The Faith of Thomas and General Conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spiritual Elegance (Reflections from a Funeral and on the Hymn “When We All Get to Heaven”)

I was at the funeral of a beloved aunt and will admit walking into the familiar funeral home with much pain. This pain was mostly work related, and for me work means church. I was surrounded by extended family and was particularly sensitive to how tensions in relationships, often around matters of life and faith, are felt in such settings.

It was also an opportunity to sit in a pew and receive. I took solace in the Hymn “When We All Get to Heaven.” As one who studies hymns and uses them regularly for devotion, I reflected on this one as memorials were given. This hymn, by Eliza Hewitt, debuted at the Great Auditorium just outside Asbury Park in New Jersey. It is a place known for the Methodist camp-meeting movement and famous for being a place where early American hymnody developed. Just think of this hymn and add Blessed Assurance and Great is Thy Faithfulness, to name a few. The street leading up to Great Auditorium is called the “Pilgrim Pathway,” referenced in the hymn.

“Sing the wondrous love of Jesus. Sing his mercy and his grace.” At the funeral God’s love was a theme. We heard from I Corinthians 13 and were told that this was read repeatedly during the last season of life. We really can’t get enough of this — this hearing that love is patient and kind, not arrogant or rude, and does not insist on its own way (verses 4-5).

I sat there and reflected on how some do not feel welcomed at occasions like this because of the judgement that is felt. I hear this a lot. It is hard knowing that you will be judged, not by character or calling or a desire to be faithful, but by dimensions of one’s life that are a part of your incarnate being. It can be hard to know that you are seen, even in church and family circles, as an issue rather than as a person. It is hard to be in an environment where some see “insisting on our own way” as a mark of courage and even righteousness. As I reflected on the love being described, it became clearer to me that the weight of concern must go to those who feel hurt and harmed. Love demands that.

“While we walk the pilgrim pathway, clouds will overspread the sky.” Oh yes. It can seem that the clouds can overcome the light. I thought of the line in I Corinthians 13 of how we see dimly in the present age and can only know in part (verse 12). This is truth. This is the arena that makes love even more important, even essential for life. And still, it is hard to be humble in this way, especially when there are such loud voices calling for something so different. As I reflected, I wondered if this reality could be a call to sing even more of love, mercy, and grace, especially in the midst of cloudy confusion – internal and external.

And this leads to the call – “to be true and faithful, trusting, serving every day.” My aunt was described with words like this. I was especially drawn to the word “elegant.” I had never thought of this virtue as something to which I needed to aspire, but I was inspired by it. Refined. Graceful. Sophisticated. Beautiful in a way that causes others to appreciate and aspire. This was all true of her, in a worldly sense, and in a spiritual sense. I liked this new thought of spiritual elegance. I was truly moved when one family member used the description of wisdom in the book of James. “The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace” (James 3:17-18). That’s it! I want to practice this kind of elegance. And I also know that there are those around who can be especially helpful in showing the way.

“When we all get to heaven.” All! That is such a good thought. There we shall “tread the streets of gold.” I recall the commentary that pointed out the political reality of this image. In the world, golden streets would only be for those behind the walls of power and privilege. In God’s economy, all will walk along this pathway together.

It will be so good to walk among those who have been so transformed that they (we) will be able to practice spiritual elegance in this way. In the meantime, may we be among those who are able, at least at times, to give “just one glimpse” of this “beauty we’ll behold.”

Building Upon the Rock as United Methodists

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.

Affirming the Connection and the Role of the Annual Conference (2553 and one more special session)

In recent rulings the Judicial Council has affirmed connectionalism in the strongest terms, calling it “a distinctive attribute of Methodism,” and “a bedrock principle of United Methodist constitutional polity.” It is “the opposite of congregationalism.”  Connectionalism is “the universal thread out of which the temporal and spiritual fabric of the Church is providentially woven, creating the relational ligaments that wonderfully link and sustain the diverse parts of the community of all true believers under the Lordship of Christ.” 

In hearing this assessment at a recent Conference, I asked why ¶2553 was ruled constitutional when connectionalism and the trust clause have been so beautifully upheld in other decisions. The answer has to do with the required vote of the Annual Conference.  The Annual Conference can set the criteria and allow congregations to step out of the connection. The Annual Conference, however, cannot separate from the General Church as a whole, per Decision 1444. As a body, the Annual Conference represents and affirms the connection. 

This explains a lot. It explains why the Annual Conference passed “principles” rather than “rules” for how we hoped the process would be followed. It explains why cases get passed on to the Annual Conference even when some believe that the process was not followed, or deadlines were not met. As we have interpreted and practiced this process, the Annual Conference is the decision-maker.

In this coming special session, for example, there are questions about several congregations that started the process after the recommended deadline based on the “minimum three-month discernment period” and the principle that “all materials…must be submitted to the Conference Trustees a minimum of three weeks before the Annual Conference session…” In a confusing statement, we read that a minimum three-month process begins with the initial contact from a congregation, but this is followed by the expectation “that the congregational meetings will be conducted over a full three-month period, since discerning a vision for God’s purpose requires both time and prayer.” While questions can be asked about how our principles are followed, we can assume that the Annual Conference will decide how we want to deal with timeline issues. (And for an update, the website will distinguish those received before and after the 3 week deadline).

The responsibility is great!   Motivation to vote comes from multiple considerations – concerns about the winner-take-all outcome, whether we help or harm our future witness, avoiding future conflict, honoring majority votes, and commitments to connectionalism, to name a few.

Members of the Annual Conference must decide! Next Sunday will be our last vote using ¶2553.  After this is over, may United Methodists come together and discern how to move forward as a connected witness, where all relational ligaments are woven together to create a life-giving witness to the love of Christ. Isn’t that a beautiful thought?

Change or Die (a review of a still relevant word)

It is an older but still relevant word, found in an article entitled “Change or Die,” written by Alan Deutschman, and published in Fast Company in 2005.  We used this article in clergy retreats years ago, and it may have been ahead of its time, at least for us in the church. 

The question is posed:  Could you change when change really mattered? This article shares some sobering realities. Change is hard.  As an example, one major study shows that 90% of people with heart disease will not change their behavior, even at the risk of dying, and even after major surgery.  A John Hopkins project explored the reasons for this and came to some helpful conclusions, with implications for our work as leaders in the church.

Several myths are exposed.  For one example, we might think that facts will motivate change.  They do not. For years, physicians have been trying to motivate patients with facts about unhealthy behaviors. Instead of changing, people will often go into denial about bad things happening to them and tell themselves that they will be okay.  The facts are intended to produce fear, but fear can debilitate rather than motivate.  We read, “Telling people who are lonely and depressed that they’re going to live longer if they quit smoking or change their diet is not that motivating…who wants to live longer when you’re in chronic emotional pain?” 

So, what is the remedy? Re-framing!  In reality, our thinking is guided by narratives, not facts.  Mental frames or narratives shape the way we see the world. An example is the frame (or narrative) of seeing a company as an army with ranks and top-down structures.  This determines behavior.  If we saw the company as a family or a commune, people would work together in very different ways.  For facts to make sense they must fit into frames. If they do not, they simply are not received, for reasons beyond “reason.”

To quote the article, “This is why political conservatives and liberals each think that the other side is nuts.  They are working within different frames.” The article does not elaborate but I wonder how these political frames might be named – seeing government as the protector of individual freedoms or seeing government as a facilitator of community.  Is the underlying narrative about advancing individual economic freedom with less interference or facilitating an economy that works for all, with regulations that work for the common good? Does the narrative inspire an openness to different perspectives or a desire to keep other perspectives from being imposed upon those who do not see the benefit or who believe they might be harmful? How we frame the “facts” changes everything!  

The article outlines a John Hopkins project where patients were invited to reframe with the help of emotional and spiritual sources for healing, and to begin to see themselves through a different lens – one of feeling better, of being able to make love to their partner, or take walks through the woods, or play with grandchildren, or learn a new skill, or make a contribution to the world. After three years, 77% of patients who participated in this project, stuck with new lifestyle changes and were able to avoid additional surgeries. It happened because of a change in narrative.  The article also points out the importance of an emotional appeal, rather than facts.  The possibility of something good has to reach the heart.  That makes all the difference.    

What are the implications for us as leaders in the church?  The article hints at this with examples from the business world.  For one example, the story was told about the decline and revival of IBM.  The culture of the company had become overly bureaucratic with demands for uniformity and seemed to feed on depression and hard work.  A radical change was needed.  They moved from selling computers to selling services and helping customers build and run information technology operations.  They even recommended that clients buy from competitors such as Microsoft when it was in the client’s interest.  This sweeping and quick change made a big difference.

Apple served as another example.  For years they had battled for market share and consistency fell behind.  A reframing was needed.  They became a home for creative innovators, who dared to think differently.  Many began to flock to the inspiration that flowed from this new narrative. 

As Jesus said often, “Let those who have ears, hear” or “let it sink in.”  In these times of great change, how might we need to reframe?  How can we move beyond the facts and fears? What narrative is needed that will inspire the courage and wisdom needed to change?  We have such a good story to tell, one of transformation and life! How do we give witness?  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can You Imagine? 

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

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

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

Walking in the Truth (and through disaffiliation)

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.

“Can You Imagine?” A Stay UMC Presentation

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?

Front Row Seat (Reflections on a Church Conference to Disaffiliate)

As a representative leader of the UMC, I sat on the front row of a Church Conference where I heard of how the UMC is led by people who are “incompetent and immoral,” who “trade God’s Word for the secular ideology of the world,” who “abandon doctrine” in order to not offend anyone, and who want to bend our will to “pagan cultural Marxism.” It was all part of a continuing effort to build a “damning case against the UMC.”  Damn! Condemn! Declare as evil! As I listened, I could not think of any leader who deserved such hurtful and judgmental attacks, even considering isolated examples. The main speech concluded with a prayer calling for us to part ways as Paul and Barnabas did and to love one another even if from afar – familiar talking points, shared as pleas to God.

To counter this narrative, I heard grace-filled speeches calling for unity in love, even in the midst of different perspectives.  I heard of how a few isolated examples do not represent the whole. I heard of a trust in the Holy Spirit to keep us all centered, allowing us to honor perspectives that stand at the edges of theological interpretation. This is a dynamic that has always been a part of healthy congregations.   I heard much love for the UMC and for our doctrine, liturgy, mission, and ministry. I so appreciated the spirit with which these truths were shared.  

When the votes were counted, however, division won the day – by 4 votes.  It was winner-take-all! There were no provisions for those who want to remain UMC, many of whom have given of their tithes, taught Sunday School, and shared in holy communion and potlucks for years. There was no honoring of the larger church that had given pastors, provided equipping and resources and offered an opportunity to be a part of a global mission bigger than ourselves.  I thought of the person who said, after hearing of a love for our doctrine and discipline, “the videos I watched told me you would say that and that you would be lying.” That’s the spirit that won the day.   

For me, it felt as if the Spirit of God left the room, leaving the space as something other than holy.  I then looked up at the stained-glass image of Jesus, and I sensed the presence of Christ.  Knowing that Living Lord was there for all, I especially sensed his presence with those whose hearts were broken and who were fighting back tears. I want to stand with these beloved and faithful souls as well.   

A Personal FAQ on Disaffiliation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can we accept something that goes against the Bible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What will happen at General Conference next year?

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

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

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

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

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