Tag: Uniting

Passing on the Pressure (Initial Reflections on the Protocol from a Delegate Perspective)

cic-universal2The pressure is on!  As a delegate, it was clear that we were the target audience of the first live-streamed presentation from the group giving us the Protocol, aired yesterday. Scattered throughout the conversation were statements about this now being placed in our hands. There were pleas to join the movement.  It was repeatedly emphasized that this protocol received unanimous affirmation after an intense mediation process. Everyone at the table was willing to compromise for the sake of good-will, peace, and the hope of moving forward.  Much motivation came from the shared assumption that the alternative would be much worse. In fact, the word “catastrophic” was used at least twice for what would happen if this does not pass.   So once again, the pressure is on.

Instead of reporting on what individuals said, I will focus on the different perspectives – the traditional, the progressive, the centrist, and central conferences.  (I use these terms with some reluctance, for I do not believe it is good to define others by a single word or story.  For example, it is very possible to want “progress” for those being harmed around current policies and to be immersed in the traditions of the church through creeds, hymns, liturgy, and prayers. It is possible to value inclusiveness and respect for the faith journey of others and see this as mandated from the living tradition of the church).

With that qualification, representatives of a traditional perspective, from the confessing movement and the WCA, led with calls for “amicable separation” because of “irreconcilable differences” around issues of human sexuality.  Since progressives/centrists were not willing to leave, even after repeated unsuccessful attempts to change the BOD, traditionalists have made the decision to actively move towards the formation of a new denomination. They affirmed the need to “set the church free from the conflict.” As stated, in the interests of good-will, peace, and moving forward, these representatives were willing to make significant compromises around voting thresholds and financial support.   In answering a question, this group would not likely leave the General Conference immediately for a Convening Conference of the new denomination, but they did believe this will happen soon – in 2020.  They made it clear that they would actively seek to persuade others to join the movement.

For Progressives, this protocol “changes the landscape for those who have been deeply harmed.” The discriminatory language that has caused so much harm would be removed.  This is an answer to the longing of many hearts.  At the same time, there is a place for caution.  The Traditional Plan that was passed in 2019 has become the source of much fear and hurt. Continued vigilance is needed.  Many, but not all, will resolve to stay in the Post-Separation UMC.

For Centrists, and many who would use the word progressive, this protocol affords the opportunity to rediscover the blessings of being a “big tent” church, where different perspectives are honored, where unity is sought, not in a uniformity of law, but in our call to love one another, with all patience, kindness, humility, without arrogance or insisting on our own way.  Unity is found in this core scriptural calling (Eph 4:1-3; I Cor 13:1-8).  It was stated that 85% of all United Methodists across the spectrum – traditionalists, conservatives, progressives, and centrists – communicate that they can exist in a church where there is diversity of interpretation.  This diversity can be seen as a blessing and even essential to the fulfillment of our calling. It was stated that centrists are united around a desire to welcome all and to remove the discriminatory language that uses outdated and harmful language to single out one group of people, and to access their status in the church by this single criterion rather than by calling, character, faithfulness and fruitfulness.  From this perspective, humility demands that we focus on being welcoming of all who want to know Christ and grow in the virtues of faith and love.  Realistically, this post-separation United Methodist Church would be smaller – but hopefully not for long.  It was expressed that this will be an opportunity for growth, to be more nimble and responsive to the mission field, and to respond in new ways to the call to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

This centrist stance would be the default perspective for the post-separation United Methodist Church. No vote would be required to remain within this expression of faith.  If a vote was taken, the threshold for an Annual Conference would be 57%.  This percentage was the result of compromise.  The traditionalists lobbied for a simple majority, with others asking for two-thirds.  Central Conferences would require a 2/3 vote to leave the UMC.  Local Congregations could choose to leave the UMC. If this vote is taken, it would be by a Church Conference where every member can vote, as opposed to a charge conference where elected leaders vote.  We probably need to be ready for attempts to change these thresholds.

It was very clear that those representing Central Conferences were supportive. A Bishop from Africa said that African support would be 100%.  A similar statement was made from the Bishop of the Philippines.   Representatives from Central Conferences also support the continuation of the United Methodist Church, saying that dissolution would have catastrophic effects on ministry and mission.  There was also support for the idea of regional conferences as being essential to making this work, given freedom for ministry and decisions within various cultures and contexts.   If support indeed comes at these high levels from Central Conferences, then it does appear that this Protocol will be a first step for how we move forward in mission and ministry.

In conclusion, we were asked to not let perfect get in the way of good.  We are asked to understand the need for a small representative group to initiate the process and how it is now time for others to come to the table.  We were asked to pray.  As was stated, with prayer all things are possible and without prayer nothing is possible (Wesley).  Testimonies were given for how prayer opened the way several times in the midst of this mediation.  That is a good word.

Immersed in prayer and in politics together, it is time to turn our attention to the future, to begin to develop a vision for what is possible for the post-separation UMC.  We must give a compelling reason for committing to this “big tent” church.  Without this vision, permission is implicitly given to withdraw into comfortable and like-minded camps.  The pressure is on for delegates to initiate by inviting others of all perspectives to develop a vision and strategy for a faithful and fruitful post-separation UMC.  May God be with us all.

Resisting Harmful Lifestyles

IMG_4576I’ve recently read a post from a Conference WCA group that offered a real and honest perspective, worthy of attention. The post called for resistance to the harm caused by the #resistharm movement, claiming that the “liberal theology” behind this movement is “causing untold harm to hundreds of thousands of wonderful people around the world…by promoting a lifestyle that rebels against the known will of God,” a God who does not “bless unholy or unrepentant people.” As a supporter of #resistharm, I would like to enter into conversation with this perspective.

While I don’t presume to speak for all, I can confidently use the plural when I say that we are not here to promote some secular agenda. As a church, we ask different questions: “How do we respond faithfully to anyone who desires to live as a follower of Christ and grow in relationships of faithfulness and love?”  Many of us are asking, “Is it faithful to assess certain people based solely on the way they identify rather than on their character and calling, faithfulness and fruitfulness?”  “Do we welcome some by saying they need to change in ways that we don’t ask others to change?” “Is it possible to develop a serious sexual ethic based not on identity, but on the virtues to which we are all called – monogamy, faithfulness, forgiveness and grace?  “Rather than judging some as ‘incompatible,’ would it not be more faithful to focus on forms of sexual immorality that objectify others for personal pleasure and cause so much harm in the world?” In short, how do we promote true holiness? We believe that the Holy Spirit is involved in this kind of questioning and is calling us to honor the struggle and to learn how to love one another in the midst of so many diverse expressions of faithfulness and fruitfulness. We believe that this process of struggling and learning is a lifestyle that truly glorifies God. I would even call it traditional – and certainly deeply rooted in Scripture.

With this desire to cultivate lifestyles of faithfulness, we do use the language of LGBTQ, with some adding A and I and +. This language seems to cause much holy discomfort. Why this language? We use the language as a way to express our hope that the church to be a safe place for people to engage in personal and spiritual discernment and find themselves welcomed into a lifestyle of glorifying God through Christ our Lord.  We use the language to acknowledge that suppression of this kind of discernment is not healthy and is in fact harmful. The letters themselves are fluid and are there to help people discern who they are as uniquely blessed children of God.  For example, I can embrace the letter “A,” as an “ally,” wanting to stand with those who are being harmed. This is one way this letter is used. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I am working on changing my understand of the term “Queer,” and learning to honor those who use this word to acknowledge that they are “different” and stand outside the sphere of what is deemed culturally normal, often without being a direct reference to sexuality. Some might say that this is the calling of the whole church.

Using this language as a tool for discernment is very different from using it to label others and assess their status in the larger community. That’s what we want to overcome. We long for the day when we get beyond labeling some siblings in Christ with letters, and colors, and references to gender, in ways that hold some to a different standard, outside the inner circle of those who are privileged and who do NOT feel the pressure to qualify and justify themselves in this way. Faithfulness demands that we resist this particular kind of “evil, injustice, and oppression.”

For one more clarification, I do not accept that “liberal theology” is to blame. I see “liberal” as another charged word used to characterize others as one-dimensional and thus lacking in life-giving truth. As sinful and limited creatures, we need more from each other than that.  While seeing through a mirror dimly, and in great need of the perspective of others, my theology is rooted in Christ, in Scripture, in the Creeds, in Wesley, and with a heart that wants to promote holiness defined, with Wesley, by the virtues of humility, patience, and kindness. Through my theological lens, I do not believe it is right to use God and the holy Scriptures as cover to protect our own privilege and conceal our own prejudices.  If I ever do that (and I do have blind spots that would make it possible), I hope others in the body of Christ will call me to repentance.

Oh, how I wish we could take the opportunity we are being given to share a positive witness to the world based on all the things in which we could find agreement, liberally sharing the love of Christ and the high and holy calling that we all have been given: to bear one another with a love that is humble, patient, and kind, seeking unity of spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:1-3).  I believe with all my heart that such a lifestyle would glorify God and be a much better witness to the world.

Lifestyles, Vows, and Obedience (A response to a comment on my last post)

IMG_4576To my last post I received this anonymous comment: “…YOU want to follow culture, not the Bible. You want to have it your way, rather than work together. YOU want to promote a lifestyle that the Old and New Testaments say are abominable… YOU want to change the Bible to fit the modern world, rather than following the Bible in the modern world. Leave. No one will miss you…” The comment goes on to say that I call those who want to follow 2000 years of precedence “bigots” and those who want to enforce vows as “inquisitional.”

I would like to be wrong, but I’ll assume that this is not satire. Therefore, I want to offer some clarification, seek understanding, and invite others into a different vision, using seven points.

  1. To all who share the views of this comment I want to say, “I would miss you.” As a “centrist” (if we must label) I want to be in a church that honors different perspectives on many issues. This keeps us all humble.  It helps us learn how to love with patience and kindness and without arrogance or insisting on our own way (See I Cor 13).  Giving this witness is so much better than withdrawing into like-minded camps.  This witness, however, does not work if some insist on drawing hard lines that exclude others and don’t allow for other perspectives.
  2. I am not the one who called the traditional plan “inquisitional.” That description came from the Judicial Council. I do believe that it captures the spirit of this plan (with reasons given in the previous post). To not resist the draconian measures of this plan is to put one’s own soul in danger.
  3. I did not use the word “bigot” at all. And I have not heard others use it in this way, even though that is a common accusation. I do believe we can all learn from Wesley’s caution against bigotry. It is a part of our doctrinal standards. Bigotry is an “attachment to, or fondness for, our own party, opinion, church, and religion.” Underlying bigotry is always a form of self-righteousness, that causes us to focus on the outward sins of others while conveniently able to overlook the “subtler, but no less destructive, forms of disobedience” within us. Wesley challenges us to be attentive and open to God’s work in others, especially in those who differ from us in religious opinion or practice.  That glorifies God! (See my post – “Bigotry in the Church”)
  4. To the accusation of promoting a “lifestyle” and following culture, let me say that the only “lifestyle” we are called to promote is faithfulness in Christ. We do not promote a secular or political agenda – as some falsely accuse. As a church we ask: “How do we respond faithfully to anyone who desires to live and grow as a follower of Christ and live in relationships where they can grow in faithfulness and love?  Many of us are asking, “Is it faithful to exclude certain people based solely on the way they identify rather than on their character and calling?”  “Do we welcome some but saying they need to change in ways that we don’t ask others to change?” We want to develop a serious sexual ethic based, not on identity, but on the virtues to which we are all called – monogamy, faithfulness, commitment, and all the characteristics defined by the word love. If we want to talk about “abominations” or “giving into culture” or promoting “lifestyles” that are not of Christ, let’s start with attitudes that cause division, with sexual immorality that objectifies others for personal pleasure, and perhaps with the temptation to judge others as “incompatible” as a way to avoid dealing with our own stuff.  We have the opportunity to give a positive witness to the world, based on the things in which we could all find agreement.
  5. The Bible! In my personal quest for faithfulness I have searched the scriptures and have come to the conclusion that my old traditional perspective, on the issue before us, cannot be maintained without proof-texting, selective literalism, and totally ignoring “guiding passages” that help us interpret the whole – passages centered around what it means to love, with Jesus himself saying that is the key to all scripture. Personally, I cannot see how to affirm the perspective in this comment without abusing what I truly believe to be God’s word.  (If you want to share in this journey there is a whole series called “The Way Forward Bible Study”).  
  6. My personal nightmare! I do fear that there will not be enough voices and votes to overturn this plan that does so much harm. Keeping my vows (in baptism, in marriage, in ordination) demands that I speak. Within these vows there is room for principled disobedience. I am reminded that the word “obedience” comes from the Latin, “to listen.” Obedience is not slavery or compliance.  It means to listen in respect and allow this to influence us. Sometimes listening deeply to some vows challenges others. Right now, there is a movement calling us to reflect more deeply on our baptismal vow to “resist evil, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves.” That vow has gotten my attention of late.
  7. I invite all who hold to positions found in this comment to open your heart to a new movement of the Holy Spirit. It is spreading as sacred fire. This movement is characterized by hearts expanding to make room for all and by the desire to promote unity in love rather than uniformity by law – by judgment and inquisition. In the light of this calling, perspectives are changing by the minute. You are invited to be a part of it. “Holy Spirit, may this post be an instrument of this light.”

Beyond the Nightmare (Comparing Plans for GC2020 at an Arkansas UMC Next Gathering, Sept 2019)

IMG_4576Unity vs. Schism

There is a new primary choice before us – unity or schism.  Before we look at the plans, I want these words to linger for a moment.  I want us to remember our calling “to maintain the unity of spirit in the bond of peace” and to do so with humility, patience, and kindness (Eph 4:1-3). With this calling planted in our hearts, most of us here were willing to adopt the One Church Plan – and not for some vague sense of “unity” but real and incarnate unity where we stayed at the table together and learned how to love one another in the midst of our differences.  We believed that would truly glorify God.  Yet, as we know, this plan crashed and burned…But out of this burning we have also witnessed a fire being kindled in many hearts.

In the light of this growing sacred-fire, there is a renewed commitment to unity, but with a nuanced understanding. Unity of spirit does not necessarily mean unity of organizational togetherness. To build upon the values that we have named as Arkansas Uniting Methodists, we want “unity in love rather than uniformity by law.” We want to cultivate sacred communities where there is “room for all.” We want to give witness to the unity found in God’s beloved community, in God’s kin-dom.

What about the word “schism?”  Schism is divorce on a community scale where groups within the body intentionally pull others away.  You will notice that this word in not used in the plans before us.  Instead we have notions of dissolution, new expressions, and the multiplication of our witness.  I will say that there is merit to seeing things from a different perspective.  This often leads to better outcomes.  Thus, it may not be schism at all.  At the same time, I believe it is important to ask if we are just putting a “silk dress on a pig” (as the saying goes). We need to be honest with ourselves and each other about this and our motives.

As I read these plans, and prepare as a delegate, it seems inevitable that we are moving towards schism, division, “multiplication of our witness.”  We seemed determined to “give into culture” in this way.   I have no doubt that God can work for good in the midst of this, but that does not mean it glorifies God.  I still suspect that God would be more glorified in our efforts to stay at the holy table together and learn how to love one another, instead of retreating into our own bubbles. If we take this course, we will need to find new ways to live into the clear calling that we have been given and find new ways to forge true unity.

With that introduction, let’s look at three plans, and then the one plan that is about to become policy.

The Indianapolis Plan

This plan was developed by leaders from each “camp,” including representation from the WCA.  It starts with the premise that there are “irreconcilable differences” among us and that we need to get beyond the “vitriolic” atmosphere that has marked our conversation for so long. Therefore, we need to “send one another into our respective mission fields to multiply our witness to Christ.”  (I do wonder if “respective mission fields” is code for like-minded camps or if it is dressing up a pig). This plan takes great pains to avoid the notion of dissolving the church. What we know as the United Methodist Church would stay with the centrist/progressive branch – boards, agencies, etc.  Then, we would “give birth” to a new expression of the church for traditionalists (I find this image of being asked to help “give birth” somewhat disturbing…). This “new expression” would share some resources like Wespath, UMCOR, UMW, and Publishing. There would be a formula for allocating resources among the bodies, including future apportionments.  After blessing this new expression, then this plan would remove all restrictive language and the language of “incompatibility” around same-sex marriages and ordination.  Conferences, congregations, and clergy would make decisions about alignment, with a simple majority as the rule.  If no vote is taken, the default would be the centrist/progressive Church (The UMC) in the U.S. Interestingly, Annual Conferences in Central Conferences would default to the traditionalist branch.

UMC Next Proposal

This proposal starts by envisioning a UMC that welcomes everyone, nurtures devoted disciples of Jesus Christ, and equips our members to live as salt and light in the world. It calls us to reclaim the spiritual zeal and creativity of our Wesleyan heritage.   It keeps the UMC intact by allowing for greater regional autonomy and freedom to engage in ministry within diverse missional context. In this way it honors the diverse global nature of the church.  It directly affirms our doctrinal standards and core beliefs. And then, in the light of these values and beliefs, this plan removes “language and policies…that are harmful to and exclusive of LGBTQ persons.”  It affirms the ability of pastors to determine readiness for marriage and annual conference to determine criteria for ordination.  After offering a vision of what we can be as a denomination, this plan provides methods and resources for groups of churches to form new expressions of methodism. The plan acknowledges that separation can be a faithful step that honors those who experience a call to move in different directions. It grounds this possibility in the story of Paul, Barnabas, and Mark and thus gives the notion of multiplication biblical roots (Acts 15:37-40) and combines this with the life-giving theological language of respect, partnerships, and cooperation in ministry. The proposal ends by moving us back to vision and calls for a “commission on the 21st century church” to prepare a “comprehensive structure and governance plan…”  For a couple of other details, this proposal endorses a proposal from the Connectional Table to create regional conferences and calls for professional mediation to help all parties move forward.  In terms of voting, local church disaffiliation would require a 2/3 majority – an option available for a limited time.

The Bard -Jones Plan

Named for the two bishops that developed it, this plan is similar to the Connectional Conference Plan that came out of the Way Forward Commission, but never got much traction at the time.  Like the Indy Plan, this plan starts with the premise that we must find a way to address our division.  It starts by highlighting our options. 1. Relying on the legislative processes of Conference to make changes. 2. Groups just decide to leave.  3. A “forced schism,” through trials and active disobedience. Or 4 (the shining light)- to negotiate a new unity, a new connectionalism, and a mutual blessing for the parting of ways.  This plan calls for the creation of two or three self-governing branches – an “open” branch initially operating under the “simple plan,” a “traditional” branch operating under the “traditional plan,” and perhaps a “progressive” branch with a strengthen version of the “simple plan.” The United Methodist Church would be an umbrella organization, for the purpose of sharing in mission and organization support.

The Traditional Plan  

As with the rhetorical device, use in the Bard/Jones Plan, where three bad options are given to lead to new option, there is a parallel here. All three of these plans look good in the light of the one plan that was passed at GC2019 – the traditional plan (soon to be policy).  This is the big ugly elephant in the room – a plan that defines unity as uniformity, that establishes strict mandatory penalties for anyone who violates certain, that requires oaths in order to be in certain leadership positions, that creates a globally elected body to enforce particular rules, a body likened by our Judicial Council to an “inquisitional court.” And it was all passed knowing that much of it would be ruled unconstitutional.  One possibility before us is that General Conference will be about perfecting this plan.  And, that my friends, is my nightmare.  Even many who have more traditional views on particular topics are opposed to these draconian measures. They do not honor Christ or glorify God.

So, in comparison to this plan/policy, all the others look great! We need to keep that in mind. In terms of big outcomes, any of these plans (or some combination) would allow for the formation of a church that truly aspires to the values that we have named as Arkansas Uniting Methodists:

  • Unity in Love rather than Uniformity by Law, where we come together at the holy table and give witness to the royal law of love.
  • Making Room for All and cultivating the values of inclusiveness and diversity as strengths that give witness to God’s beloved community (God’s kingdom) in our midst.
  • A High(er) View of Scripture where we honor the whole of scripture, interpret through key concepts as Jesus did, and move beyond proof-texting to affirm prejudices and opinions.
  • Wesleyan Holiness, defined through the virtues of humility, patience, and gentleness rather than through judgment of others and zeal for our own righteousness.
  • A Sexual Ethic Rooted in Values rather than Personal Identity, an ethic rooted in the values of monogamy, faithfulness, commitment, and the virtues summed up with the word love.

Beyond the Nightmare

Before our discussion, I want to elaborate on the nightmare that haunts me.  What if we are not able to pave any path for a church that cultivate these values. What if we don’t have the votes, even after the wave of support that occurs in the US?  (It is not unlike what we witnessed in St. Louis). What if I’m sitting there and I realize that it is not going to happen – at least in the legislative arena.  Can I (we) just sit there as more harm is done?

One image that comes to mind is something that happened at Annual Conference a couple of years ago when a group of women made the decision to excuse themselves from the bar of the conference abstaining from a vote on a resolution in support of women in ministry.  While acknowledging that the resolution was well-intended, it was reasoned that they did not want to subject themselves to the possible harm of becoming, once again, an “issue” to be justified and defended, or by having to vote, once again, on their own legitimacy.  And so, they chose a response that I believe honored our shared covenant.

I’m not totally sure what to make of this comparison, but I have a couple of reflections. First, resolutions are by nature contentious and designed to divide.  They may be well intended and still cause harm. Often there are better way to make affirmations. In the same way, our whole legislative process is often contentious and can cause much harm.  Acknowledging this, and as a small step, it is important to notice the language of the plans and ask: Do they come from a heart of love or do they mask other motives? Do they flow out of the values we have named, and if so, give the possibility for healing rather than harm? The hope is that we will let our values guide us through the turbulent waters of legislation. For a second connection, and more provocative, I wonder if we need some kind of contingency plan, for all supporters of an open and inclusive church, to possibly excuse ourselves and go to another room to work on a new way forward – while we are conveniently there in Minneapolis.  It is a big question mark at this point, but I do wonder.

I certainly hope that kind of action will not be needed.  I hope I will be able to say in hindsight, “Oh that was just a nightmare.” May our Lord help us see all of this through the light of love divine. May it be so.

Inclusion at the Core of the UMC Constitution and Tradition

IMG_4576With another General Conference quickly approaching, and as a delegate, I have spent some time re-reading our constitution in the Book of Discipline (BOD).  Interestingly, it is all about unity! We see this theme in almost every paragraph.  It is clearly stated that “dividedness” is a hindrance to our witness.  We are called to confess, in humility, our brokenness and seek opportunities for reunion, “in the confident assurance that this act is an expression of the oneness of Christ’s people.”  We are then to “strive towards unity…at all levels of church life.” I wonder how we could have strayed so far?

As a matter of constitutional proclamation, we are also called to work towards inclusion, “without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition.”  Scriptural Unity is not to be found by dividing into like-minded camps or by excluding others.  It is not found in our agreement over things that do not “strike at the root of faith,” but in our coming together in environments where we can practice our calling to love with patience, kindness, humility, and without insisting on our own way. That glorifies God!

The BOD gives us powerful guiding principles for how we can strive for this unity of spirit. Later in the BOD, we are challenged to seek unity in the midst of both continuing “historic tensions” and as “new issues continually arise and summon us to fresh theological inquiry.” In this light, we affirm our rich diversity of perspectives and see this as a sign of health within the Body of Christ.  We affirm that “our faith is enriched by indigenous experiences and manners of expression.” As a guiding principle, in this diversity, we believe that “we are held together by a shared inheritance and a common desire to participate in the creative and redemptive activity of God.” I wonder what conferencing would look like if we were more faithful to this charge?

By taking a small leap, we can also say that inclusion is at the heart of our tradition, defined as the living faith that honors those who have gone before us rather than the dead faith of the living.  With this definition, I do not think we should use the word “traditional” to describe the policy (It is no longer a plan) that is before us.  This policy is built on a mandate to exclude, punish, and strengthen stances that cause harm.  Even the Judicial Council has likened this policy to an “inquisitional court.”   This policy does not honor our living tradition. I would love to re-claim this important word for all of us rather than letting it be co-opted to describe one segment of the church and for the only purpose of judging some among us as incompatible. That seems so unconstitutional to me – not to mention unchristian.

The abuse of the Book of Discipline (BOD) in times of contention is similar to the abuse we see with scripture – proof-texting, selective literalism, and focusing on the letter of the law rather than the spirit.  It is used too often to announce the speck in the eye of some while ignoring the ways that others do not follow our discipline and doctrine.  That list is long for all of us.  We hear cries against disobedience when we could acknowledge that principled resistance is a legitimate approach within our covenant and our democratic process of discernment.  Where some practice this kind of resistance by pushing through a plan known to be unconstitutional, others resist rules and language believed to be exclusionary and incompatible with both the spirit of the BOD and the living tradition of the church,  Our covenant can honor this tension as we continuously strive for unity around the values of faithfulness and love.

Rather than using the BOD against one another, we could see it as a resource to help us build a church that truly glorifies God.  As we approach another General Conference, I would encourage us all to prayerfully read the constitution before we get too involved in all the legislation that will come our way.  There is something to be said about putting first things first.

Our Calling Amid Possible Schism

IMG_4576The decision is in.  While I was hoping for a different result from the Judicial Council, I don’t believe we can blame the messenger.  I do wonder if they grieved over this decision, knowing that it would contribute to the schism that is likely to come.

Before General Conference, I wrote about Wesley’s view on schism.  Now I find myself revisiting his advice from a different perspective.  At the end of his sermon, “On Schism,” Wesley acknowledges that leaving a church, or forming a new church, can mean multiplication rather than division. It can be good for the body of Christ, as long as this move is not motivated by condemnation or personal comfort.  Withdrawing into “like-minded camps” is generally not the best way to glorify God.

In this sermon, Wesley actually defends heresy. It is a bit shocking – and very relevant for us today. Different perspectives – even factions or heresies – serve a positive purpose within the body of Christ. A variety of perspectives teaches us how to love and how to break bread together. There is likely some level of “heresy” in all of our stances and opinions.  Acknowledging this in humility leads us into life-giving community.  On the other hand, claiming right belief, and making this the focus of what it means to be the church, only breeds self-righteousness and creates “a present hell for those involved.” That’s Wesley’s take.

So where does this leave us? We are in a strange place where those who advocated for biblical unity are in the minority. After this ruling by the Judicial Council, the green-light has been given to a plan that moves us from unity in love to uniformity by law, with strict mandatory penalties, strengthened definitions that cause harm, and accountability taken away from bishops and the annual conferences. (If you are following the process, this is all old news).  I am glad that the provision for requiring oaths to serve in certain leadership positions was ruled unconstitutional, but it was still the will of the majority at General Conference. On the issue at hand, there is no room to do ministry from a different perspective. Those who want to make this room are being asked by many to “just leave” – or be subject to the new “inquisitional court” that will be established. That is where we are.

So, what’s next?  As we work through our grief, my hope is that we will join with others and focus on the calling God has given us – to bear one another in love and seek true unity of spirit (Eph 4:1-6).  Let us increase our resolve to make room for all, including those with traditional, centrist, and progressive perspectives, as we seek to listen and learn together, in respect and grace (that is possible and truly glorifies God), and in light of our current conversation, especially work to honor the gifts of our LGBTQ+ siblings and make room for them.  Let us promote a high(er) view of scripture where we honor the whole and seek God’s intended message in our time, using the royal law of love as our guide.  Let us affirm Wesleyan Holiness, defined through the virtues of humility, patience, and gentleness, as oppose to holiness defined by judgment of others, and zeal for our own righteousness.  Let us promote a strong sexual ethic rooted in the values of monogamy, faithfulness, and the virtues summed up with the word love.  Let us work towards policies built on a shared ethic of calling and character, as opposed to policies that make judgments around personal identity.   In sum, let us join with others to form a church that glorifies God.

Yes, some sort of division or “branches” is likely at a denominational level.  I hope that this possibility will increase our witness to the values we share. I believe that this is the calling we are being given, in this time, as we stay open to God’s work through us.

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 Ordinary Work of the Spirit and the Way Forward

IMG_4576Holy Spirit Come! That is at the heart of my prayer as General Conference approaches. To understand the meaning of this prayer, my go-to source is John Wesley.  From a big-picture perspective, Wesley’s focus was on the way the Holy Spirit works through ordinary means and basic virtues, rather than extraordinary signs and wonder. The witness of the Holy Spirit is best revealed when we come together in holiness, which Wesley consistently defined with the virtues of patience, kindness, and humility, all wrapped up in the word “love.”  The Spirit is revealed, less in our opinions, and more in how we treat one another in the sharing of our opinions. In my mind, we could use a lot more of our energy being open to this witness of the Holy Spirit rather than expecting something extraordinary.

In his sermon “The Witness of the Spirit,” Wesley calls us to the “middle way.”  In doing so, he is not talking about politics, party, opinion, or beliefs; he is talking about behavior.  Even with strong opinions, faithfulness calls us to “behave” in the middle.  For Wesley, the “worst kind of enthusiasm” is where we are so convinced that God is in our opinions and that our job is to come to God’s defense and actually create division.  In contrast to this kind of “enthusiasm,” the Holy Spirit leads us to “steer a middle course.” On this way, to draw upon the scriptures, we work to break down dividing walls of hostility and seek unity in the One who not only brings peace but is our peace (Eph 2:14).  This way is defined by an eagerness “to maintain unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:1-3). To draw lines in the sand, and promote division is to be “devoid of the Spirit” (Jude 1:19).

After seeing this phrase in Jude, I had to do a little research. Sodom is used as an example. (We have seen this before in this series). As is often the case in the New Testament, the word “pornia” is used as a general term, often translated as “fornication” and here as “immorality.” It can be defined as objectifying others and using them only for our pleasure.  There is no doubt that this is against God’s will for us, but it is far from Jude’s main point (and that is important for our current debate). When Jude outlines “unnatural lust” he focuses on the way we use words to harm others and to get an advantage over others. To do this is to be “devoid of the Spirit.” In contrast, those who are with the Spirit keep themselves in the love of God and focus on sharing the mercy and peace of the Lord.  These virtues work only when we meet in the middle where we can then engage in the greatest challenge we are given, and that is to learn how to love one another.

To build upon Wesley’s understanding of the Holy Spirit, it is possible that God might come and give some extraordinary sign, but we have little reason to think that God will.  The Holy Spirit is already at work in the everyday and universal call to “steer a middle course.”  This cannot happen when we are intent on using scripture as a weapon to belittle faithful interpretations that differ from what we believe is the only right way. It cannot happen when we use good words – orthodox, evangelical, Jesus-loving, traditional, progressive, inclusive, gracious — as code words to create an “us and them.” Rather, God will be glorified in the way we love one another in our difference – with patience and kindness, without arrogance or envy, and never insisting on our own way. What a word! (I Cor 13:4-8).  If we were able to practice this faith, then I guess we could say that it would be extraordinary indeed.  Come Holy Spirit!

Is There Grace in Gracious Exits?

Around the Way Forward there is much talk about the need for legislation that allows clergy, congregations, and conferences to exit the denomination without penalty.  The proposal is being called “Gracious Exit.” I get the rationale at a surface level, and may even be put in a position to employ it, but I also find it theologically disturbing.  Here are my prayerful musings.

Using the word grace in this context feels like a violation to me.  Grace is a theologically charged word. Grace is much more than a synonym for “kind,” “polite,” or “civil.”  To attempt to define it, grace is the unmerited gift of relationship with the One who is above all, in all, and through all. Grace is knowing that we are not alone and that nothing can separate us from God’s love.  Grace is being included into something bigger than ourselves, indeed into an infinitely larger community where we get to practice the virtues of patience, kindness, humility, forgiveness, never insisting on our own way, and bearing one another in love – virtues not really needed in like-minded religious clubs or if grace is seen only as a personal transaction.  Grace holds all labels loosely.  Grace always works for reconciliation and unity, and in this work challenges our prejudices and holds up a mirror to our narrowly-defined agendas to secure our own comfort and get our own way.  It is this challenge that makes grace hard to accept or trust because this grace requiring so much sacrifice and even more humility.  Faith in something beyond ourselves and our own efforts is so hard, and that’s what is needed to know God’s grace. And so, we often turn away from grace in order to promote our own religious agenda.  And here is the really good news about grace; even in our self-righteousness, grace remains and works for good.  That’s what makes grace so amazing!

In recent days I have heard calls from several “camps” to allow for gracious exits as a part of our Way Forward.  I have heard people call for this freedom to “depart and thrive.”  Often, it feels much more like an invitation for others to leave, wrapped in polite or “gracious” language.  Many want this so that “the issue” will go away and so we can stop talking about it.  It just doesn’t feel right to me to use this sacred word to justify easy divorce and civil schism.  Grace is what beckons us to the common table, not to divide it.  Grace is what allows us to find our true selves in the presence of the Other and “others.”  Grace is knowing we are not alone, and thus the challenge to build life-giving relationships and to truly learn how to love.  Grace is the hard work of our calling.

Yes, we can be polite and civil in our eagerness for divorce, but I wonder, are we denying or cheapening grace in the process? While God can work for good in all things, will we be able to “thrive” with any sense of faithfulness to anything “Other” than ourselves, if we make divorce and cheap grace the accepted norm?   Perhaps our divisions and differences are not “impeding our mission,” as some claim, but are the very realities that make it possible for us to truly fulfill our mission and offer something truly life-giving to the world.  I wonder.

If we make this policy, what are the unintended consequences? Would it not be the de-facto demise of the denomination? What would hold the covenant together in terms of accepting things like apportionments or appointments? Could congregations come and go depending on the current climate?  Could congregations apply this same grace to staying instead of exiting, continuing to act upon the spirit of our doctrine and discipline, as they see it, and with the grace of their contextual colleagues and conference, until another who can claim to have never committed disciplinary sin is thus able to act in righteousness, instead of grace, and start casting stones? (Which may be a good way to look at it).  I wonder and will continue to pray for deeper understanding.

Way Forward Bible Study Notes – Session 3

For the next two weeks we are going to address some of the more controversial passages that get used frequently in the midst of this struggle.  Sometimes these passages are called “clobber texts,” because they are used to “clobber” people – to judge them or call them to true righteousness as we see it.  And then, there are those who interpret these passages differently and use them to “clobber” back – and back and forth it goes.  I am absolutely convinced (and convicted) that there is a more faithful and fruitful way to read these passages. These words are not weapons. So, we are going to see if we can read them to help us build up rather than tear down, unite rather than divide, and heal rather than harm – as God intends.

We will start with Romans 1:18-2:1. I’m going to read the whole passage, then make a few comments about how this passage is used and sometimes abused, and then invite you into a conversation.

Commentary: 

This passage is part of a larger discourse, where Paul argues that we are all guilty, none are righteous, “not even one,” he says.  Here is a key verse: “Since we all fall short of the glory of God, we are now justified by his grace, as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”  (Rom 3:23). And then Paul goes on to reveal this grace.  He makes the case that to grasp God’s life-giving amazing grace, we first must see our need for it. We can’t measure up to God’s love by our own work; we cannot justify or save ourselves.  To try is to only bring God down to ourselves.  If it is up to us to align ourselves to God, then our only option is to bring God down to our level…

In these verses, the clear backdrop is some kind of idolatrous worship practices. Idolatry (or the worship of idols) is defined as the worshiping of the creature or creation rather than the creator.  It is exchanging the truth for lies.  Perhaps one way to explain Idolatry is to note that it starts with “I.” Idolatry is the effort to manipulate spiritual forces to get our own way.  That’s what Paul is talking about here.

Idolatry is an “abomination.”  And that’s an important biblical word here.  An abomination is something that is unnatural – like the abominable snowman.  An abomination is something unnatural and offensive.  And this brings us to the verses that are most often used in the struggle to discern matters of human sexuality.

Our exchanging truth for lies and devotion to God for devotion to the world is as unnatural for us as exchanging what is natural for us when it comes to sexual attraction with what would be unnatural, and yet, because of sin, we do this so easily.

It is an illustration, not the point.  But many make it the point.  They stop here and say, “See, same-sex intimacy, in any form, is a distortion of God’s purpose and design for us.  It is an abomination.  End of story.”  And then, others will say “See. Paul didn’t understand same-sex attraction in the way we do today.  It is not a choice, and Paul is right, none of us should exchange what is natural for us and engage in behaviors that are unnatural for us.  That would be wrong.”  On this side, it is pointed out that the assumption here is that heterosexuals are exchanging what is natural for them for something unnatural, and that the context is probably some kind of pagan ritual to appease the gods.  So, we have two sides focused on these few verses to make a point, or to “clobber” the other side.

Paul’s whole point is that this is not the point. We can’t stop here. Paul gives a long list of “unnatural” acts (abominations) that are against the will of God — envy, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, insolence (or being disrespectful), boastfulness (arrogance where we build ourselves up by putting others down), foolishness, disobedience, and “all manner of wickedness” or “etc” (v.28-31). All of these acts and attitudes point to a disorientation of life and lead us into lies.  The big point is that no one has escaped the reality of sin.  We are all in need of grace.  And so, Paul concludes this section by saying, “Therefore you (earlier he said “they;” now we know that we are included in the “they”) have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same thing.” (2:1).

For our purposes here, we must conclude that using this passage to judge others is to totally pervert God’s word.  This is an example of exchanging truth for a lie.  This is an example of us creating God in our image and using God to justify our own prejudices and desires.  We are all called into a bigger reality where we can all be transformed by grace.

Holy Conversation

So, now I want to read it again, and then have you discuss around the tables, with these questions to spark your conversation.  Where do we see ourselves in this passage? What are we really not supposed to do?  And how might we turn that into a statement about what we should do as people of faith and as the church? (If you need help re-read Eph 4:1-6, or Romans 12:9-18, or Gal 5:22-23, or Col 3:12-14, for starters).

A Report of Conversations

As a report, there were rich conversations around the tables and then in the larger group.  One of our youth asked about free-will, referencing how God allows all this to happen.  I responded with an affirmation that God does allow us to try out forms of idolatry, but never abandoned us and is able to use even our sinfulness to bring us back into grace.

One table turned to Colossians 3 to help answer the questions.  Here we see back to back lists of what not to do and what to do.  The list of “don’t” is similar to the list in Romans – anger, wrath, malice, slander, abusive language, lying.  We are then invited to “clothe ourselves,” as God’s beloved, with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, forgiveness and above all love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.  Note how similar this is to the list we used from Ephesians 4.  Our calling is to behave in holy ways, more than it is to believe certain things about how others should live.

Many have used this passage to define sin for others in an effort to uphold God’s standard and combat immorality in the world.  I would agree that this passage helps us in this effort, but only as we look at the whole and at ourselves as well.  It does not serve the cause of Christ well – to pick out verses to use as weapons in defense or condemnation of an “agenda” or “lifestyle” of others.  Our concern is how to respond faithfully to anyone who comes and says, “I want to live in relationship with Christ, and practice faithfulness and commitment even when sacrifice is required. I want to live in a relationship where I can cultivate the love of Christ. Will the church help me do that?”  That’s our “agenda.” Perhaps if we focused more on promoting this life-giving way of relating to one another, we might get a lot more interest from people who are searching for something more.   I believe that would glorify God.