Inquisitions and Finding New Ways Forward

IMG_4576“Inquisition.” When I think of what happened at General Conference this is the word that keeps getting stuck in my throat.  Before this plan passed, our Judicial Council likened a part of the traditional plan to the establishment of an “inquisitional court.”  This is, in part, why it was ruled unconstitutional before it passed.

Since General Conference, I’ve heard several responses from people who seemed to favor this plan but now are softening it with expressions of empathy and by giving voice to the acceptance of different perspectives.  I applaud this effort, but have some questions.  Is it a fresh wind of the Holy Spirit? Is it motivated by true contrition?  Do backers of this plan believe that it went too far?  Or, is this just a way to lure those deemed as heretical into a trap?  Is it mere candy-coating, trying to make something seen as horrible by some sound nice?  I truly hope that it is the former at play, but the latter questions must be addressed.  Our common table must be approached with caution as long as the word “inquisition” hangs in the air.

In my local church I’ve had many conversations, some with people who have more traditional views and were wondering about why I was so grieved. After assuring them that I honor the living tradition of the church and respect traditional views within the whole body of Christ, I have tried to explain what passed. This plan was a move to achieve unity as uniformity.  It moves us from unity in love to unity by law. This plan establishes strict mandatory penalties for anyone who violates restrictions 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.  And one more time, it was likened to an “inquisitional court.”  It breaks my heart to say those words in association with the church I love.

After this explanation, I hear, “I’m not for that.”  “That’s not who we are.”  I am discovering many “traditional compatibilists” (and “progressive compatibilists”), to use a term that describes those who have particular personal leanings but still want to sit at the holy table with their friends who have different views and to find a way to be in ministry together.  In other words, they want to practice being the body of Christ, which becomes the environment where we get to learn humility, patience, kindness, bearing one another in a love that does not insist on its own way, and maintaining the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:1-6).  This is messy and holy work.

After General Conference, a fire has been ignited in so many who want to work for inclusion and the sharing of God’s love for all. That is one outcome.  Another is that much of the rhetoric, even from some who supported the traditional plan, sounds like the rhetoric behind the One Church Plan that received the majority of votes from U.S. delegates and was endorsed by 80% of our Bishops – calls for a higher unity, acknowledgement that we under a “big tent,” a desire to come together at the holy and open table where there is room for all.  Is this a fresh wind of the Holy Spirit?  I hope so.  I still want to be a part of that.

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.”

The Truth about the Very Traditional One Church Plan

IMG_4577At our District-Wide Charge Conference, the three plans from The Way Forward Commission were presented in bullet points. This presentation directly following the FAQ that we were recently given. I want to speak directly to the bullet points used to outline the One Church Plan.

The first bullet point, as presented, was about how this plan removes current language about the practice of homosexuality being incompatible with Christian teaching.”  That’s all that was said. While the plan removes language, it does not add language to imply that the opposite is true.  In fact, it immediately “adds language that intentionally protects the religious freedom of all who choose not to perform or host same-sex weddings….”  The point is repeatedly made that conferences, bishops, congregations, and pastors will not be compelled to act contrary to their convictions. This is the second sentence in the summary of the plan.  After this point is made, the plan “offers greater freedom to many who desire change but do not want to violate the Book of Discipline.”

The second bullet point, as presented, states that this plan changes the definition of marriage. This popular talking point is a mischaracterization of the plan itself.  Here are the actual statements in the plan: “We affirm the sanctity of the monogamous marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity, traditionally understood as a union of one man and one woman.“ Throughout this plan, the default position is traditional marriage. It does not mandate a change.  The plan repeatedly affirms “those who continue to maintain that the Scriptural witness does not condone the practice of homosexuality.”  It continuously concedes to those who have a more traditional perspective.

Here is another key statement from the plan: “We affirm that sexuality is God’s good gift to all persons. We call everyone to responsible stewardship of the sacred gift.  Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are affirmed only with the covenant of monogamous marriage between two adults.”  Here the phrase “two adults” is not a change in definition but an acknowledgement that the church affirms sexual relations in a monogamous relationship and only among adults.  In this statement, the phrase “two adults” is not the subject.  To make this the main point is a misrepresentation and ignores the important and primary point being expressed – a point that would serve us well if it was to become our shared emphasis.

If I am reading the right document (and I had to question this based on the bullet points), there is only one place where the phrase “two adults” is used in connection with a definition of marriage.  Read it carefully: “Where laws in civil society define marriage unions between two adults, no United Methodist clergy shall be required to celebrate or bless a same sex union.” Again, every possible concession is given to the traditional perspective. In another place the plan changes the language from “heterosexual marriage” to “monogamous marriage.” One more time — this does not mandate a change in the definition of marriage but rather affirms the biblical principles of monogamy, mutual support, and shared fidelity over promoting an agenda about sexual identity.  What is wrong with promoting biblical values?  And, by the way, the plan includes pages of biblical and theological foundations, worthy of our attention as we seek holy discernment.

The third bullet point, as presented, “gives pastors the authority to perform same gender weddings.”  First of all, the correct language in the plan is “same sex” not “same gender.” Next, throughout the plan the default position is that a congregation will not perform or host such a ceremony unless the church intentionally votes to changes its wedding/union policy. This is the only time a vote would be needed by a congregation. Thus, the plan does not give a pastor this authority, at least not as a representative of the congregation or within a church, without explicit consent.

The next two bullet points, as presented, were about protecting the “rights” of pastors and bishops to not conduct “same gender” weddings or ordain “self-avowed practicing homosexuals.”  First of all, the language of “rights” is not a part of the plan except when it comes to due process. Secondly, in the actual document, this point is made much earlier and clarified in multiple places, as we have already seen. It is not an afterthought. These protections are woven into the whole plan, while also wanting to provide “a generous unity that gives conferences, churches, and pastors the flexibility to uniquely reach their missional context without disbanding the connectional nature of the United Methodist Church.”

I must concede how hard it is to present these three plans in a way that “just gives the facts.” I respect the attempt. At the same time, I hope that we will all dig a little deeper.  These bullet points do not tell the whole story and, by themselves, can too easily cultivate a false narrative. I’m afraid that they push proverbial buttons that keep people from giving it a fair hearing.  With the stakes so high, I hope we can do better.