Tag: Trust Clause

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. 

Dividing the Family Inheritance (thoughts on the lectionary and disaffiliation votes this week)

The gospel lesson from the lectionary this week is ominous, given that votes to disaffiliate begin this week among us.  In Luke 12:13-21, we read where someone wants Jesus to go tell his brother to divide the family inheritance between them.  Jesus refuses and makes it clear that this is not kingdom work. Jesus then takes the opportunity to tell a parable where successful persons focus on building bigger and bigger barns for themselves, with no thought of others, and in the process risk their own souls. 

The analogy does not work exactly because those seeking disaffiliation are not talking about dividing the inheritance in a fair way but rather want to take it all. As one pastor has said, and I paraphrase, “This is a huge deal.”  For only (x dollars) we can “own the whole block and control our own destiny.”

It is easy to see why one who has this desire would think this is a good deal. On the other hand, this is not a good deal for those who believe that faithfulness is about something more than controlling our own destiny. This is not a good deal for those who honor our connectional covenant together and believe that congregations hold property in trust for the larger church. These congregations would not have beloved pastors without the commitment of the larger church to confirm callings, provide training, and develop systems for appointment, support, and shared mission. These congregations are who they are because of a shared commitment to the apostolic faith that has been passed down through many faithful souls.

It is not a good deal for those who believe that the Holy Spirit is at work among us, keeping us aligned in God’s love as a whole, even as some stand on the prophetic edges that make others uncomfortable.  That is a constant dynamic in the church.  To use isolated examples of a few who stand at the edges as a reason for schism only works if it is believed that the new church will never have people inspired by new thoughts and new insights for how to invite all into lives of faithfulness and love.  It works only if the Holy Spirit will no longer be in this work at the edges, even as the Holy Spirit also works among those who feel called to hold fast to views found on the inside.

Perhaps we cannot read too much into it, but it is interesting that this scripture from the lectionary popped up for this week.  Perhaps the Holy Spirit will use this – as the Holy Spirit does and often through the scriptures– to transform hearts.  Perhaps the better way through this tension is to figure out how to share the inheritance that we have all been given and to do so in a way where all are honored.  That would be kingdom work!  

2548.2 “If You Know You Know” or “History with an Eye to the Future”

The adage is true about being doomed to repeat history if we are not aware.  Thanks to a recent podcast hosted by Dr Ashley Boggan Dreff, our General Secretary of Archives and History, light has been shed on how paragraph 2548.2 in the Book of Discipline developed and how it has been used.  As one person said on the floor of the 1948 General Conference, “We all know what this is about,” even though the purpose was never specifically acknowledged. As “white flight” became a reality, this paragraph was added to deal with property where there was no longer a thriving “white” congregation.  Thoughts of revitalization and building diverse communities of faith may have been seeds in the hearts of some but were not a part of the collective hope at the time.  The only lens through which solutions were sought was the lens of segregation and a desire to maintain separation of races.

This paragraph authorized the United Methodist Church to be able to deed property to Pan-Methodist denominations or to other evangelical denominations.  In addition to the UMC, there are five other denominations within the Pan-Methodist Communion, all formed specifically for African Americans.  The largest of these is the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME).  While there may be elements of goodness in the motives, this goodness was also mixed with a complicity to sin.  Relational dynamics are still complicated in this way.  What can we learn and how might be grow in ways that glorify God?

Once again, the struggle is between inclusion and separation, only in a different context.  At issue is how we relate to certain persons who want to be a part of the church, who want to make a commitment to the values of the church and want to grow with other in the love of Christ and who might consider themselves a part of the LGBTQ+ community. On one side are those who believe we must approach matters of human sexuality with more humility and less judgment and, when it comes to marriage and relationships, focus on the virtues and values that are life-giving for all. Those calling for separation, want to draw much harder lines around traditional definitions of marriage, not only in terms of the values of faithfulness and love, but also in terms of gender and sexuality. Limiting relationship in this way is not seen as exclusion but as giving witness to what is truly good for all.

Concerning leadership, the lines are similar.  When discerning leadership, some want to focus on call and character, while others want provisions that could keep conversations about calling and character from ever being considered.  How a person looks and identifies is where the first line is drawn.   

Calls for separation come from those who cannot faithfully stay within a denomination that allows others to cross this line.  It is claimed that separation is needed so that all can practice faith in ways that are comfortable for them.  I can hear the line I heard often growing up, “They worship differently than we do.” 

To support the call for separation, some claim that this need for separation is about more than human sexuality.  It is popular to claim deep theological differences, often by highlighting extreme examples and then generalizing these examples to implicate the whole.  It is also interesting how extremes on the other side are ignored.  As we engage in this struggle at Annual Conference, we all need to be assured that there are not major attempts to change our core doctrine.  Doctrine is not what this is about. 

It is interesting how advocates of separation/division/schism have gravitated to this paragraph with such a morally complicated history.  This should give us all pause – first to reflect on what is right – and then to also notice the many other problems with using this paragraph.  Concerning the legislation built upon paragraph 2548.2 that we will likely see at Annual Conference: 1. The paragraph deals with transfer of property from one denomination to another. It does not create a process for congregations to disaffiliate.   2. The legislation binds the authority of the bishop, cabinet, and others listed in the paragraph.  Even if these parties agree, they cannot be bound to act in particular ways by legislation.  3.  The GMC as a denomination is not yet organized.  How can we approve a denomination before it exists and before we know if there will be any mutual recognition? We’ve heard representatives of the GMC say that they cannot enter into a communion agreement with the UMC until they have had a general conference that can make such a decision.  4.  The legislation will likely call for a simple majority vote as a possibility, relying on this paragraph that calls for a majority vote by both denominations (not local congregations).  The Judicial Council has already ruled that any disaffiliation must include approval by a 2/3 majority. (Decision 1379).  This is the standard for important decisions that have such effects on people.  One could point to the GMC Book of Doctrine and Discipline to see how this threshold is used for important decisions. In that book, the threshold of 3/4 is used for some decisions.

As United Methodist we live together under a trust clause that calls us into covenant together and is deeply rooted in our Wesleyan tradition and in scripture.   With this connection, each of us can go into any UMC and say, “I’m a part of this.” “This is my church.”  May we be careful and conservative about how we change this sense of trust and allow our churches to be transferred to another.   With this move we risk leaving whole communities without a United Methodist presence and perhaps without a congregation that represents the values we hold dear. Let us support those, in all congregations, who desire inclusion or are willing to live and worship together in a denomination that supports inclusion – the United Methodist Church. Let us all pause before we give this away.   What is this all really about?