Tag: LGBTQ

Reflecting Forward – (some first thoughts on General Conference)

General Conference is in the books!  It was historic, messy, and beautiful. Worship with siblings from around the world was profoundly centered in Christ, deeply rooted in scripture, and sooo inspiring.  The spirit of the Conference was like nothing I have experienced before in this setting.

Throughout the Conference, there was an attentive gracefulness to hearing the gospel shared through a wide diversity of perspectives.  There was an intentional effort to make room for all voices. And the “wideness of God’s mercy” was lifted high. From my perspective, it was inspiring to see delegates live into this practice of radical hospitality that started with introductions that allowed persons to identify themselves as clergy or laity, along with their conference, age, ethnicity, sex, and with other identifiers important to the speaker.  This practice helped all of us to be attentive to the goal for a balance of voices and to help us all reflect on our own place at the table.

It has been hard to read attempts to dis-grace this work with name-calling and accusations.  I wonder what purpose was being served by casting such negative perceptions with words like elitist, completely corrupt, radically liberal, woke, and accusations of not believing in the Bible.  I could venture a guess. 

Some big decisions were made, and much of the attention has centered around matters of human sexuality.  While this accounted for only a few of the petitions before us, these were big! So much of our focus has been around these matters.  In my opinion, we are able to set some things right.  

I was blessed to work on the Faith and Order Committee which brought forth legislation to remove harmful language that has served as a barrier to some for decades. Now the door is open to consider all candidates based on their calling and character, faithfulness and fruitfulness. While one barrier was removed, it is worth noting all the qualifications that remain.  The qualifications to be considered for ordained ministry include faith in Christ, gifts for ministry, affirmation of the holy scriptures, accountability to the doctrinal standards of the church, and more. This list is long and life-giving for the church as a whole.

We approved language that gives pastors and local churches agency and freedom around marriages of same-sex couples. No one will be penalized for performing or refraining from performing a same-sex wedding.  The language is now neutral. From my personal perspective, some leaders are making a little too much of how congregations don’t have to change anything.  While that is true. I also think this is an opportunity to invite change.  This contextual freedom will give us an opportunity to focus on the virtues that are life-giving for all when it comes to marriage, rather than being bound to a double standard that has caused great harm to some.

I love the perspective of one who identifies as “conservative” saying that the rules that have been in place were not only restrictive but were also condemning. By removing them we are simply making the church look more like the kin’dom of God. To sum it up in a sentence, the word “incompatibility,” as it has been used to create a judgement and a barrier only for some, is gone! Glory to God.  

We approved new and revised Social Principles. I love the way these principles focus more on how we are to treat one another rather than offering hardline stances that divide. These principles are intended to be general enough to find meaningful application in different contexts and cultures.

There does seem to be a powerful propaganda machine with the purpose of causing further division in the Body of Christ. For one example, I saw a report that we now promote polygamy, with the follow-up question, “What’s next?”  This came with a quote of the general statement on human sexuality in the Social Principles, while leaving out the statements directly on marriage that include the word monogamy, and a direct statement saying that we do not condone polygamy.   

Others have said that we now promote immorality, when in fact we strengthened our understanding of morality rather than weakened it when it comes to marriage and sex.  We added words calling for fidelity, monogamy, commitment, mutual affection and respect, careful and honest communication, mutual consent, and growth in grace and in the knowledge and love of God.  This came out of my committee as well. 

For a personal commentary, the Greek word often translated as sexual immorality is the word “pornia.” It could be defined as any attempt to turn another child of God into an object or an issue, to be used for personal pleasure or gain.  Attempting to define this word by only pointing to one group of people may just be the heighth of immorality. There is nothing biblical about this projection.     

Moving on. 2553 is gone! May healing come from the great harm that was caused and may we confess our role in this as a conference. We may be able to find ways to bless those who desire to leave the UMC, but I hope we never again endorse and implement a process for congregations to vote in this way, especially when the winner takes all.  That never felt very Christian to me.  And by virtue of my position in the Conference I have directly seen the great harm that was caused – and yes, our own policies and the way we implemented them are implicated as well.

On the last day, and after days of debate, a budget was approved that amounted to a 42% decrease.  This is a “rubber hits the road” acknowledgement that we are moving into a new season as a denomination.  We will have to find new ways to live into our calling. Perhaps we have no choice but to see this as an opportunity.    

And perhaps the biggest development of all was the passing of a plan for regionalization and the concept of giving contextual freedom to engage in ministry, while supporting one another in mission and in the calling to be a Wesleyan witness in the world.  This concept, contrary to some reports, had broad support at General Conference across the board, including from Central Conferences in Africa, the Philippines, and Europe.  

To close for now, I want to say that it was an honor to be in the room where this all happened and to play a small role in it all.  The whole delegation was amazing and worked, prayed, worshiped, and played hard – and a lot of this happened long before we arrived in Charlotte.  Thanks to the Arkansas Conference for entrusting me and us to this holy task. 

And during conference, some of us got together and made the decision to change our Facebook forum from “Arkansans Staying United” to “Being UMC Arkansas.”  Here’s to Being UMC! The new season has begun! May God be glorified!

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. 

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.

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.

Naming Our Values in a New Reality

IMG_4576At a recent gathering of around 80 of us, under the title of “Uniting Methodists,” we spent time naming our values in a new reality after GC2019. If you were at this meeting you will recognize much of what was said.  The hope of the conveners is that these values will serve as a light to guide us into a faithful way forward. We invite you to prayerfully use them for guidance and for holy conversation. We value…  

Unity in Love rather than Uniformity by Law

The plan passed at General Conference establishes strict mandatory penalties around only one concern, requires oaths to be taken to serve in certain leadership positions. and takes accountability away from resident bishops and peers.  Parts of this plan have been likened by our Judicial Council as establishing an “inquisitional court.” There are many with traditional, progressive, and centrist perspectives who do not believe this represents the calling of Christ. We are called to come together at the holy table where unity is not rooted in uniformity of opinions but in the call to love in the midst of blessed diversity. We will continue to have many theological and social issues to discuss.  It is through our struggles together that we learn how to love.

Making Room for All

The value of inclusiveness has been expressed with a variety of constituencies in mind. At the holy table, we value those with traditional, centrist, and progressive perspectives. In the light of our current conversation, we want to affirm our LGBTQ+ siblings, and honor the gifts they bring into the community of faith.  We want to encourage young persons to be leaders among us, and we continue our commitment to be more inclusive in terms of ethnicity.  As United Methodist Christians, we want to reclaim the “big tent,” practice hospitality, avoid “us and them” language, be transparent, and cultivate ministries that are attentive to contexts. We believe that diversity, within the Body of Christ, is a great strength and helps us give witness to the kingdom of God in our midst.  

A High(er) View of Scripture

As the inspired Word of God, the scriptures come to life in holy conversations and relationships.  In these conversations, we often do not get easy answers but must struggle with the tensions and different perspectives found within the scriptures themselves.  Faithfulness moves us beyond proof-texting and using scriptures to affirm our prejudices and opinions.  In community, we honor the whole, notice the context, and seek God’s intended message for us in our time and place. With Wesley as our guide, we look to key texts to help us interpret all of scripture, with the summary of the law and prophets offered by Jesus as the master key, where love is described as the royal law.  We read scripture through the lens of the risen Christ and through his will for us and for all.   

Wesleyan Holiness

In defining holiness, Wesley consistently used the virtues of humility, patience, and gentleness. He also talked about the opposite of holiness with words like pride, passion, judgment of others, and zeal for our own righteousness. True holiness is rooted in the love God has planted in our hearts.

A Sexual Ethic Rooted in Values rather than Personal Identity

While we affirm unity rather than uniformity, faithfulness does demand some agreement.  In humility, we acknowledge that we do not fully understand matters of sexual orientation and identity. At the same time, we affirm a strong sexual ethic rooted in the values of monogamy, faithfulness, commitment, and the virtues summed up with the word love.  We affirm pastors and congregations who want the freedom to respond in contextual ways to all who desire to grow in God’s love and live in relationships where they can practice these life-giving values. We want to adopt a denominational policy built on a shared ethic around calling and character, as opposed to policies that make judgments around personal identity.

Being Hopeful and Realistic

We affirm our calling to bear with one another in love and to seek unity of spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:1-3).  After General Conference, we have concluded that this calling may not manifest itself as “unity of structure.” At the same time, we do not believe we should retreat into another “like-minded camp” where the virtues of our calling – humility, patience, and kindness – are not really needed.  We want to cultivate a community where all are welcomed at the table and where we can truly learn how to love. 

We also trust that politics, defined as the art of making good decisions for the whole, can be consistent with the call of the Holy Spirit.  In this light, we ask you to help elect persons who will be active and vocal advocates for the values we have named above.  We do not believe that this is a time for neutrality or to elect those who might approach General Conference with a desire to perfect the Traditional Plan.   

Our Calling Amid Possible Schism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love Still Grows Here (A Church Council Response after General Conference)

653D2175-7F64-4A20-8469-8F10A9BF51BFThis week we held our first Church Council meeting after General Conference. As an outcome of our conversation, we want to say: “Love still grows here…for all people.” We also affirmed the pastoral letter that was sent out last week and want to highlight this idea: To live into our calling to bear one another in love, with all humility, patience, and gentleness, and to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:1-6), “we must humble ourselves and admit that we don’t understand everything about matters of sexual identity and orientation, but we want all to know the love of God. We believe that all persons are created in the image of God and have much to offer. We want to cultivate an environment where all people can grow in faithfulness and in the life-giving love of Jesus Christ our Lord.”

This affirmation grew out of rich and respectful conversation. In this council meeting, there were heartfelt calls to respect those who have different views from our own and affirmations that this diversity of thought glorifies God. There were calls to welcome all people without judgment. There were statements of hope that we could be a place where LGBTQ+ persons were not seen as our issue or cause, but as beloved children of God with us all. There was a shared agreement that legislation at the General Church does not have to define who we are, as individuals nor as a congregation.

We also affirmed our “Love Grows Here” statement which includes these words: “We are a community of open hearts and open minds, built upon the love of God as revealed through Jesus Christ and cultivated through the continuing work of the Holy Spirit. We accept people wherever they are on their faith-journey and believe that a variety of perspectives helps all of us to grow. We come together, not to agree on everything, but to learn how to love, forgive, bless, and honor one another. In this way we practice for our place as citizens of God’s expansive kingdom which is always bigger than our finite perspectives. While we proclaim the core doctrines of the Christian faith as given to us through the scriptures and historic creeds, we are also willing to ask questions of interpretation, to struggle with difficult issues, and to engage one another with respect and compassion. As John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement, once said, ‘As to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think.’ In another place he said, ‘In essentials unity; in nonessentials freedom; and in all things love.’”

Your Pastors and Church Council invite all of you into this vision at this crucial time. May we all work together to give this witness to the world, and to our own beloved denomination. “May love still grow here…for all people.”

***

As background, our meeting started with Pastor Michael sharing his assessment of General Conference. He began by saying that he did not expect agreement from everyone. “My role,” he said, “is not to build agreement with my perspectives but to interpret the scriptures in ways that challenge people of all perspectives and opinions to grow in their own relationship with God. Godly transformation of heart comes from this challenge, probably more than from easy agreement.”

He shared his advocacy for the One Church Plan, the plan endorsed by 80% of our Bishops, but did not pass. This plan was a call to a higher unity and to offer space for pastors and congregations to be in ministry within different cultural context. He also shared his opposition to the Traditional Plan which did pass. This plan retains current restrictive language around homosexuality and adds measures to enforce these restrictions. He said, “My opposition was not because I wanted to stifle traditional voices and views within the church. I have given my life to honoring the living tradition of the church. While I do believe that changes need to be made in our Book of Discipline, my major concern was with the sprit of what was passed. In my opinion, we moved from unity in love to unity by law, from a unity of diverse gifts to unity as uniformity. This plan establishes strict mandatory penalties for anyone who violates restrictions and only on this one issue. It requires persons to pledge oaths if they want to serve in certain leadership positions, again only around one issue. It takes accountability away from resident bishops and peers and puts it in the hands of a globally elected body to enforce the rules as mandated. Before this plan passed, our Judicial Council (the equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court) likened parts of this plan to the establishment of an “inquisitional court.” Friends, it breaks my heart to say those words in association with the church. I do not believe we should be trying to make this sound acceptable.”

Much of this traditional plan was ruled unconstitutional before the vote was even taken and yet it still passed by 53% to 47% of the worldwide delegates. It is worth noting that a majority of the U.S. delegates were against this plan. There were also many who wanted to see a move towards full inclusion. An outcome of this vote is that a fire has been ignited among people who want to represent the love of Christ for all. We certainly see this in our congregation.

May we all stay rooted in the virtues needed for us to all come together at the holy and open table – humility, patience, kindness, compassion, all wrapped up in a love that does not insist on its own way. May this be the continuing spirit of our life together. “May love still grow here…for all people.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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