Tag: Ordination

Beyond Soundbites and Towards Holy Conferencing (A Series on the Actions of General Conference)

This series is intended to give a more complete and graceful read on the actions of General Conference in 2024, and to help us move beyond the soundbites and critiques that are often meant to stir up more division. It has been written with input and support from the delegation of the Arkansas Conference of the United Methodist Church.

Topics include Abortion, Qualifications for Ordained Ministry, Marriage, The Israel-Palestine Conflict, and Pronouns. The complete series, to date, is below:

General Conference and Abortion

In some communications circulating about what happened at General Conference, what is being said about Abortion is particularly shocking. On this topic, we read that General Conference affirmed a “right to abortion,” renounced “abortion bans,” and adopted an overall position that is “pro-choice.” The words in quotation are in the commentaries.  They are not, however, found in the actual statement that came out of General Conference.  

In the statement from the Social Principles, there is one sentence that says, “In these limited circumstances, we support the legal option of abortion.” This is not described as a “right.” It is a conviction shared out of love and concern.  The limited circumstances include when the life of the mother is in danger and there are no other medical treatments and when severe abnormalities threaten the viability of the fetus.  The whole statement shares a “commitment to the sanctity of human life.” It “unconditionally rejects it as an acceptable means of birth control or a mechanism for gender selection.” It “supports measures requiring parental or guardian…consent.”  It opposes “late-term or partial birth abortion.”  It urges the seeking of “medical advice and pastoral counseling…”  It also speaks against “bullying or shaming people for their decisions or actions.”  There are also strong statements in support of access to reproductive health, especially for those who often have limited access.  There are statements supporting treatments for infertility.  There are no statements about “abortion bans” and the phrase “pro-choice” is not used at all.

In one letter that is being circulated, we read of how the following words were deleted: “We are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child” (a statement from the previous Social Principles).  With the new and revised Social Principles, vetted through multiple sessions of holy conferencing around the world, these exact words are not there.  The sentiment, however, is expressed throughout, speaking of “the sanctity of life,” the “tragic conflicts of life with life,” and “the life of the fetus.”  

In this context, it may be worth comparing our statement to that found in the Social Witness of the GMC.  On the topic of abortion, the GMC statement is relatively short. It is only two sentences long.  It uses the term “sacredness” instead of “sanctity.” With a similar statement of exceptions, it “compels us to resist the practice of abortion, except in the cases of tragic conflict of life against life…”  It says, “we do not accept abortion as a means of birth control or gender selections,” where the Social Principles of the UMC uses the phrase “unconditionally rejects.”  

The GMC statement could possibly be considered a brief summary of the much more detailed and arguably stronger UMC statement. It would be so very-extremely-incredibly wrong to use this brief statement to stir up division, without conversation, based on what it does not say or to make it say something that it doesn’t to support one’s own agenda. That would be deceptive, to put it mildly.  At the very least, the differences here are not enough to warrant schism and the great harm that that causes within the Body of Christ.

To prepare for holy conferencing, and at the beginning of this series, it may be helpful to note that the Social Principles of the UMC do not carry the weight of doctrine or foundational teachings. They are “not church law” but instead “represent the prayerful and earnest efforts of the General Conference to speak to issues in the contemporary world from a sound biblical and theological foundation.” These principles are “intended to be instructive and persuasive in the best of the prophetic spirit,” while recognizing that the church is a “living body gathered from the many and diverse parts of the human community,” with a calling to love one another well in the midst of diverse understandings.  For a brief comparison, the preliminary Social Witness of the GMC, to be brought to their convening Conference, is intended to offer a “consensus vision transcending cultures” with expectations for congregations and those in leadership to affirm, endorse, and subscribe to the positions therein. In preliminary documents, it will require a three-quarters majority vote at the convening General Conference to make changes to the statements.

For more information, a draft of the Revised Social Principles is linked here.  The final version is being prepared for publication. The full statement on this topic can be found on pages 28-29.

General Conference and Clergy Qualifications

When it comes to who Churches and Boards of Ordained Ministry can consider as candidates for ministry, one restriction was removed. That one restriction centered around the word “incompatible” for one group of people. Now candidates can be considered based on their calling and character, faithfulness and fruitfulness, without this one barrier standing in the way.  Putting this in context, it is worth noting all the qualifications that remain.  The qualifications to be considered for ordained ministry include faith in Christ, gifts for ministry, affirmation of the holy scriptures, accountability to the doctrinal standards of the church, and more.  This list is long and life-giving for the church as a whole.  In all of the rhetoric, with much of it intended to cultivate division, this context is important if we are to make faithful decisions.

General Conference also removed the statement that called clergy to practice “faithfulness in marriage and celibacy in singleness.”  This has led to accusations of opening the door to polygamy, fortification, adultery, and immorality, even when there are other statements that directly address these concerns. Putting this in context, it could be said that the call to a moral life was strengthened, not weakened.  The General Conference added a call for “fidelity, monogamy, commitment, mutual affection and respect, careful and honest communication, mutual consent, and growth in the grace and in the knowledge and love of God.” What blessings might come if our ministry focused on the cultivation of these values for all?  This statement opens the way to evaluate relationships by much more than a marriage license, especially when, up to this point, some legal marriages would not have been recognized by the church because of a statement that was used to keep people out.

Since much of the negative rhetoric is coming from those committed to the GMC, it may be good to make some comparisons.  Most of the qualifications in their statement resonate well with those of the UMC. On this one consideration, the GMC statement calls for “fidelity in a Christian marriage between one man and one woman” and “chastity [rather than celibacy] in singleness.” In the GMC, this criteria also extends to laity serving in the church. In the experience of pastors, more and more couples who have come to talk about getting married are older and already partners together. That is reality.  Some are active in the church and perhaps called to explore ordained ministry. Depending on how this rule was enforced, they could not be considered.  General Conference, in 2024 and in the contexts in which we find ourselves, has opened the way for us to name and encourage the values that are life-giving for all, and to affirm the blessings of marriage for all who feel called into this commitment (which will be the topic of the next post).

 General Conference and Marriage

Information beyond soundbites may be the key to the faithful work of finding agreement, building consensus, and making faithful decisions. What does the Book of Discipline say about marriage? Marriage is affirmed as “a sacred and lifelong covenant,” a union with “one another and into a deeper relationship with God and the community of faith.” This is important because it calls those getting married in the church to be a part of the faith community.  In terms of policy, it might be helpful to start here, trusting that marriages in the church would be for those whom some in the congregation, including the pastor, would have already given a blessing.  A relationship would have already been formed.

Our new principles allow for the understanding of marriage to be between two persons or between one man and one woman. This change opens the way to consider matters of human sexuality with humility and to focus on the virtues that are life-giving for all, rather than a double standard for some.  It allows us to remain true to the primary purpose of marriage, in the Wesleyan tradition – to grow in holiness and to “reflect a continued willingness to grow together in Christ…and cultivate a covenantal bond that encompasses intimacy, grace, and love.” We can turn once again to the call for “fidelity, monogamy, commitment, mutual affection and respect, careful and honest communication, mutual consent, and growth in the grace and in the knowledge and love of God.” (For more on this statement see the previous post on Clergy Qualifications; that is the context for this understanding of the values needed for a healthy marriage and life-giving relationships in general).

Next, there is an affirmation of civil marriage, the legal recognition of domestic unions by the state which is vital for guaranteeing family stability, regulation of inheritances, and assuring the rights, benefits, and protections for spouses and children.  This is why marriages through the church also require a license. With the expansion of our understanding, room is made to bless marriages in different cultural contexts and to honor the norms and laws in different countries. One country does not get to dictate the practices of another.

There is so much more within the statement, including paragraphs on child marriage, polygamy, and a careful statement on divorce, which “may become a regrettable but necessary alternative when marital relationships are strained beyond repair or become destructive…” It is made clear that “we do not support efforts to withhold ministry from divorced persons…”

In making faithful decisions, it may be helpful to note what the GMC says.  There is one short statement: “We believe that human sexuality is a gift of God that is to be affirmed as it is exercised within the legal and spiritual covenant of a loving and monogamous marriage between one man and one woman.”  One question might be: Is this the only way to understand human sexuality?  From a UMC perspective, human sexuality is expressed in many ways, from our style and dress to our natural attractions, to how we interact with one another.  It can be expressed through our desire for intimacy at all levels of relationship, from holding hands, to a kiss, to decisions about commitments and how we might express the values listed above. The affirmation, support, forgiveness, grace, and teachings of the church can be helpful all along the way.

Within the GMC Provisional Discipline, marriage comes up in one other place, in the non-discrimination policy for lay persons in ministry. We read, “There shall be no discrimination on the basis of gender, race, color…” and then there is one exception:  “As a part of our witness, individuals employed by the church shall subscribe to the doctrinal and moral standards of the Global Methodist Church and give evidence of the same in their life and ministry.” And early version of this statement interpreted and added these words – “including faithfulness in marriage, understood to be between one man and one woman, or chastity in singleness.” A person who may not fit into this strict definition cannot serve in ministry, regardless of calling, character, faithfulness and fruitfulness.

As an update to the document, the Judicial Council recently ruled that clergy hold the responsibility for deciding whether they will perform the religious marriage service of a couple within the church.  Wedding Policies cannot circumvent this authority.  At the same time, as our bishops have said, pastors are expected to “exercise their authority with deep pastoral sensitivity to the congregation and community to which they are appointed.” This means that Holy Conferencing is always in order. Rushing into a vote is often divisive and causes harm. As we have with so many tensions that have surfaced within the church, we can approach these tensions with grace. They do not have to divide us.

For one more new statement, the Book of Discipline says that no one, pastor or congregation, will be “penalized for performing or refraining from performing a same-sex wedding.” As with so many statements in the Social Principles, the hope is to make room and give grace.  The focus is more on how we treat one another than it is on giving hardline stances.  The hope is unity, not division.  As we navigate this new territory, It might be helpful to compare our life together in a faith community with that of a marriage, remembering that the scriptures also use this analogy.  What might this look like?  How might we navigate our discernment together through this lens? How might we love with patience, kindness, and with a humility that does not insist on its own way?

General Conference and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

The way this conflict is being used in soundbites, for the purpose of cultivating more division, needs to be challenged.  In one document that is being shared, it is reported that the General Conference voted “to lobby the U.S. government to end military aid to Israel.”  The insinuation is that the UMC is anti-Israel.

One petition that is being used to cast shade on the UMC, in its original form, focused on the lack of “a just and lasting peace for the Palestinian people.” (Resolution R6111, found in the Book of Resolution since 2004).  Through the committee debate, this was changed to “both peoples.”  The original petition urged “the U.S. government to end all military aid.” This was changed to “all governments.” Even the original petition did not say military aid “to Israel,” as the report claims,” but “in the whole region.” The call was to redistribute funds to support the work of “humanitarian health and educational work…”  The resolution calls for support of ecumenical and interfaith bodies that advocate for Palestinian self-determination, while affirming “Israel’s right to exist within secure borders.” It calls for “the Palestinian Authority and Palestine religious and political leaders to continue to publicly condemn violence against Israeli civilians and to use nonviolent acts of disobedience to resist the occupation and the illegal settlements.”  This, and the other resolutions that deal with this conflict, are calls for peace, according to the call of Jesus and the scriptures. 

It is important to note that this came to the Conference in the form of a Resolution. Any and every United Methodist can submit a resolution to be considered with the title of their choice.  We should not be drawn in by the title alone. The Israel-Palestine conflict was the subject of several resolutions that were debated and voted upon in committees.  On the whole, these resolutions are non-binding and have no financial implications.  Those that pass (sometimes with significant alterations) become the perspective of the majority within the committee at General Conference, offered for guidance and discernment – not as law.   

Given the nature of Resolutions in general, and the content of these resolutions, there does not seem to be enough to warrant calls for more division among us.   All of us can find resolutions with which we would disagree, or at least would restate in another way.  They are offered for guidance and discernment, from elected delegates from around the world.  They do not justify schism and the harm that brings to the body of Christ.

General Conference and Pronouns

In response to videos that are circulating to show people introducing themselves at General Conference, with the intent of stirring up division, it is important to remember that there were thousands of speeches at General Conference, on the floor and in committees.  These videos, making the rounds on social media, show a selective and small sampling. They are acts of deception.  The slow cadence that is highlighted and made fun of was encouraged as a way to honor the many languages represented and to assist interpreters. The encouragement for each speaker to identify themselves as clergy or laity, along with their conference, age, ethnicity, sex, and with other identifiers important to the speaker, was about making room for all voices and honoring all children of God. This was monitored and on one day it was reported that just over 50% of those speaking at mics that day were female, which was a first in the history of General Conference. It is sad to see people making fun of what could be described as an intentional effort to model the very kin’dom of God.

In many gatherings in our world today, there are those who encourage the naming of pronouns as a part of the way we introduce ourselves, typically using the phrase, “my pronouns are he-him, she-her, they-them, he-they, etc.”  This was not required at General Conference, nor was it something asked for by the monitors.  Many did choose to add these identification markers.   From the perspective of many, receiving this graciously and with an open heart was (and is) a good thing. Even if there are only a few (or even only one) who prefer non-binary pronouns, giving such grace can be seen as a way to love one another well.  Even if there is disagreement, why dis-grace this perspective?  What purpose is served by casting negative perceptions with words like elitist, woke, and accusations of not believing in the Bible? These are some of the comments that are being widely shared among us.  Truth is found in a more complete and gracious read.

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?

A Higher Unity: Why I Support the One-Church Plan

IMG_4576THIS PLAN SUPPORTS OUR EPISCOPAL LEADERSHIP  

After prayerful deliberation, our bishops have voted overwhelmingly to share the work done by the Way Forward Commission on three different plans and to recommend the One-Church Plan.  In the last few days I have heard some strong criticism of this recommendation, including characterizations that our Bishops were motivated by pride, ignorance, contempt, and willful disrespect of others.  I do not believe such attacks are helpful.  I believe that working for unity is a primary charge for our episcopal leaders, and I thus want to honor them for their sincere and prayerful efforts.  I also want to open my heart to the possibility that the Holy Spirit is involved in this proposal.

THIS PLAN OFFERS A PLACE IN THE CHURCH TO ALL

At our impasse, I seek a plan that respects those who approach this issue wanting to uphold traditional views of family and marriage, and that allows us to acknowledge the scriptural support for this perspective.  At the same time, I seek a plan that has empathy for those who struggle, often in deeply personal and painful ways, and have come to understand that they do not fit within the traditional definition of “normal,” and yet they love God, want to live in community within the congregation, and want to have relationships where they can make commitments, practice faithfulness, and grow in the virtues of faith.  The challenge for those on the ‘progressive side’ is to respect those who value traditional views of family and marriage, and in a spirit of humility and love, to not support any position where this perspective was deemed unacceptable. The challenge to those on the more ‘traditional’ side is to acknowledge that there is room for faithful and biblical interpretations that would open the way for inclusion in the church for those who claim a part of their identity with the letters LGBTQ, and at the same time, want to make commitments that will lead them into increasing faithfulness and fruitfulness to God.  In support of this plan, there are those on both sides who are willing to find unity in a higher calling and deeper biblical values.  Personally, in the hope of truly honoring these positions, I would want to include a discussion about using alternative terms for marriage, such as unions.  The One-Church Plan would allow for such conversations.

THIS PLAN WORKS TOWARD A SEXUAL ETHIC WORTHY OF SHARING AND PROCLAIMING

While I support the notion of unity not uniformity, faithfulness does demand some agreement and a unified vision. It cannot be “anything goes.”  If we are willing to do the work, I believe we could find much agreement for a strong sexual ethic rooted in support for monogamy, faithfulness, commitment even when sacrifice is required, not using others as objects for our pleasure but seeing them as persons worthy of honor, and heavy doses of grace and forgiveness.  Concerning marriage, Wesley focused on the purpose of this institution.  The first purpose is to “repair the species,” or reproduction.  The second is to “further holiness.”  Marriage is intended to tame, rather than enflame, our passions.  When Wesley defines holiness he almost always uses the virtues of patience, humility, gentleness, and above all, love.  What if we worked together to promote relationships where these values could grow?  The One Church Plan makes this challenging and potentially fruitful conversation possible.

THIS PLAN PROMOTES UNITY AT A HIGHER LEVEL

In this struggle, much is made about one side accommodating to culture or to the “prevailing winds of doctrine,” as Paul says in Ephesians 4.  With this critique, I believe we all need to notice the board in our own eye.  Such accommodating to the world could be described in terms of divisiveness, polarization, blaming others, name-calling, an us-them mentality, building up by putting down, seeing lies as truth, and claiming righteousness for ourselves. We see a lot of this kind of accommodating and our witness suffers greatly.  In Ephesians 4, Paul calls us to unity at a higher level – into one church with one Lord who is above all, in all, and through all.  In this passage, we are called to grow up in every way into Christ, to be equipped for the work of ministry through a variety of gifts, and to build up the whole body in love.  Paul starts this passage by begging us to do this by living a certain way – with humility, patience, gentleness, bearing one another in love, and eager to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.  Such virtues would not be necessary if there were not always going to be different perspectives among us.  On many things, we will not agree, but we can always learn how to practice this kind of faithfulness with one another.  The hope is that our multitude of perspectives will be “joined and knit together” in love.  That glorifies God.

THIS PLAN PROMOTES A HIGH VIEW OF SCRIPTURE

I believe the scriptures reveal the inspired word of God.  I believe the scriptures come to life as people engage them in relationship and sacred conversation.  We often do not get clear and easy answers but must struggle with the tensions, ambiguities, and different perspectives within the scriptures themselves.  This is an honest assessment, beyond the catch phrases used to stir emotions. Faithfulness moves us beyond proof-texting and using scripture to affirm our prejudices and opinions.  While this deserves more explanation, I believe we are called to continuously engage in a “hermeneutic of struggle” – building upon the meaning of the name “Israel” – where we honor the whole, notice the context, explore the history, and see God’s intended message, not necessarily in the words but through them in community and as we seek to be faithful in our time and place. I believe we must look to “master text” to guide us and help us interpret scripture – text like the summary of all the law and the prophets offered by Jesus.  In this light, I would say that there are faithful interpretations of scripture on the issues at hand that do not agree.  This truth beckons us to sit at the table together and struggle through, as we learn how to love one another.  It is not the easy way, but it is God’s calling upon us.  I believe that the saints of heaven rejoice when we commit to this holy work of opening the bible together and discerning God’s higher calling upon us.

THIS PLAN HELPS US TO BE ON THE ‘RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY’ AND THE ‘RIGHT SIDE OF ETERNITY’

Another popular buzz-phrase in this tension is “right side of history” vs. “right side of heaven.”  I do not believe these are mutually exclusive.  I believe in the incarnation and in the Holy Spirit and thus believe that God is involved in history and in our lives. So, as a Christian, I do want to be on the right side of history.  I also believe “pleasing God” involves “pleasing” others, at the deepest level of their souls. These are not mutually exclusive.  We are called to cultivate communities and relationships where we can come to know Christ and Christ’s love, not on our terms, but where each can grow in their relationship with God – often requiring us to be humble enough to refrain from judgment and opening our own souls to how God is at work in ways that we don’t understand.   That leads to transformation and to our hearts expanding with God’s love.  The One-Church Plan gives us the best possibility of working incarnationally and to be attentive to the Holy Spirit at work in all of us to unite us and our many gifts as a witness to a world in need.

THIS PLAN LEADS US INTO GRACE AND TRUTH

This phrase is often used to suggest that some want grace without truth. I do not know anyone who makes this case, so I’m not sure it is a fair characterization.  From the scriptures we can make a case that truth runs deeper than rules, external conditions, or hard lines in the sands.  Truth is “revealed” or “disclosed” (which is what the Greek work literally means) in actions that are life-giving and bear good fruit.  When we talk about truth, we can talk about behavior as true or deceptive. John Wesley says that the essence of holiness is truth and love united together.  To paraphrase, he says that the truth of God’s love is first planted in our hearts and then this truth is revealed through our “humble, gentle, patient love for all.”  Biblical truth is about what God does for us and wants for us. This truth then transforms the way we treat one another.  At one point, Wesley used Nathanael as an example of this holiness – as one who does not operate with guile, cunning, deceit, or selfish desire.  Conversely, he is an example of one who is honest, transparent, open, or in a word, true. At one point in the Gospel of John, Jesus calls the evil one “the father of lies.”  Evil and deception go together.  Lies destroy and divide. Truth unites and brings life to relationships.  In this sense, truth is revealed as we find ways to love even those with whom we disagree.  This is hard, if not impossible, without the Holy Spirit.  The One-Church Plan gives us the opportunity to grow in grace and truth.

THIS PLAN PROMOTES WESLEYAN HOLINESS  

It has been said that this is a debate between competing views of holiness.  This is puzzling to me because Wesley offers such clarity about what holiness is and is not. In defining holiness, Wesley consistently uses the virtues of humility, patience, and gentleness, and lists the opposite of holiness with words like pride and haughtiness, passion, judgment of others, and zeal for our own righteousness.  Holiness is not found in anything “external to the heart” (an important phrase) but in what God plants in our hearts through the Holy Spirit. In describing holiness, we can imagine a series of concentric circles. At the core is the truth of God’s love which fills the “whole heart,” and “reigns without rival.”  In the next circle, “nearest the throne,” are all holy tempers “comprised in the mind of Christ” – patience, gentleness, humility, faithfulness, temperance, to name a few. In the next circle are “works of mercy,” and then, one step out, are “works of piety.”  After we have attended to these levels, we move outward in mission to “effectually provoke” one another to love, to the holy virtues, to good works, and to unity as the body of Christ.  Holiness, for Wesley, is faith working for love.  God’s love comes first and then we are able to give our lives to growing in this love and sharing this love in the world. I believe the One-Church Plan offers us the best opportunity, at this point, to embrace this understanding of holiness.  We need each other, in our diversity of faithful perspectives, to practice holiness of heart and life.  By focusing on the judgment of things “external to the heart,” and by dividing the church into “us and them,” we nullify true holiness.

THIS PLAN HELPS US CLAIM THE VIRTUE OF PATIENCE

“We’ve been patient long enough.”  “It is time to make a decision.”  These statements echo throughout our denomination.  Yet, into this kind of environment, John Wesley lifts up the word “patience.”  If we are to truly find a way forward, it may be very important that we let this virtue get through to our anxious hearts. Wesley makes it clear that patience is so much more than “waiting.”  It is certainly more than fear-ridden fretfulness, where we bury our heads in the sand, hoping a problem will go away.  Patience is a “gracious temper,” a fruit of the Holy Spirit. Patience holds the “middle way,” he says, staying between the extremes. Even as we advocate for opinions and positions, Christians behave in the middle, staying connected to all with respect, humility, and compassion.  Standing on the solid rock of God’s love, we avoid “impatience with contradictions,” to use a phrase from Wesley.  We honor diversity of opinion as those who see in a “mirror dimly.”  We listen and learn. We can embrace our differences as opportunity to learn how to love more fully and truly glorify God.  In this way Wesley characterizes patience as the “manifestation of the perfect love of God.”  This is our witness to the world.  The One-Church Plan provides us the opportunity to continue in holy patience, a practice that will be needed as long as we are bound to the world.

THIS PLAN AFFIRMS PASTORS WHOSE CALL HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CHURCH

Concerning ordination, there is nothing in this plan to keep Conferences from setting standards beyond the standards set by the Discipline.  The plan allows us to trust the Holy Spirit and the process.  Personally, I believe the first priority is to discern God’s calling and signs of fruitfulness in ministry. Secondly, I would not want to ordain someone who made their own sexuality an agenda or their personal lives the focus on their ministry.  Pastors submit their personal lives to a higher calling.  Thirdly, issues of appointability are not new. Boards of Ordained Ministry, Bishops and Cabinets already deal with this at many levels – divorce, multiple-marriages, violations of covenant and repentance, and to be totally honest, questions still arise about ethnicity, gender, language, theological orientation, and basic supply and demand with the Conference. The messiness of relationships and ordination is already there.  May the Holy Spirit be involved and may hearts be open to what God can do through those who have the treasure of God’s grace within these flawed, fragile, and finite “earthen vessels,” to use a phrase from the Apostle Paul.

FINALLY, I WANT TO SAY THAT I MAY BE WRONG

It is very possible that some or all of this perspective is flawed.  Behind it is a desire to err on the side of grace, even as I hope God will do the same for me.  It may be that some actions are just wrong, even in the context of a desire to grow in faithfulness and fruitfulness. Maybe we should draw hard lines in the sand and make such judgments.  Or, maybe that is wrong and leads to much harm.  The plan proposed by our Bishops, as I see it, gives the possibility for all of us to embrace the gift of humility, where we can continue to share communion with one another, and to invite the Holy Spirit to work through us as we engage in the on-going struggle to live faithfully and fruitfully, all to the glory of God.   That’s my hope as I invite others to give support as we develop this together – hopefully for years to come.