Tag: General Conference

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. 

GMC Shock and Awe

Google GMC and you get a car company. Spell it out and you get the Board of Global Ministries of the UMC. And yet, it is easy to find information about the new denomination called the Global Methodist Church.  There are many remarkable, even shocking, things about this proposal. Here are a few personal observations.

To start with, the word “homosexual” is not used anywhere, nor is the word “incompatible,” even though this has been at the center of the struggle for years.  I applaud this positive and progressive move. No one should be defined by a “single story” of their lives, especially with a word that was listed as a psychological disorder when originally put into the Book of Discipline and is still misused in some translations of scripture to connote abusive, promiscuous, and hedonistic behaviors.  All agree that such behaviors are incompatible with Christian teachings and not to be “practiced.”  The irony here is that the UMC could be left with the baggage of this language.  

In this struggle, we now read this from the GMC: “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.”  This statement begs questions like, can human sexuality not be affirmed in any other way?  What about a kiss on a date? Is human sexuality not expressed through the way we present and see ourselves?  And with these high ideals of legal, spiritual, loving, and monogamous, why is divorce not mentioned anywhere?

The very next statement reads, “We are saddened by all expressions of sexual behavior that do not recognize the sacred worth of each individual or that seek to exploit, abuse, objectify, or degrade others, or that represent less than God’s intentional design for His children.” This statement starts so well, but then ends with code-words that lump a lot of faithful people into this list of truly harmful behaviors, as those in need healing because of “brokenness in their sexual lives.”  This is “saddening.”  

In a similar vein there is an explicit call to inclusiveness.  Again, it starts well, inviting openness and acceptance of many. And then it comes to gender with an explicit definition that leaves no room for anything other than a strict binary understanding. Gender is defined “by a person’s immutable biological traits identified by or before birth.”   Many would use the term “sex” in this way, with gender referring to self-identity, and how one fits into expected roles within a particular culture.  This statement, however, draws a hard line, alienating and singling out some who do not “fit.” 

And then it goes further. While all may “participate in the spiritual life of the Church…inclusiveness means the freedom for the total involvement of all persons who meet the requirements of our Book of Doctrine and Discipline in the membership and leadership of the Church at any level and in every place.” Suddenly it becomes very exclusive! I wonder who can stand up to this scrutiny and who gets to be the judge! In terms of policies, the move to a congregational system of selecting leaders might also delude commitments to inclusiveness at other levels as well – for women and minorities. (There are lots of policy implications to consider around this – term limits, trust clause, no guaranteed appointments, etc.).

In terms of doctrine, the similarities with the United Methodist Book of Discipline are hard to miss. There are certainly not enough differences to warrant schism.  One big difference is the inclusion of creeds more directly into doctrine.  This is a shift since John Wesley removed the creeds from statements on doctrine and put the Apostle’s Creed into the official liturgy.  In the UMC, we are to be formed and transformed as we affirm the creeds together in regular worship.  Is there danger in separating them from this context and using them to enforce “right belief” independent from worship?  It seems to me that such questions could bring us into conversation rather than pull us apart.

In the UMC, the Social Principles are not law. They are intended to be instructive and persuasive, while “acknowledging differences in applying our faith in different cultural contexts as we live out the gospel.”  In the GNC, the statements of “Social Witness” do seem to be enforced at a stronger level.  Yet, once again we see a softening.  In earlier drafts, the “Social Witness” represented a “clear and unified voice,” with direct implications for policy.  In the latest version, it now reads, “As a global church, our Social Witness represents a consensus vision transcending cultures…It is a summons to prayerfully consider how to “do good” and “do not harm…” It almost sounds United Methodist! 

Don’t get me wrong, there is much in place to make change difficult, including a threshold of a three-quarters vote to change the social witness.  And there is talk of strengthening stances at a convening conference.  That seems to be part of the strategy. But, as the saying goes, “life finds a way.” We might add, “Love finds a way.” Our living God finds a way.  As a new denomination is being proposed, they seem to be leaving room for change, perhaps struggling with how to be a global church built around one perspective or “party,” and recognizing the overtones of colonialism in this attempt. Perhaps God is getting in, through the cracks, and revealing the harm that is inflicted when a party forgets that it is “part” of a larger whole and tries to become a whole unto itself.  All of this leads me to wonder, what is this really about?  And, can the UMC be a church where all are welcomed and honored and where our willingness to engage in hard and holy conversation is a part of our witness to the world?

Better Questions? (Reflections on our Financial Crisis and the Recent Webinar for Delegates)

Over the weekend, our delegation attended the webinar for all U.S. delegates to the GC/JC Conferences.  Here are some personal observations and lots of questions…  

The Zoom gathering started well.  We were invited to reimagine our future and to discern how we can best live into our commitments and values.  From there we moved to our primary agenda, which was to deal with a looming financial crisis, and specifically the episcopal fund (the fund used to support our bishops and provide them with resources to lead the church). We also considered how this fund impacts many other dimensions of our shared ministry.

With many graphs and statistics, we were shown that what we are doing is unsustainable.  The list of reasons is long and includes demographic shifts (ie.,aging membership), a pandemic, and theological tensions.  As one bishop put it – in a wonderfully understated way – “while we can’t predict the future, it seems unlikely that this will improve.”  

Concerning the Episcopal Fund, all recommendations called for a reduction in the number of bishops.  The recommendation from our own Jurisdictional Episcopal Committee called for a reduction of two bishops in our Jurisdiction.  This would result in Arkansas and Louisiana becoming one episcopal area (meaning that we would share a bishop).  Several other options were given, with all of them revolving around the question of “how many” positions should be eliminated. To further magnify the crisis, these proposals were called “interim” moves, suggesting that more reductions would be needed in the future.

This led me to ask this question in the Q and A: “Given the need to reimagine the future, and deal with a reality that is unsustainable, could we consider a reduction in compensation for bishops, aligning salaries to values of justice, equity, servant leadership, etc?  And as a witness.” 

There were many similar questions, and this idea became a major point of conversation.  In my breakout room, for example, we wondered if these recommendations were not a “bandaid” reaction. We discussed the need to view this need through a theological lens rather than solely as an economic problem. What if we started with our calling to cultivate social structures that are consistent with the gospel and focused on the kind of witness we are called to give the world?

In the larger Q andA times, there were some attempts to answer the question.  At one point it was said that this approach was not considered because GCFA sets salaries and that such a recommendation was beyond the authority of those involved in making these recommendations.  At another point, it was said that the possibility of reducing salaries was considered, but it was decided to revisit this if the collection rate of apportionments fell to 65%.  In these responses, it did seem that economic paradigms continued to overwhelm any theological considerations. I admit that continuing this discussion is “opening a can of worms.” Perhaps that explains our hesitation to explore the issues.

Is it time for this proverbial “can” to be opened?  Irrespective of how many bishops are needed, (and I am not necessarily arguing for more) what kind of leadership do we need and how should we pay for it? How could we use this crisis to cultivate more just, equitable, and loving systems – and not just for bishops?  If the General Conference cannot do this, could a system be developed where pastoral leaders could voluntarily enter into a covenant together?  What might this look like?  

For one more thought. Some wondered, during this gathering, why we were putting so much energy into this when there were bigger concerns.  As I heard, it was like pouring energy into policy issues – like how to report online attendance – when a struggle for the survival of the denomination is at hand (It was also noted that we see this dynamic as a nation as well). So, this leads to one more set of questions for me: How might we align this financial crisis to our hope to create a church that truly makes room for all?  How might we put this concern into the larger context and use it to bring health to the whole body?  How might we turn this crisis into an opportunity for increased faithfulness and fruitfulness?  May this be our aim.  

Caught Sleeping (as we wait for General Conference)

Here are some quick responses if you ever get caught sleeping on the job. “They told me this might happen after I gave blood this morning.” Or, “I wasn’t sleeping; I was meditating on our mission statement and envisioning new possibilities for implementation.”  Or my favorite, “In Jesus name, Amen.”

After devoting attention elsewhere in the midst of a pandemic, I have recently been reawakened by renewed conversations about the future of the UMC.  I’ve also discovered that some have been wide awake all along.  This week, I watched a presentation by Tom Lambrecht, from the WCA, that was very similar to a presentation given in Arkansas last year.  In this one, however, there were more details about the start of a new denomination, with or without the approval of the next General Conference, and included strategies to invite whole annual conferences to join.  Can you imagine that coming up at Annual Conference? 

The narrative is alarming – and wakeup worthy.  In this narrative, matters of sexuality are only the “presenting issue.” The real issue is that too many no longer see the bible as God’s self-revelation but see it as “a record of human encounters with God,” as “helpful but not authoritative.” With each step, we are warned against those who see the quadrilateral as “four equal sources of authority.” We hear of those who do not want to limit marriage to two people, ignoring the fact that the plan mentioned uses the word monogamy repeatedly. Adam Hamilton is misrepresented as an example of one who “knows good Christians who are gay” and thus “elevates experience over scripture.”  The conclusion is this: the faithful simply cannot stay in a church where so many “discount biblical teaching in favor of human experience and give priority to cultural values over scripture.”

As I listened, I wondered who was being talked about. The people I know, who are being lumped into this category, would agree that scripture is primary and authoritative.  Their convictions are deeply rooted in scripture, believing that faithfulness calls us to move beyond proof-texting and invites us to follow the method of interpretation that Jesus used when he summarized all the law and the prophets through the lens of love.  It is attention to scripture that motivates a desire to make room for all, including those with traditional, centrist, and progressive perspectives.  It is a deeply rooted faith in Jesus Christ that leads many to seek unity in love rather than uniformity by law.  And in the light of the “presenting issue,” and the harmful rhetoric around it, many feel an explicit need to affirm our LGBTQ+ siblings and to honor the gifts they bring. In this light, there is a need to promote a sexual ethic rooted in the life-giving values of the gospel rather than judging people by how they personally identify themselves.

To characterize these commitments as giving priority to cultural values over scripture is unfair and hurtful.   At best, this characterization involves the fallacy of hasty generalization or the taking of an isolated or extreme example and using it to cover others; at worst it is an intentional lie to vilify and mislead!  Of course, if schism is the goal then looking for good in the other is probably not a good idea.  With this goal, we may not want to start with common ground.

Friends, the alarm is going off. At one of these meetings in Arkansas, available on the WCA Facebook page, a pastor said that the most important vote of our lifetime is coming, that small churches will be the key to success, and that funds are available to help pay expenses to help delegates get to Annual Conference when the time comes.  Do we need to wake up?  Do we need to resume the work of cultivating a different narrative? The option may be waking up and finding ourselves in a new denomination. 

Episcopacy and the Protocol (Reflections from the SCJ Gathering for Delegations)

Here are a couple of reflections from the South Central Jurisdiction gathering last week. It all started with interviews of six (and only six) episcopal candidates, with each candidate rotating through conference delegations. Each candidate brought gifts and graces that inspired and cultivated hope among us. In terms of gender and ethnic representation, this group was much more diverse than in the past. None of them would identify as I might – as an older, anglo, straight male. Four were women and two of the women were African American. I believe the Holy Spirit is involved in this movement. In times such as these, we need leaders who have more direct experiences on the other side of privilege. Honoring the leadership gifts of those who stay committed to the body through deep struggles, and through experiences of biased harm, will help us all learn how to love more fully and give witness to God’s calling upon the whole church.

A good portion of the second afternoon was spent on “the Protocol.” It started with Bishop Harvey sharing the story of how she broke down after GC2019 was over. Walking away for the arena, she turned to her husband and asked, “Did today really happen?” Her heart-felt emotion in this confession touched me deeply, knowing that she was presiding at the end of the conference, and knowing her commitment to a higher unity and to making room for all, including traditionalists. That was the promise of the One Church Plan. “Did today really happen?” This led her, and many others, to reimagining possibilities and a renewed commitment to stop harm and cultivate holy inclusiveness. (And these are my words building upon her story).

After this, Bishop Schnase asked this question (and I am paraphrasing from memory): “In your heart of hearts, and after GC2019, do you believe that our mission will be best served with one church that is in perpetual conflict over matters of human sexuality or with two churches where people can live into visions that they believe are of God concerning these matters?” In a room of bishops, with much pain, they all answered “two.” From here, he asked us to give the protocol “room to breathe.” He said, very directly, that now is not the time for any of us to support new plans that serve only our own self-interest. With these words, an audible gasp echoed through the room.

While I remain committed to “unity of spirit” I will heed the call to give the Protocol “room to breathe.” I also see merit in giving each other “room to breathe” in a spirit of “grace and reconciliation,” to use language from the Protocol. I will, however, predict that this “room” will not free any of us from the tension. Within minutes of any separation, God will continue to bring transformation to human hearts, different interpretations and insight into the scripture will touch hearts, and the struggle will continue. I am confident that God will see to that.

In this presentation, I appreciated the tone and the way pain and grief were honored. I appreciated the call to work together, even through our hurt and anger, with humility, patience, and grace — or in Methodist-speak, holiness. (My take on what was said). In every conversation that I am in, with people around the country, of all persuasions, that is the spirit. Even when there are outlying voices that blame and malign others, the vast majority of us know that this does not speak to our better selves. Projecting this narrative that we are all blaming and maligning only cultivates fear and division. As leaders, we have the opportunity to call all to a higher way of relating, as opposed to using our influence to build protection for our own side and opinion.

We are two months from General Conference 2020. Please pray! May we all be led to transformation of heart – starting with the one we see in the mirror. May our prayers lead to a conference that will glorify God.

A Heartbreak Playlist for General Conference

I was talking to my daughter about preparing as a delegate to General Conference, and she said, “Dad, you need to make a breakup playlist.” Since music has always been the

IMG_4576

first language of my soul, I immediately knew this was a good idea. It would be cathartic if nothing else. Here are a few that would be on my list – and some outside the hymnal and worship song charts:   

Under Pressure – David Bowie and Queen

This song is filled with happy, meaningless words uttered to block the pressure that comes when reality gets through and we notice families breaking apart, people in the streets, and the terror of knowing what the world is about. The answer to this “pretending” and “pressure” is found in that very “old fashion” word – LOVE.  This love is hard because it dares us to care and to change, as the song says.   I wonder if this is our “last dance,” or last chance, to give this witness.

What About Us – Pink

In my imagination, I hear this song as an anthem (fight song/lament/plea) from youth within the church to its leaders.  Imagine “billions of beautiful hearts…children that need to be loved” who were willing “come when we call,” deliver this indictment: “And you sold us down the river too far.”  “What about all the times you said you had the answers?  What about love?  What about trust?  What about us?  This song – this prophetic word – haunts me.  

Say Something – Christina Aguilera

This song can also be heard from the perspective of children and youth singing to the church.  The words ring in my ears – “I would have followed you.  Say something, I’m giving up on you.” With such a plea how can we be silent…or only share “under pressure” words.   

Dreaming with a Broken Heart – John Mayer

For me, the title says it all.  I continue to dream of a church where there is room for all, a church that sees diverse perspectives as a blessing that helps us fulfill our calling to learn how to love one another.  In reading the DCA and other legislation around proposals and protocols, I wonder, however, if I just need to wake up and realize that it really is “gone, gone, gone, gone, gone.”

The Heart of the Matter – Don Henley

This song keeps welling up in my soul.  I encourage you to listen – and read the words.  I invite you to join me in prayer that we would all open our hearts to the heart of the matter…

A Heartbreak Playlist

This started as a “breakup” playlist. In the process, it became more of a “heartbreak” playlist.  I am reminded that God loves a broken and contrite heart.  That’s the way love gets in – to the heart of the matter.  What songs would you add?  What if we developed a General Conference Playlist with songs meant to nurture broken hearts and cultivate softened hearts?  I wonder if the Holy Spirit might work through that.

Passing on the Pressure (Initial Reflections on the Protocol from a Delegate Perspective)

cic-universal2The pressure is on!  As a delegate, it was clear that we were the target audience of the first live-streamed presentation from the group giving us the Protocol, aired yesterday. Scattered throughout the conversation were statements about this now being placed in our hands. There were pleas to join the movement.  It was repeatedly emphasized that this protocol received unanimous affirmation after an intense mediation process. Everyone at the table was willing to compromise for the sake of good-will, peace, and the hope of moving forward.  Much motivation came from the shared assumption that the alternative would be much worse. In fact, the word “catastrophic” was used at least twice for what would happen if this does not pass.   So once again, the pressure is on.

Instead of reporting on what individuals said, I will focus on the different perspectives – the traditional, the progressive, the centrist, and central conferences.  (I use these terms with some reluctance, for I do not believe it is good to define others by a single word or story.  For example, it is very possible to want “progress” for those being harmed around current policies and to be immersed in the traditions of the church through creeds, hymns, liturgy, and prayers. It is possible to value inclusiveness and respect for the faith journey of others and see this as mandated from the living tradition of the church).

With that qualification, representatives of a traditional perspective, from the confessing movement and the WCA, led with calls for “amicable separation” because of “irreconcilable differences” around issues of human sexuality.  Since progressives/centrists were not willing to leave, even after repeated unsuccessful attempts to change the BOD, traditionalists have made the decision to actively move towards the formation of a new denomination. They affirmed the need to “set the church free from the conflict.” As stated, in the interests of good-will, peace, and moving forward, these representatives were willing to make significant compromises around voting thresholds and financial support.   In answering a question, this group would not likely leave the General Conference immediately for a Convening Conference of the new denomination, but they did believe this will happen soon – in 2020.  They made it clear that they would actively seek to persuade others to join the movement.

For Progressives, this protocol “changes the landscape for those who have been deeply harmed.” The discriminatory language that has caused so much harm would be removed.  This is an answer to the longing of many hearts.  At the same time, there is a place for caution.  The Traditional Plan that was passed in 2019 has become the source of much fear and hurt. Continued vigilance is needed.  Many, but not all, will resolve to stay in the Post-Separation UMC.

For Centrists, and many who would use the word progressive, this protocol affords the opportunity to rediscover the blessings of being a “big tent” church, where different perspectives are honored, where unity is sought, not in a uniformity of law, but in our call to love one another, with all patience, kindness, humility, without arrogance or insisting on our own way.  Unity is found in this core scriptural calling (Eph 4:1-3; I Cor 13:1-8).  It was stated that 85% of all United Methodists across the spectrum – traditionalists, conservatives, progressives, and centrists – communicate that they can exist in a church where there is diversity of interpretation.  This diversity can be seen as a blessing and even essential to the fulfillment of our calling. It was stated that centrists are united around a desire to welcome all and to remove the discriminatory language that uses outdated and harmful language to single out one group of people, and to access their status in the church by this single criterion rather than by calling, character, faithfulness and fruitfulness.  From this perspective, humility demands that we focus on being welcoming of all who want to know Christ and grow in the virtues of faith and love.  Realistically, this post-separation United Methodist Church would be smaller – but hopefully not for long.  It was expressed that this will be an opportunity for growth, to be more nimble and responsive to the mission field, and to respond in new ways to the call to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

This centrist stance would be the default perspective for the post-separation United Methodist Church. No vote would be required to remain within this expression of faith.  If a vote was taken, the threshold for an Annual Conference would be 57%.  This percentage was the result of compromise.  The traditionalists lobbied for a simple majority, with others asking for two-thirds.  Central Conferences would require a 2/3 vote to leave the UMC.  Local Congregations could choose to leave the UMC. If this vote is taken, it would be by a Church Conference where every member can vote, as opposed to a charge conference where elected leaders vote.  We probably need to be ready for attempts to change these thresholds.

It was very clear that those representing Central Conferences were supportive. A Bishop from Africa said that African support would be 100%.  A similar statement was made from the Bishop of the Philippines.   Representatives from Central Conferences also support the continuation of the United Methodist Church, saying that dissolution would have catastrophic effects on ministry and mission.  There was also support for the idea of regional conferences as being essential to making this work, given freedom for ministry and decisions within various cultures and contexts.   If support indeed comes at these high levels from Central Conferences, then it does appear that this Protocol will be a first step for how we move forward in mission and ministry.

In conclusion, we were asked to not let perfect get in the way of good.  We are asked to understand the need for a small representative group to initiate the process and how it is now time for others to come to the table.  We were asked to pray.  As was stated, with prayer all things are possible and without prayer nothing is possible (Wesley).  Testimonies were given for how prayer opened the way several times in the midst of this mediation.  That is a good word.

Immersed in prayer and in politics together, it is time to turn our attention to the future, to begin to develop a vision for what is possible for the post-separation UMC.  We must give a compelling reason for committing to this “big tent” church.  Without this vision, permission is implicitly given to withdraw into comfortable and like-minded camps.  The pressure is on for delegates to initiate by inviting others of all perspectives to develop a vision and strategy for a faithful and fruitful post-separation UMC.  May God be with us all.

Resisting Harmful Lifestyles

IMG_4576I’ve recently read a post from a Conference WCA group that offered a real and honest perspective, worthy of attention. The post called for resistance to the harm caused by the #resistharm movement, claiming that the “liberal theology” behind this movement is “causing untold harm to hundreds of thousands of wonderful people around the world…by promoting a lifestyle that rebels against the known will of God,” a God who does not “bless unholy or unrepentant people.” As a supporter of #resistharm, I would like to enter into conversation with this perspective.

While I don’t presume to speak for all, I can confidently use the plural when I say that we are not here to promote some secular agenda. As a church, we ask different questions: “How do we respond faithfully to anyone who desires to live as a follower of Christ and grow in relationships of faithfulness and love?”  Many of us are asking, “Is it faithful to assess certain people based solely on the way they identify rather than on their character and calling, faithfulness and fruitfulness?”  “Do we welcome some by saying they need to change in ways that we don’t ask others to change?” “Is it possible to develop a serious sexual ethic based not on identity, but on the virtues to which we are all called – monogamy, faithfulness, forgiveness and grace?  “Rather than judging some as ‘incompatible,’ would it not be more faithful to focus on forms of sexual immorality that objectify others for personal pleasure and cause so much harm in the world?” In short, how do we promote true holiness? We believe that the Holy Spirit is involved in this kind of questioning and is calling us to honor the struggle and to learn how to love one another in the midst of so many diverse expressions of faithfulness and fruitfulness. We believe that this process of struggling and learning is a lifestyle that truly glorifies God. I would even call it traditional – and certainly deeply rooted in Scripture.

With this desire to cultivate lifestyles of faithfulness, we do use the language of LGBTQ, with some adding A and I and +. This language seems to cause much holy discomfort. Why this language? We use the language as a way to express our hope that the church to be a safe place for people to engage in personal and spiritual discernment and find themselves welcomed into a lifestyle of glorifying God through Christ our Lord.  We use the language to acknowledge that suppression of this kind of discernment is not healthy and is in fact harmful. The letters themselves are fluid and are there to help people discern who they are as uniquely blessed children of God.  For example, I can embrace the letter “A,” as an “ally,” wanting to stand with those who are being harmed. This is one way this letter is used. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I am working on changing my understand of the term “Queer,” and learning to honor those who use this word to acknowledge that they are “different” and stand outside the sphere of what is deemed culturally normal, often without being a direct reference to sexuality. Some might say that this is the calling of the whole church.

Using this language as a tool for discernment is very different from using it to label others and assess their status in the larger community. That’s what we want to overcome. We long for the day when we get beyond labeling some siblings in Christ with letters, and colors, and references to gender, in ways that hold some to a different standard, outside the inner circle of those who are privileged and who do NOT feel the pressure to qualify and justify themselves in this way. Faithfulness demands that we resist this particular kind of “evil, injustice, and oppression.”

For one more clarification, I do not accept that “liberal theology” is to blame. I see “liberal” as another charged word used to characterize others as one-dimensional and thus lacking in life-giving truth. As sinful and limited creatures, we need more from each other than that.  While seeing through a mirror dimly, and in great need of the perspective of others, my theology is rooted in Christ, in Scripture, in the Creeds, in Wesley, and with a heart that wants to promote holiness defined, with Wesley, by the virtues of humility, patience, and kindness. Through my theological lens, I do not believe it is right to use God and the holy Scriptures as cover to protect our own privilege and conceal our own prejudices.  If I ever do that (and I do have blind spots that would make it possible), I hope others in the body of Christ will call me to repentance.

Oh, how I wish we could take the opportunity we are being given to share a positive witness to the world based on all the things in which we could find agreement, liberally sharing the love of Christ and the high and holy calling that we all have been given: to bear one another with a love that is humble, patient, and kind, seeking unity of spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:1-3).  I believe with all my heart that such a lifestyle would glorify God and be a much better witness to the world.

Honoring Principled Resistance (and a Tongue-in-Cheek Proposal)

IMG_4577In response to leaders among us who have formally rejected requests for a moratorium on charges and trials based on the measures passed at the last General Conference, I start my reflections with a “tongue-in-cheek” proposal (you can’t put your tongue in your cheek without winking.  Try it!). Maybe this will help us re-focus.    

What if hundreds of us file a complaint against ourselves for ways that we have violated the discipline and doctrine of the church?  It would not be hard to find examples.  Almost every Sunday I go out to eat, violating the prohibition against “buying or selling” on the Lord’s Day. Likewise, I cannot claim “a case of extreme necessity” for some of my choices of drinks. I also wonder about “uncharitable or unprofitable conversations, particularly about magistrates and ministers.” After watching the news these days, or reading some statements from leaders, this one is increasingly difficult.  Likewise, I could probably include “wearing costly apparel,” “needless self-indulgence” and “laying up treasures upon earth.” I probably look at my pension statement too often these days.

Concerning pastoral leadership, I have never reported to the “Church Council the names of members who have been neglectful in keeping their baptismal and membership vows.”  I also don’t “keep copies of membership records off-site and secure.”  That might be a good thing to do.  I have definitely failed “to celebrate all six churchwide special offerings.”  And then there are things like “fasting.” I would be in trouble. 

If I wanted to point fingers at others, I could actually address some more serious concerns around re-baptizing, not using United Methodist curriculum, being unwilling to fully itinerant, and interfering in the ministry of another pastor.

All are mandates within our doctrine and discipline. And yet, I would wholeheartedly agree that most of these charges would be frivolous and harmful to the body. I would also say the same thing about charges made possible by the draconian measures passed at the last General Conference. Why would we allow a legalistic approach to gender identity or sexual orientation negate factors that are clearly the work of God in a person’s life – a desire to practice faithfulness and to grow in God’s love as a part of the community of faith?  Why focus on sexuality rather than on virtues and calling? Why actively cause this harm – perhaps as a scapegoat to intentionally ignore the many boards in our own eyes?  Why would we not honor a call for moratoriums when we are moving towards such big decisions except to hold the peddle down on the forces that seek to exclude and silence others?

In this light, I have the utmost respect for leaders who engage in principled resistance to policies that are about to take effect.  Principled resistance can be an honored approach within our democratic process of discernment. Such resistance is in our spiritual DNA, going back to when Wesley ordained Coke and Asbury.  At other times in our history we have witnessed this approach around slavery, segregation of conferences, and women in ministry. And we can actually use our doctrine and discipline to guide us, as opposed to frame such resistance as a violation.

As a part of our doctrine, Wesley commented on the harm that can come from following the letter of the law rather than the spirit.  He says, “…if we adhere to the literal sense even of the moral law, if we regard only the precept and the sanction as they stand in themselves, not as they lead us to Christ, they are doubtless a killing ordinance, and bind us down under the sentence of death.” Likewise, Wesley consistently says that the building of faith on opinions and the belief that we are more “right” than others – is not to build our spiritual home on sand, but on the “froth of the sea.” This is part of our doctrine.

Complaints, Charges, Church Trials. Let us resist this approach and the selective legalism that undergirds it. May our resistance be empowered by opening our lives to the Holy Spirit rather than resisting the Spirit’s consistent call to unity not uniformity and to the transformation of heart that leads us to make room for all, as challenging and messy as this can be. As a United Methodist Christian, a pastor, and a delegate to General Conference, I want to work towards that. 

Beyond the Nightmare (Comparing Plans for GC2020 at an Arkansas UMC Next Gathering, Sept 2019)

IMG_4576Unity vs. Schism

There is a new primary choice before us – unity or schism.  Before we look at the plans, I want these words to linger for a moment.  I want us to remember our calling “to maintain the unity of spirit in the bond of peace” and to do so with humility, patience, and kindness (Eph 4:1-3). With this calling planted in our hearts, most of us here were willing to adopt the One Church Plan – and not for some vague sense of “unity” but real and incarnate unity where we stayed at the table together and learned how to love one another in the midst of our differences.  We believed that would truly glorify God.  Yet, as we know, this plan crashed and burned…But out of this burning we have also witnessed a fire being kindled in many hearts.

In the light of this growing sacred-fire, there is a renewed commitment to unity, but with a nuanced understanding. Unity of spirit does not necessarily mean unity of organizational togetherness. To build upon the values that we have named as Arkansas Uniting Methodists, we want “unity in love rather than uniformity by law.” We want to cultivate sacred communities where there is “room for all.” We want to give witness to the unity found in God’s beloved community, in God’s kin-dom.

What about the word “schism?”  Schism is divorce on a community scale where groups within the body intentionally pull others away.  You will notice that this word in not used in the plans before us.  Instead we have notions of dissolution, new expressions, and the multiplication of our witness.  I will say that there is merit to seeing things from a different perspective.  This often leads to better outcomes.  Thus, it may not be schism at all.  At the same time, I believe it is important to ask if we are just putting a “silk dress on a pig” (as the saying goes). We need to be honest with ourselves and each other about this and our motives.

As I read these plans, and prepare as a delegate, it seems inevitable that we are moving towards schism, division, “multiplication of our witness.”  We seemed determined to “give into culture” in this way.   I have no doubt that God can work for good in the midst of this, but that does not mean it glorifies God.  I still suspect that God would be more glorified in our efforts to stay at the holy table together and learn how to love one another, instead of retreating into our own bubbles. If we take this course, we will need to find new ways to live into the clear calling that we have been given and find new ways to forge true unity.

With that introduction, let’s look at three plans, and then the one plan that is about to become policy.

The Indianapolis Plan

This plan was developed by leaders from each “camp,” including representation from the WCA.  It starts with the premise that there are “irreconcilable differences” among us and that we need to get beyond the “vitriolic” atmosphere that has marked our conversation for so long. Therefore, we need to “send one another into our respective mission fields to multiply our witness to Christ.”  (I do wonder if “respective mission fields” is code for like-minded camps or if it is dressing up a pig). This plan takes great pains to avoid the notion of dissolving the church. What we know as the United Methodist Church would stay with the centrist/progressive branch – boards, agencies, etc.  Then, we would “give birth” to a new expression of the church for traditionalists (I find this image of being asked to help “give birth” somewhat disturbing…). This “new expression” would share some resources like Wespath, UMCOR, UMW, and Publishing. There would be a formula for allocating resources among the bodies, including future apportionments.  After blessing this new expression, then this plan would remove all restrictive language and the language of “incompatibility” around same-sex marriages and ordination.  Conferences, congregations, and clergy would make decisions about alignment, with a simple majority as the rule.  If no vote is taken, the default would be the centrist/progressive Church (The UMC) in the U.S. Interestingly, Annual Conferences in Central Conferences would default to the traditionalist branch.

UMC Next Proposal

This proposal starts by envisioning a UMC that welcomes everyone, nurtures devoted disciples of Jesus Christ, and equips our members to live as salt and light in the world. It calls us to reclaim the spiritual zeal and creativity of our Wesleyan heritage.   It keeps the UMC intact by allowing for greater regional autonomy and freedom to engage in ministry within diverse missional context. In this way it honors the diverse global nature of the church.  It directly affirms our doctrinal standards and core beliefs. And then, in the light of these values and beliefs, this plan removes “language and policies…that are harmful to and exclusive of LGBTQ persons.”  It affirms the ability of pastors to determine readiness for marriage and annual conference to determine criteria for ordination.  After offering a vision of what we can be as a denomination, this plan provides methods and resources for groups of churches to form new expressions of methodism. The plan acknowledges that separation can be a faithful step that honors those who experience a call to move in different directions. It grounds this possibility in the story of Paul, Barnabas, and Mark and thus gives the notion of multiplication biblical roots (Acts 15:37-40) and combines this with the life-giving theological language of respect, partnerships, and cooperation in ministry. The proposal ends by moving us back to vision and calls for a “commission on the 21st century church” to prepare a “comprehensive structure and governance plan…”  For a couple of other details, this proposal endorses a proposal from the Connectional Table to create regional conferences and calls for professional mediation to help all parties move forward.  In terms of voting, local church disaffiliation would require a 2/3 majority – an option available for a limited time.

The Bard -Jones Plan

Named for the two bishops that developed it, this plan is similar to the Connectional Conference Plan that came out of the Way Forward Commission, but never got much traction at the time.  Like the Indy Plan, this plan starts with the premise that we must find a way to address our division.  It starts by highlighting our options. 1. Relying on the legislative processes of Conference to make changes. 2. Groups just decide to leave.  3. A “forced schism,” through trials and active disobedience. Or 4 (the shining light)- to negotiate a new unity, a new connectionalism, and a mutual blessing for the parting of ways.  This plan calls for the creation of two or three self-governing branches – an “open” branch initially operating under the “simple plan,” a “traditional” branch operating under the “traditional plan,” and perhaps a “progressive” branch with a strengthen version of the “simple plan.” The United Methodist Church would be an umbrella organization, for the purpose of sharing in mission and organization support.

The Traditional Plan  

As with the rhetorical device, use in the Bard/Jones Plan, where three bad options are given to lead to new option, there is a parallel here. All three of these plans look good in the light of the one plan that was passed at GC2019 – the traditional plan (soon to be policy).  This is the big ugly elephant in the room – a plan that defines unity as uniformity, that establishes strict mandatory penalties for anyone who violates certain, that requires oaths in order to be in certain leadership positions, that creates a globally elected body to enforce particular rules, a body likened by our Judicial Council to an “inquisitional court.” And it was all passed knowing that much of it would be ruled unconstitutional.  One possibility before us is that General Conference will be about perfecting this plan.  And, that my friends, is my nightmare.  Even many who have more traditional views on particular topics are opposed to these draconian measures. They do not honor Christ or glorify God.

So, in comparison to this plan/policy, all the others look great! We need to keep that in mind. In terms of big outcomes, any of these plans (or some combination) would allow for the formation of a church that truly aspires to the values that we have named as Arkansas Uniting Methodists:

  • Unity in Love rather than Uniformity by Law, where we come together at the holy table and give witness to the royal law of love.
  • Making Room for All and cultivating the values of inclusiveness and diversity as strengths that give witness to God’s beloved community (God’s kingdom) in our midst.
  • A High(er) View of Scripture where we honor the whole of scripture, interpret through key concepts as Jesus did, and move beyond proof-texting to affirm prejudices and opinions.
  • Wesleyan Holiness, defined through the virtues of humility, patience, and gentleness rather than through judgment of others and zeal for our own righteousness.
  • A Sexual Ethic Rooted in Values rather than Personal Identity, an ethic rooted in the values of monogamy, faithfulness, commitment, and the virtues summed up with the word love.

Beyond the Nightmare

Before our discussion, I want to elaborate on the nightmare that haunts me.  What if we are not able to pave any path for a church that cultivate these values. What if we don’t have the votes, even after the wave of support that occurs in the US?  (It is not unlike what we witnessed in St. Louis). What if I’m sitting there and I realize that it is not going to happen – at least in the legislative arena.  Can I (we) just sit there as more harm is done?

One image that comes to mind is something that happened at Annual Conference a couple of years ago when a group of women made the decision to excuse themselves from the bar of the conference abstaining from a vote on a resolution in support of women in ministry.  While acknowledging that the resolution was well-intended, it was reasoned that they did not want to subject themselves to the possible harm of becoming, once again, an “issue” to be justified and defended, or by having to vote, once again, on their own legitimacy.  And so, they chose a response that I believe honored our shared covenant.

I’m not totally sure what to make of this comparison, but I have a couple of reflections. First, resolutions are by nature contentious and designed to divide.  They may be well intended and still cause harm. Often there are better way to make affirmations. In the same way, our whole legislative process is often contentious and can cause much harm.  Acknowledging this, and as a small step, it is important to notice the language of the plans and ask: Do they come from a heart of love or do they mask other motives? Do they flow out of the values we have named, and if so, give the possibility for healing rather than harm? The hope is that we will let our values guide us through the turbulent waters of legislation. For a second connection, and more provocative, I wonder if we need some kind of contingency plan, for all supporters of an open and inclusive church, to possibly excuse ourselves and go to another room to work on a new way forward – while we are conveniently there in Minneapolis.  It is a big question mark at this point, but I do wonder.

I certainly hope that kind of action will not be needed.  I hope I will be able to say in hindsight, “Oh that was just a nightmare.” May our Lord help us see all of this through the light of love divine. May it be so.

%d bloggers like this: