtues and values that are life-giving for all.  I do not believe a separate standard should be made for some. I want to promote a strong sexual ethic rooted in the values of faithfulness, commitment and all the virtues summed up with the word “love.” 

When it comes to assessing who can be leaders 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 whether someone is called or has the character needed for faithful and fruitful leadership in the church. 

In one setting, a person asked me, in all sincerity, to share what a different interpretation would look like.  He had assumed that the scriptures were clear and that the matter was settled.  I started by saying that homosexuality was a term coined in the 20th century as a medical term to denote deviate behavior.  After this, the word found its way into scripture as a translation for words that point to abusive and harmful behavior.  Both science and most translations have changed this understanding, but even where it still exists, Christians in the Plus community would agree that the behavior described in the original Greek is wrong. They might also say that this has nothing to do with two people wanting to live in a faithful, committed, and loving relationship. When it comes to the passage in Romans 1 and the words about doing what is unnatural, many in Plus community would agree that engaging in behaviors that are unnatural is harmful, but that they have come to a place, through much prayer and struggle, where they are comfortable living into what is natural for them. 

Personally, I have come to the point where I honor those who have come to such understandings in their conversations with God through the scriptures and who have found ways to truly grow in God’s love and to be a great blessing to the church.  I also lament the possibility that there may not be congregations in certain communities where such understandings would be honored.  

For more on this, including a look at Matthew 19, please see my blog posts “Wesley and Human Sexuality, Parts 1 and 2.” These posts have received a lot of attention. 

If we disaffiliate, won’t we be able to put this debate behind us, stop talking about sexuality, and get on with the business of being the church?

Disaffiliation is not likely to bring an end to this debate. I had a conversation recently with something committed to joining the GMC. This person was in a church where the music director was gay. The person who wanted to disaffiliate loved this music director and 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.  This led to some rethinking.  It might also lead to attempts within the new denomination to change this policy.  The debate will continue.

We have another church that has voted to disaffiliate that has a similar situation.  That church is considering being independent rather than joining the GMC but that is leading to a whole different debate.  Some don’t believe it would be good to be independent in this way; others do.  There is now division on top of division.

Changing denominations in unlikely to help. Recently, I have had conversations with both a Baptist pastor and a Church of Christ pastor who came to me to talk about how these same questions were surfacing in their congregations and they both said, in different ways, how much they admire how I was able to talk about it without being fired.  Being able to conference together in love is a good thing!

But we would still be methodist, right?  Just not united?

This is an assumption that begs a lot of questions.  To disaffiliate means that the local church will have to decide many things and to do so quickly.  It will lead to more debate, not less, and perhaps to division on top of division.  Will you still practice open communion?  What liturgies and hymns will be used? What will you believe?  What will your policies be? How will not secure pastoral leadership and what criteria will be used.  Will you join another denomination or not?  The questions will keep coming.  And you will need a good lawyer to be involved.  It is a good thing, in my opinion, to be rooted in the larger church where direction is given, where resources are shared, and ministry happens together. 

Is this our church or does it belong to the Conference? Is this not an opportunity for us to control our own destiny?

The idea of owning our own property and controlling our own destiny is popular in some circles. In response to this, I want to affirm our calling to be in covenant together. I like knowing that I can go to any United Methodist Church and say, “This is my church.” “We share in ministry together.” 

Yes, this is your church and, as a United Methodist, you are able a part of a mission that is so much bigger than you or this one place.  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, Assembly, and Veritas, just to name a few. The hope of those who want to Stay UMC is that we would build this upon this witness rather than tear it down.   

Will we be forced to accept views or policies that do not align with our conscience?  (This fear is expressed in different ways).

With so much rhetoric designed to stir up this fear it is hard to speak a word of reassurance.  I heard of how one pastor tried to speak a reassuring word into the conversation about how we continue to believe in Jesus, and the other person said, “The video I watched told me you would say that and that it would be a lie.”  In this case a video promoting disaffiliation was trusted over a beloved pastor. 

In my opinion, there is one official statement that needs to find a way into the noise.  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. We cannot be a gay or straight church. Our churches must be more than echo chambers made in our own image arguing with each other while neglecting our central purpose. 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 glorify and expresses a way of living the Christian faith that is so needed in our communities.  In many communities the UMC may be the only church where this welcoming spirit might be offered.

For many the calling found in Ephesians chapter 4 continues to be a guiding light.  The Apostle Paul begs us to live out the calling we have been given, to love one another with patience, gentleness, and humility, being eager to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. We are called to a higher unity, represented by something more than uniformity of opinion.  Our unity is rooted in a holy love that is patience and kind. It is not arrogant or rude.  It does not insist on its own way, as the scripture says. How do we share this calling with one another and together as a witness to the world?  

What will happen at General Conference next year?

As a delegate to General Conference, my hope is that this language around the “h-word” and incompatibility will be removed.  In my opinion, it is shameful that our Church continues to use a word that hurts and de-humanizes people and turns them into issues and problems rather than beloved souls.   At the same time, I do not believe this language 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, and in a wide diversity of cultural contexts.  That is the perspective of most delegates that I know.

In a global church, with delegates from many places and cultures, I must say that I am not optimistic that this language will change.  What is more likely is that some form of regionalization will pass, allowing different regions in the world to develop their own criteria for ministry.  Within the U.S, there is a desire to allow more freedom and to cultivate more openness.  That is the goal. There is not, however, a desire to replace “may” with “shall.”  That is not who we are as United Methodist Christians.

How can we conference together in ways that glorify God and give a good witness to the world?

In all forms of “Conferencing” may we stand together as the Body of Christ, with many parts, rooted in the historic and core doctrines of our faith, and in this rootedness, honoring the various branches of perspective and interpretation that help us all to grow in faith.  May 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, recognizing that somethings this work of the Holy Spirit is a call to appreciate the spirit of those who are serving at the edges.

To build upon Wesley’s guidance, to focus on the opinions of our “party” or to want all to follow this or that “scheme of religion” is “quite wide of the point.” It is worth noting that the word “party” contains the word “part.” Attempts to make a “part” into the “whole” are destructive to the Body of Christ. According to Wesley, a methodist is to be distinguish by the love of God planted in the heart, the love that empower us to be the Body of Christ with many parts.  May this continue to be our focus and our witness. 

A Balcony Perspective on Disaffiliation

I sat in the balcony for a Church Conference on disaffiliation.  From the balcony, it hit me that this meeting was being held in the sanctuary. Several speakers went off script and referred to weddings, baptisms, funerals, and regular worship in this sacred space. I began to wonder about the spiritual damage that was being done, knowing that some would be cut off from this rootedness.     

From the balcony, I wondered about using the honored word “discernment,” used in this case to describe the pitting of two sides against one another and moving to a vote to divide. True discernment usually looks different, with people willing to suspend judgement, listen, and seek life-giving outcomes – “unity of spirit in the bond of peace.” (Eph 4:1-3).  

From the balcony, I wondered about the harm caused by voting. A friend recently pointed out that the only recorded vote in the New Testament was when Pilate asked the people to choose between Jesus and Barabbas (Matt 27:21). The only time the word “vote” is found is where Paul confesses to his vote to condemn Stephen and other Christians to death (Acts 26:10).  It is not a glowing endorsement. While voting may be necessary on occasion, especially around organizing for ministry, there are a lot of options before this last resort – conversation, conferencing, catechism, consensus, compromise, and shared calling above all.   As we discern and decide, we would do well to remember that the word “party” includes the word “part.”  To set up a winner-take-all vote to make a part the whole is…(what’s the right adjective)…so dishonoring of the Body of Christ.  

From this particular balcony, the attempts at politeness did not take the sting away from familiar rhetoric. I once again heard isolated examples of statements from professors or un-ordained students as the justification for the harm being caused.  I wondered what would happen if we spent our energies, particularly around seminaries, reflecting on the historic questions that have to be answered for ordination.  How might we judge theological education if we read the papers of actual students?  I get to do this every year and continue to be inspired by how the historic apostolic faith of the church will continue to be passed on from one generation to the next.  To this end, it is good that students who are called to serve the church as pastors come in contact with a variety of views in the world.

In this particular case, the vote to disaffiliate failed by a few votes.  I was relieved. And then reality set in. As a part of my job, I had to walk down the stairs and into the pain of a divided congregation.  It wasn’t long before I overheard conversations about how all the talk of wanting to be a “big tent” – Body of Christ – congregation, rooted in scripture, centered in Christ, and united in the core doctrines of our faith was all a cover for some nefarious agenda.  The level of accusation against those who were once friends, and the willingness to trust those working for division, was alarming.  I met with those who had worked hard for this outcome, but there was no celebration.  People were pleased, but no one was happy.  A deep hope, however, remained, — that this would continue to be a congregation that truly believed in the Living Lord who was at work to keep the church as a whole centered in faith, hope, and above all love.   That’s what will see us all through.

Worshiping at Fairview UMC (after the vote)

I’m sure the saints of heaven smiled as we worshipped yesterday. We came together with a combination of much hurt and hope to sing praise, pray together, say the creed, and hear God’s word read and proclaimed.  A couple of things stood out to me – as the Spirit moved.  I was struck by the altar and how someone had so carefully placed the paraments.  It was an obvious act of holy love. Then, a boy came forward with the light, and after lighting the candles, placed the lighter on a hook that someone had attached to the altar.  It stuck me that someone thought of this, and it had become a part of the tradition in that church. After the service, I told the boy that he did a good job and he said, “I’m good at this.”  He was proud.  I thought of those who missed this beautiful act of worship because of the spirit of division. And I was personally moved to not take joys like this granted.

I was also struck by the service itself.  This was a congregation that had a history of learning how to get along and make room for each other.  This was evidenced by the way we sang hymns and choruses in the same service, with some holding hymnals and others looking at the screen.  In our meeting afterwards, I said “I bet there was a conversation at some point about these things.”  “Oh yes,” they said, “and we worked through it.”  “We would have worked through this as well if we hadn’t been pressured into a vote to divide.” One man lamented, “It just didn’t have to be this way.”

He was right.  I’ve seen it too often – when this process for disaffiliation moves to a vote the outcome is division – of congregations, of friends, even of families.  As one said, “The devil is the only winner.” I would agree, while also affirming that God can work for good even in the midst of this pain.  This group knew that as well.  They are determined to be the church in a community that needs this witness. 

In this case, the vote was to remain UMC. This was a relief to many, but the heartbreak of division was still very real. Many hope that the divisions will not be permanent, and that reconciliation will occur.  They believe that would glorify God.  

And in the midst of all of this, we worshipped.  And yes, I could hear the saints of heaven rejoicing in my spirit and I could sense God’s comforting, healing, life-giving love.  The Holy Spirit was there, perhaps working overtime. Thank you, Fairview UMC in Camden, for your desire to be faithful and fruitful as United Methodist Christians. Seeing this was healing to my heart. 

Hope Through Hurt (First Reflections on My New Role and Disaffiliation) 

On October 1 I started a new appointment as the Director of ReStart Initiative, a cabinet position with the purpose of providing care, support, and help with next-step discernment for all who want to remain United Methodist and who are affected by disaffiliation. Some have asked if I am “excited” about this.  Since every conversation seems to be born in pain and heartbreak, excitement is not the best word.  I have been inspired, however, by the faith of so many who also have hope in the midst of pain and who trust that healing will come.  God is definitely at work!

Here are a few stories from these first weeks that I am holding in my heart.  For the first one, a man came up to me and said, “I just want you to know that I am conservative.”  He then called his wife over and said, “I lean to the right on many things; she leans to the left,” Then he put his arm around her, and said, “Together we make something beautiful.” Even in laughter, a sadness was expressed over how this witness was no longer welcomed in the church they had loved and served for years.  

Another man spoke of his newfound calling to make sure that there would be “a traditional United Methodist Church” in their community.  I was struck by the word “traditional.” To help me understand, he spoke of a church where people come together to worship, to say the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer together (this was important), and where people could have different perspectives on some things but still honor and love one another. He was proud that his church was one of the very few places in town where an openly gay person could serve among them and was, seemingly, much loved.  That all changed in an instant, with a vote.  “So yes,” he said, “I want to help cultivate a traditional United Methodist Church in this community.” 

For one more story, a woman spoke of how her friends are calling and saying, “We didn’t want you to leave. You are one of us.”  With this plea she realized that she could not be a part of a church where “us” meant creating a “them” – where it became okay to objectify others as objects to be feared, as issues rather than people, as agendas rather than members of the Body of Christ. She, and many others, want a church that focuses more on the beliefs and values that are life-giving for all rather than trying to judge some by a different standard and creating an “us and them.” “As I understand it,” she said, “That is just not the way Christ.”

My new “congregation,” so to speak, is made up of many who feel that they have been “disaffiliated” or “exiled” from a church they have loved.  While all might use terms like traditional, moderate, centrist, or progressive to describe a part of their calling, they are also committed to finding community under a higher calling and creed.  The term used most often to describe this is “United Methodist.”   For these beloved souls, this work is not primarily about preserving an institution.  It is about cultivating a way of life, where we are called to love one another with patience, kindness, and a humility that does not insist on its own way.  As the Apostle Paul says, without this we have nothing.  John Wesley called this “true holiness.”  

My job right now is to help cultivate this way of life.  I invite you into this calling as well – and in this invitation I want to also include all who have, or are thinking about, voting for disaffiliation.  There is a more excellent way. 

Wesley on Human Sexuality – Part Two

It was a modest project – to look directly at Wesley’s notes on the passages that are often used and to see what he had to say.  I was not expecting to find some of the things I did. With all the attention the previous post received, I want to look again, in light of some of the comments, and ask if my conclusion needs to be modified.

Concerning Wesley’s notes on Romans 1:26-27, much more can be said. Wesley speaks of three degrees of ungodliness – uncleanliness (v.24), being given up to vile affections (vs.25-27) and the vilest abominations (vs.28-31).   The word “abominations” is reserved for his long list that includes envy, deceit, covetousness, gossip, and fornication, which Wesley specifically used as a blanket term for all “pornia.”  Under the second category of “vile affections,” Wesley’s illustration is the “heathen Romans…and none more than the emperors themselves.”  As a point of interest, he also speaks of “American heathens,” in the note on v.31.  Under this category, Wesley speaks of idolatry being “punished with unnatural lust.” The only other time “lust” is mentioned in his commentary on Romans is in the note on 7:7 where it is specifically defined as “evil desires.”  Once again, we can conclude that Wesley wants to point us beyond sexuality only. 

Referring to Wesley’s note on I Cor 6:9-10, I can state it even more emphatically. Wesley wants us to think beyond sex!  He struggles with the word translated as “effeminate” or “soft.”  He gives this definition – those “who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship.” At the same time, he does address the type of person that people would have had in mind. He asks, “How is this? These good-natured, harmless people are ranked with idolaters and sodomites!  Wesley has trouble with this group being on the list – whoever he had in mind.  I included more commentary in the previous post, making sure I didn’t make too much of this or impose too much of a 21st century perspective.  With statements like this, I do wonder how this matter can rise to the level of schism.

Referring to Wesley’s note on I Timothy 1:8-11, Wesley gives no commentary on the word “sodomite.” Here I did have to look in other places.  There are a handful of mentions in the Notes. When he elaborates beyond an assumed definition, he points us beyond sexuality.  He equates this word to idol worship (2 Kings 23:2), to corrupt principles and practices of government (Deut 32:32), and all things abominable (Rev 21:8).  In addition to this, he elaborates on the sin of Sodom in his note on Ezekiel 16:47, mentioned in the earlier post.  It is clear that sodomy is not good. It is also clear that we cannot project the sin onto a particular group of people.  Wesley wants us all to understand our complicity and involvement in sin as a step into a life-giving relationship with God.

I spent a lot of time on Wesley’s commentary on Matthew 19 in the previous post.  In the notes of this chapter, and in other notes mentioned, Wesley does have some thought-provoking things to say about eunuchs, including that we cannot always take the term literally.  In the context of current discussions, his words are remarkable – as seen in the previous post.

To conclude, I want to state my previous and modest conclusion with more fervor. ”Wesley’s willingness to struggle with these texts gives us permission to do so as well.” To state it another way, there is much room in Wesley for other perspectives. An honoring of perspectives is woven into Wesley’s larger corpus of teachings.  To paraphrase Wesley’s own words, a Methodist is not distinguished by this or that opinion or scheme of religion.  All of that is “quite wide of the point.”  I love that line! Methodists are to be distinguished by the love of God in our hearts.

Yes, there is room in Wesley.  The question is – is there room in the church? For you? For me? For us together in communion? I say “yes,” with Wesley among our guides.