Tag: Social Principles

Naming the Joy (of Being UMC in this Moment)

Let me count the ways for why I am proud to be a United Methodist in this moment and give thanks to God:

* Because the word “incompatibility,” as it has been used to create a judgement and a barrier only for some, is gone!

* Because barriers have been removed that have kept us from considering candidates for ministry based first on calling and character and commitments to Christ.

* Because we have new Social Principles that focus more on how we are to treat one another rather than offering hardline stances that divide and are intended to be general enough to find meaningful application in different contexts and cultures.

* Because we can now more freely promote values and virtues that are life-giving for all, rather than setting up a double standard for some.  

* Because a path has been opened to practice ministry in ways that honor different contexts and cultures, while also emphasizing our unity in mission and in sharing a Wesleyan witness in the world.

* Because there is a spirit of grace among us that honors those who are not as eager to celebrate yet are willing to give room for this and who continue to be in community.  Thank you! After General Conference 2019, I (and many) had to make decisions about staying/remaining/abiding, as Christ calls us to do. Reasons included those that we have heard in recent appeals from the Conference – a resolve to share convictions in a spirit of trust, humility and grace, in great appreciation for a community of faith where we can struggle together and love one another even as we disagree.  This is the United Methodist way. It is hard.  It is beautiful. And it is sometimes pretty messy as well.  

* Because there is room for all in the wideness of God’s mercy.  And as human beings we all need this!

How might you name this joy? What language would you use to invite others into this hope, and into a new season of ministry as the UMC?  

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!

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?