Tag: Stay UMC

The Faith of Thomas and General Conference

Many have heard this post-Easter story recently in worship, found in John 20:24-29.  The anxiety was high.  The disciples had locked themselves in a room, worried about what would happen next.  And Thomas was really acting out.  We can hear him going off, giving ultimatums about what he would do or not do if he didn’t get what he wanted. He says, “Unless I see the nail marks with my own eyes, I will not believe.” 

We can make some loose comparisons to the times when we give anxiety-fueled ultimatums to God.  “Oh God, if you will just do this (we can fill in the blank) then I’ll make a commitment – as if faith was transactional. Or we might think of church conferences, like the upcoming General Conference, where it can be tempting to make ultimatums about what we will do or not do if certain decisions are made.  Many are experiencing this anxiety right now.  

In this light, there are a couple of things to note in this story. First of all, note that Thomas is still there. He stays connected to the community of faith, even with his uncertainty and fears and demands. It is also worth noting that he is not willing to believe what the other disciples believed about the resurrection – not in that moment.  But we get the sense that this is okay.  He is still there, included in the community. 

Secondly, if we read it carefully, we notice that Thomas does not do what he said he would have to do to believe.  The risen Christ appears to the disciples, behind the locked doors, and says, “Peace be with you.”  Shalom. It is a word that suggest harmony and coming together and it is the first word spoken by the risen Christ in this moment.  It sets the tone for what resurrection means for us.  And then Christ speaks directly to Thomas.  Christ offers to him exactly what he said he wanted.  “See my hands. Touch my side.”  But there is no indication that Thomas does any of this. He seems to have forgotten his ultimatum.  He simply exclaims, “My Lord and my God.” 

In this lesson, Christ speaks of those who will believe without seeing.  That would be us. Thomas was able to see, but he discovered that faith is not found in seeing or receiving some sterile proof.  Thomas comes to believe because of an experience with the risen Christ and the peace that comes from this relationship.  Thomas receives presence more than proof. He encounters God’s steadfast and eternal love, and this is so much more than the answers he had demanded. We are able to come to faith in this same way, as the living Christ continues to come and reveal this love for us, in us, and through us.   

Like with Thomas and the first disciples, may we be given the grace to turn from our human arrogance and turn to the One who has opened the way to so much more.  May our encounters with the living Christ move us beyond locked doors of fear, beyond our personal assumptions and biases that can cause harm, and into a commitment to love more fully, with patience, kindness, and with a humility that does not insist on its own way. May we be less focused on answers and more on questions that will lead us into life-giving relationships with those who come up with different answers than we do.  This is the kind of believing that God wants for us.

At General Conference, delegate-disciples from around the world will be confined together in a room.  There will be a diversity of answers proposed, along with a variety of expressions of faith.  It will produce anxiety.  It can also be seen as beautiful, with the possibility of being a life-giving witness to the world. May the living Christ, who is our peace, be encountered and may we all be moved to a bigger faith. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can You Imagine? 

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

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

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

A Personal FAQ on Disaffiliation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can we accept something that goes against the Bible?

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

When it comes to assessing who can be leaders in the church, I stand with those who want to focus on calling and character, rather than making blanket judgements around personal identity, that would keep us from even considering whether someone is called or has the character needed for faithful and fruitful leadership in the church. 

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

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

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

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

Disaffiliation is not likely to bring an end to this debate. I had a conversation recently with something committed to joining the GMC. This person was in a church where the music director was gay. The person who wanted to disaffiliate loved this music director and appreciated his giftedness and the spirit he brought to worship.  I pointed out that, in the GMC, a gay person who wanted to live in a faithful relationship with another and grow in God’s love through that relationship, could not work in a church, even as a lay person. That would be grounds for dismissal.  This led to some rethinking.  It might also lead to attempts within the new denomination to change this policy.  The debate will continue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, this is your church and, as a United Methodist, you are able a part of a mission that is so much bigger than you or this one place.  Together, we have built a global church that makes such a difference in the world. We can think of UMCOR, Global Ministries, United Methodist Women (now United Women in Faith), United Methodist Men, Africa University, Discipleship Ministries, Assembly, and Veritas, just to name a few. The hope of those who want to Stay UMC is that we would build this upon this witness rather than tear it down.   

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

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

In my opinion, there is one official statement that needs to find a way into the noise.  In a letter from the Council of Bishop around this tension, we read: “We cannot be a traditional church or a progressive church or a centrist church. We cannot be a gay or straight church. Our churches must be more than echo chambers made in our own image arguing with each other while neglecting our central purpose. Instead, we must be one people, rooted in scripture, centered in Christ, serving in love, and united in the essential [of our shared faith].”

I love that and think that it is worthy of our commitment. Giving this witness would glorify and expresses a way of living the Christian faith that is so needed in our communities.  In many communities the UMC may be the only church where this welcoming spirit might be offered.

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

What will happen at General Conference next year?

As a delegate to General Conference, my hope is that this language around the “h-word” and incompatibility will be removed.  In my opinion, it is shameful that our Church continues to use a word that hurts and de-humanizes people and turns them into issues and problems rather than beloved souls.   At the same time, I do not believe this language should be replaced with language that says it is compatible. I believe we should leave that for continued holy conferencing and seeking God’s guidance, and that we should allow (and protect) clergy and congregations to follow their conscience on how to love others, and in a wide diversity of cultural contexts.  That is the perspective of most delegates that I know.

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

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

In all forms of “Conferencing” may we stand together as the Body of Christ, with many parts, rooted in the historic and core doctrines of our faith, and in this rootedness, honoring the various branches of perspective and interpretation that help us all to grow in faith.  May we “think and let think,” to use Wesley’s language, trusting that the Holy Spirit is at work among us to keep us centered as a whole and aligned to God’s will, recognizing that somethings this work of the Holy Spirit is a call to appreciate the spirit of those who are serving at the edges.

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

A Balcony Perspective on Disaffiliation

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

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

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

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

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