Another post in the series – Beyond Soundbites and Towards Holy Conferencing (A Series on the Actions of General Conference).This series includes the topics of Abortion, Clergy Qualifications, Marriage, Israel, and Pronouns.
Paragraph 2553 is no longer an option for disaffiliation. And it is true that General Conference did not approve another plan where congregations could disaffiliate based on disagreements with certain positions in the Book of Discipline. General Conference did approve a Reaffiliation Plan to welcome churches home and to offer opportunities to rejoin the United Methodist Church. In some ways, these two acts could be seen as sides of the same coin.
There may still be ways to bless those who want to leave the denomination, and processes could be developed, but looking at these two decisions together, the hope would be for something very different than what we found with 2553. This paragraph, inserted in 2019, caused great harm. It forced us to focus on division rather than unity, disagreements rather than building community, and voting rather than discernment, with a winner-take-all outcome. It assumed that churches were objects that could easily be moved, when in fact the old saying is true – the church is the people. It divided families, friends, and communities. It continued to turn siblings in Christ into issues and problems. It promoted the use of political tactics that do not honor the calling we have been given – to practice the love of Christ, with patience, kindness, and a humility that does not insist on its own way. If we are to be faithful, we can’t be in the business of schism based on disagreements. This is not who we are called to be. (See Eph 4:1-3; I Cor 13:4-8; Col 3:12-17, for starters).
It may be helpful to note that those who disagreed with our policies around human sexuality between 1972 and 2024, did not have an exit plan, nor was one requested. That was not the focus. The focus was on advocacy, conferencing, and working for change, hopefully in a spirit of holy love and commitment to the Body of Christ. As one who would identify as more conservative on these issues, said to one who had worked for these changes (me), “You didn’t leave when you were in the minority all those years. I admire that. Why would I leave now.”
Another factor in not developing a new exit plan based on disagreement is the overall movement towards contextual freedom, rather than forced agreement. With the actions of General Conference, pastors and congregations have more ability to engage in ministry in their particular contexts, as led by the Holy Spirit. The hope is to live more completely into the Wesleyan spirit of learning how to love alike, even if we don’t think alike about everything.
To live into this hope, it is important to move beyond soundbites and mischaracterizations that are often intended to create more division. (This has been the motivation of this whole series). To review one example, we can point to the accusation that we now say that it is okay for single persons to have sex. This is based on the removal of the line, “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness.” This phrase was a part of the qualifications for ordination. The soundbite ignores the statement that replaced this one. In what is arguably a stronger statement, the call is to practice “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.” The point, in this context, is the kind of character and witness we want from our pastoral leaders, rather than focusing on a marriage license. And still, if legal marriage is the concern, we can note that it is affirmed in multiple places in our doctrine and discipline, as the best way to live out this character and to provide the needed legal protections for both spouses and children involved.
If we assume the worst in people, there may be ways to justify behaviors that would not be approved by some, but that could be true with the previous statement as well. People could have claimed that they were not “single,” or turned to the traditional definition of celibacy as meaning “unmarried.” But that was rarely a concern because the primary purpose of the previous statement was to keep some out. As the new statement stands, a high and holy calling is lifted up for all. There is certainly nothing here to warrant schism.
Moving beyond soundbites and towards holy conferencing is key to life-giving discernment. To do this in a way that honors Christ and our calling, we must find ways to limit the false accusations that cause so much harm – including the claims that we now promote immorality, or don’t believe in the resurrection or in the Bible (on this one I would invite you to read the post, “Wesley and Human Sexuality (and his commentary on often cited verses).” If it is up to the Annual Conference to develop a process, strong safeguards must be developed to guide us in a much better direction than we experienced with 2553.
To consider a request to exit the denomination, a review of key sections of the Book of Discipline might be in order, including our Doctrinal Statements, The General Rules, The Ministry of All Christians, and the section on the Local Church. Based on this understanding of who we are, the questions might be: What is it that leads you to a desire to move in a different direction – beyond one concern over recent decisions, which do not force any changes in how a congregation engages in ministry? Is the room for mutual support? Is there a way to come to an agreement that does not dishonor the sacrifices of generations and a future United Methodist witness within the community?
As was mentioned, General Conference called upon every Annual Conference to develop a plan for Reaffiliation, in a “spirit of grace.” This is what we are about! Welcoming! Practicing Hospitality! Supporting one another in mission! Being in ministry together, as a part of a connection that is larger than our own expression! Learning how to love alike, even if we don’t think alike about everything! Understanding that a methodist is not distinguish by our opinions or styles, but by the love of God written upon our hearts, to paraphrase Wesley’s words. This is who we are!
We would love to help congregations that previously disaffiliated, to begin a process of discernment, which might include an assessment of the General Book of Discipline and our core understanding of who we are, along with an understanding of what it means to be a part of a connection. Stay tuned for more information, as this process is developed.
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.
This past Sunday we celebrated Trinity Sunday, which sparked these reflections (which were shared in our weekly church newsletter). In my mind, these thoughts seem so relevant in a time when the spirits of division and fear are so active among us.
As United Methodists we believe in the Trinity. It is the first doctrinal statement in our Articles of Religion. All of our official creeds are written in trinitarian form, and we use one of these creeds in all of our worship services almost every Sunday. In the sanctuary, we also sing the doxology regularly, giving praise to our triune God.
My question right now is “so what?” How does this affirmation affect our actual living? First of all, this understanding helps us to know that God is always bigger than any one perspective or description. The God we worship is more than creator, savior or spirit, judge, redeemer, or sustainer, parent, friend, or bestower of gifts. No one name will suffice, when trying to comprehend the fullness of a God whose ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). This perspective helps to keep us humble, curious, and open. It has the power to spark a desire to grow in the ways of God (Psalm 85:10-13).
For another answer, this understanding of God gives us an option to the binary way of thinking that gets us in such trouble. Either/Or, Win/Lose, Red/Blue, In/Out. The outcome of this perspective too often leads to division, judgment, competition, exclusion, and so much fear. Is there a better witness?
What would a trinitarian witness look like? Within the Trinity we see cooperation rather than division, mutual trust rather than competition, grace rather than judgment, inclusion rather than exclusion. Within the Trinity, the value is not power over others; the value is love. And we know what this love looks like. It is patient and kind. It serves with a humility that does not insist on its own way (I Cor 13:4-8; Eph 4:1-6). It is so different from a witness that calls for uniformity of opinion rather than unity in love.
I invite you to take a moment and reflect on these two different witnesses? Which perspective gives glory to God, honors Christ, and bears the fruits of the Holy Spirit? Which perspective is more likely to be life-giving for relationships? Which perspective comes closer to illuminating the fullness of God?
We believe in the Trinity! So what? “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you” (2 Cor 13:14).
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. In multiple places in the new Book of Discipline we name what we are “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.”
* 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?
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!
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.
This post was inspired by a comment on my personal Facebook page yesterday. It was deleted by the author so I have generalized my response. At the end is a quote from Wesley that is worth much pondering, in my opinion:
To all who call us to bless one another and move on as we divorce, I want you to know that you never lost my desire to bless you. This hope is still there. I did not want this divorce. I do not believe it is a good witness. I wish we were still “arguing” at Annual Conference together and I lament if there is anything I said or did that made you come to the conclusion that divorce was the answer.
Even when I was in the strong minority with my advocacy for those who continue to be harmed by our current stance in the BOD, I did not threaten to leave or want others to leave. This goes against our calling, as I see it, to be a witness to a love that is patient, kind, and humble; a love that does not insist on its own way; a love that is not arrogant or rude, a love that leads with less judgment and more compassion; a love that keeps vows and seeks to grow in this same love especially when disagreement occur; a love that honors contextual freedom for engaging in ministry and honors where people are on their faith journey; a love that seeks first to understand; a love that does not end in divorce, disaffiliation, and so much demonizing; a love incarnate in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Drawing upon Wesley’s word, Jesus Christ is the rock, whose character does not change, who remains faithful, and who calls us to build our lives upon the love given to us. As we all live into the harm and hope of disaffiliation, I continue to be blessed and challenged by this word from Wesley, which captures a consistent theme in his witness. I quote it directly, and please forgive the lack of inclusive language: “How nearly then does it concern every child of man, practically to apply these things to himself! To diligently examine what foundation he builds, whether on a rock or on the sand! How deeply are you concerned to inquire, ‘What is the foundation of my hope? Whereon do I build my expectation of entering into the kingdom of heaven? Is it upon my orthodoxy, or right opinions, which, by a gross abuse of words, I have called faith? Is it upon my having a set of notions, supposedly more rational or scriptural than others have?’ Alas! What madness is this! Surely this is building on the sand, or, rather, on the froth of the sea!” (See Matthew 7:21-27 and Wesley’s 13th Discourse on the Sermon on the Mount).
I truly hope to be a part of a church that strives to build upon the rock and not the froth of the sea. This is why I remain faithful as an Elder in the United Methodist Church. May we move onward in this way.
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?
I gave a presentation – similar to the one in the previous post “Can You Imagine?” A Stay UMC Presentation– and someone still asked, “why does the UMC no longer stand on the truth of scripture?” I have written about the scripture passages in question. Here I want to take a deeper dive into the concept of truth.
The Greek word for Truth is the word “Alethia.” It means to “un-cover” or “reveal” what is real, good, and life-giving. In the scriptures, the term gospel is used to define truth (Gal 2:5, 2:14, Eph 1:13, Col 1:5). We also hear that Christ, as the Word made flesh, is truth (John 1:14; 17:17). Christ reveals and illuminates the ways of God.
Then we are called to act; we are called to walk in this truth (II John 1:1-4; III John 1:3).To walk in truth is to have an undivided heart (Ps 86:11). To walk in truth is to seek justice and peace (Is 59:1-21). To walk in the truth is to “love one another” (II John 3-5; I Pet 1:22). And we know what this love looks like. It is patient, kind, and humble. It does not insist on its own way. To practice faith with these virtues is to “rejoice in truth” (I Cor 13:4-8. See also Eph 4:1-3 and Col 3:12-17).
We read that truth is the sum of God’s law and word which leads us to how Jesus summarized all the law and the prophets, by calling us to love God and to love our neighbor as a part of ourselves (See Psalm 119:142,160; Matt 22:40). Likewise, Paul summarized the law with the phrase “love your neighbor” (Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14). And James calls this the “royal law” (Jam 2:8). It is the law through which we interpret all action and all scripture, as Wesley reminded us, leading us into truth (See also I John 3:18; 4:7-8; II John 1:3).
If truth illuminates and reveals, its opposite conceals and hides. The opposite of truth is found in injustice, human judgment, and showing partiality (Rom 2:1-11; Jam 3:13-18). Truth is concealed when we expect others to live by a double standard beyond the values of faithfulness and love to which we are all called. Truth is hidden by our judgments, often based on criteria that keeps us from considering another’s calling, character, and commitment to Christ. Truth is obscured when we let parties and positions take precedence over royal law to which we are all called. And note that the word “party” is built on the word “part.” Working to make the “part” the “whole” is among the most destructive things we can do. Truth is found in the whole where we are able to honor one another and learn how to love more fully.
As we walk in the truth there are many danger signs along the way. We are warned about hypocrisy, which means to hide behind a mask. The very word is the opposite of truth (Matthew 7:1-5; 23:27-29; James 3:13-18). We are warned of the falsehood of imagining that godliness is a means of gain (I Tim 6:5). We are warned of all who distort truth in order to get others to follow them (Acts 20:30). We are warned about “deceitful spirits” and the “hypocrisy of liars” (I Tim 4:1-5). The examples given are those who “forbid marriage” for some and then “abstain from certain foods” as judgment on others. On a positive note, we are told the truth in this passage – “that everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving and sanctified by God’s word and by prayer.” For all who truly believe in a living God, take heed!
Walking in the truth starts with self-examination (Psalm 51:6; Matt 7:1-5; II Cor 13:5-10). We all have our biases. None of us see the whole on our own. We all engage in what is unnatural for us, used by Paul as an illustration, not as a justification for judgement. We all exchange the truth for lies in some way — through injustice, envy, covetousness, malice, deceit, strife, gossip, boastfulness, and more. If we judge others we condemn ourselves. To believe that we have escaped the judgment of God is to believe that we are above the riches of God’s kindness, patience, and love for us. This is Paul’s point (Romans 1:24-2:4, for more see Wesley on Human Sexuality (and his commentary on often cited verses). This is why WE need truth – not only that THEY need truth!
Our calling, as the church, is to speak the truth/the gospel/the Word-made-flesh in love, so that we all might “grow up in every way into the one who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together, with each part working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love (Eph 4:1-32). That is truth!
May we all experience the joy and freedom that comes when we walk with “Spirit of Truth” (John 8:32; 16:13; I Cor 17-18; Gal 5:1). Let us join together on this path that leads to life.
I’ve been the speaker at several meetings within the discernment process on disaffiliation. Here is a written version of a new presentation, inviting people into a vision of what the UMC is and can be. It is centered around questions that start with “Can you imagine…?
“Can you imagine being a part of a church that is built around core doctrines that connect us to the holy catholic or universal church, while at the same time, invites us all to “think and let think” around concerns that do not strike at the foundations of our faith?”
There are 30,000+ United Methodist pastors in the US. We keep hearing about a handful of examples of those who have stood at the edges of theological interpretation in some way. The vast majority of us fall within a broad middle with a shared commitment to the historic orthodox faith of the church and have given our lives to sharing this faith. It is a lie – an official fallacy – to take isolated examples and to generalize those to include others. That is wrong. It does not build up the Body of Christ. And this is not to say that some of these perspectives are wrong; it is to say that they do not necessarily reflect the whole or that you must affirm them. That’s not who we are.
The United Methodist Church stands rooted in the historic and core doctrines of the holy catholic church, and in this rootedness, we honor the perspectives and interpretations that grow out of this shared faith. 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, while also trusting that sometimes this work of the Holy Spirit is a call to appreciate the spirit of those who are serving on the edges. It might be that perspectives from the edges of doctrinal interpretation serve a valuable purpose. Such perspectives can help to keep us all humble and growing. And to be clear, such perspectives will always be found within the larger church. Disaffiliation will not stop that. In this light, perhaps what we need is more spiritual courage to honor those who think differently and to spend less energy trying to shut them out. The energy being put into excluding and dividing through this process is so spiritually damaging, in my opinion – to the church, to our witness, and to our own souls.
“Can you imagine a church that makes room for all and invites all into a life of faithfulness and love?”
As United Methodist Christians, we have a history of honoring diversity within the Body of Christ. We see this as a blessing. Since we are here to talk about disaffiliation over matters of human sexuality, and since this is the only legitimate reason for disaffiliation right now, I want to share my perspective, and ask you to discern if we can still be in communion together, even if you have a different perspective. That is a key question. I start by saying that I do not understand matters of sexual orientation and identity. I believe we need to approach this topic with a lot more humility and less judgment. I also believe that we need to focus more on the things that we can all affirm as a community of faith. We can affirm values that we know are life-giving for all – monogamy, faithfulness, commitment, and the virtues summed up with the word love. This is a perspective deeply rooted in scripture.
And when it comes to assessing who can be a leader 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 one’s calling and character. Setting up double standards like this falls short of faithfulness, in my opinion. (And I’ve written more on this scriptural connection. If you want more see my post of Wesley and Human Sexuality, Parts 1 and 2).
I also want to say that disaffiliation will not bring an end to this debate. I had a conversation recently with something committed to disaffiliation and joining the GMC. This person was in a church where the music director was gay. This person wanting to disaffiliate loved this music director and genuinely 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.
That’s just one example. I also want to let you know that recently I had a Baptist pastor and then a Church of Christ pastor come to me and say that the same questions are surfacing in their congregations and they both said, in different ways, how much they admired the UMC because we could talk about it. Being able to struggle through this together in love was seen as a good thing.
“Can you imagine a church that honors the call to hold one another in love, with patience, gentleness, and humility, being eager to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace?” (Ephesians 4:1-3).
The Apostle Paul begs us to live our lives in the light of this calling. We are called to a higher unity, represented by something more than uniformity of opinion. Our unity is to be rooted in a holy love that is patient and kind. It is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way, as the scripture says. That is a needed word for us in the midst of this discernment. In an environment or bubble where all think the same, there is less of an opportunity to practice these virtues. From a spiritual standpoint, we would miss out on a central need for us to be shaped in the image of Christ.
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…Our churches must be more than echo chambers made in our own image arguing with each other while neglecting our central purpose.”
And, then we read, “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 truly glorify God. And note – this is an official word from our leaders.
And to be clear, and in light of key scriptures like this, there will not be a time when any congregation will be “forced” to do something against what they believe is right. That is just not who we are. Some of us are asking, however, that the church give the freedom to engage in ministry as we feel so led, when it comes to these matters, just as we give this freedom in so many ways. We do want to be transparent about this hope.
“Can you imagine a church where clergy and congregations covenant together to hold all property in trust for the purpose of serving a larger mission that is bigger than any of us?”
There is this idea, deep in our culture, that we should own our own property and “control our own destiny.” In response to this, I want to affirm our calling to be in covenant together to share the gospel as United Methodist congregations. I like knowing that I can go to any United Methodist Church and say, “That’s my church.” “I am a part of this community of faith.” “We share in ministry together.”
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, World Class Seminaries, Colleges, Camps, Retreat Centers, and Hospitals just to name a few. Let’s build this witness rather than tear it down.
To divorce yourself from this will raise more questions, not less. In one conversation like this, someone said, “But we would still be methodist, right? Just not United? I had to tell her that the church would have to decide at that point who you were and what you believed and what your policies would be and how you would secure pastoral leadership and so forth. Would you practice open communion? What liturgy and hymns would you use? The questions that will need to be answered will be endless. It is a good thing, in my opinion, to be rooted in the larger church where some direction can be given, where there is a foundation upon which to build, and one that gives you a lot of freedom to respond to your calling and community needs. You may not get that same freedom in another denomination. You may agree with a stance in one area, but what about the next one or when the next generation has a different view?
“Can you imagine being a part of this Christ-led witness?”
I could go on… with thoughts about Scripture, Doctrine, General Conference, Seminaries…And I have written about many of these topics…But I want to end this formal part of the presentation by asking again: Can you imagine being a part of a church where we are one people, rooted in scripture, centered in Christ, serving in love, and united in the essentials of our shared faith. Can we rise up to this higher calling and indeed give this good witness to the world – a witness of unity rather than divorce and division, a witness of understanding and care for one another rather than insisting on our own way? Can you imagine continuing to be a part of that kind of witness? You are invited to join the multitudes of us who want to make this light shine, believing that God is calling us into this work. Can you imagine?
Connected In Christ 