Tuesday, October 3, 2017

A Time for Silence and a Time for Speaking

Yesterday on Facebook I alluded to Ecclesiastes 3 in suggesting that we refrain from calls for political action and instead spend time in prayer and mourning. I don't think that's the same thing as not doing something. Prayer and mourning are actions, and actions that are appropriate in a time of national loss. But that was yesterday. Today is a new day with new responsibilities.

We didn't share the news from Las Vegas with our kids yesterday morning before school. We do talk about current events in our house. In this case it seemed too fresh without enough information known. I did talk last night with my oldest daughter. She's the same age now that I was when the Challenger exploded. She knew about Las Vegas because her Social Studies teacher talked about it - I heard about the Challenger from my Science teacher. My science teacher told our class that like her generation with the assassination of JFK, my generation would remember where we were when the Challenger exploded. She was right.

This is where my heart breaks. When I asked Sophia if she thought she would remember this 30 years from now, she said no. Instead, she named three other similar events off the top of her head. I want you to hear that. For my empathetic daughter, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history is not something that will stick in her mind. And why should it? The 4 deadliest shootings have all happened in the last ten years

Here's another side to the story of guns. Earlier on the same day as the Las Vegas shooting, the brother-in-law of one my parishioners was killed by a gun in a home burglary. He was killed right in front of his family, including kids the same age as mine. He had a right to defend himself. If he had a gun it could well be that the burglar would have turned tail and run (he actually did run after shooting the man, so we know courage wasn't his strong suit). So my heart breaks again.

One of the reasons I suggested we not immediately respond with calls for action is that the action/reaction is so predictable. The conversation starts this way:

"We need to do something about gun control!"
"If we ban guns then only the bad people will have guns"

Then it goes downhill. As if the only options are a total ban or no restrictions on guns at all. So it's not a conversation. Like with so many other issues today, it's just two people or two sides shouting at each other without listening.

We can only hear each other when we are emotionally moving toward each other. Before a person who disagrees with you can hear you, they have to be open to listening. That's not happening today, on either side.

So here's what I would ask you to do. The blog title comes from Ecclesiastes 3:7. I ask that you do both. First, be silent. In the silence, ask yourself what would you be willing to give up if you were on the other side of the issue. I think we need more gun control. As I consider the positions of those who are pro-gun, I can understand why they would be in favor of concealed carry and stand your ground laws. I disagree with both, but I can understand where they are coming from. However 26 states allow a person to carry a weapon without any training whatsoever. I have to think that even if I was pro-gun that would seem like a bad idea. Same for the new silencer law that has been proposed.

Then speak. Contact your state and federal representatives and senators. Say, "I've really thought about this. I can understand why we may need to allow (fill in the blank with what you can tolerate. This gives you something in common and the person can emotionally move towards you and be open to what you're saying). And (this word is important - the word "but" negates what you just said and starts moving the person away from you again) and I also think it would be good for us to (using the next federal vote coming) restrict the sale of silencers because of the danger that they pose."

Silence and speaking. Listening and sharing. We need both. Or we can keep doing what we're doing right now.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Why I'm a Uniting Methodist

Yesterday a new group was unveiled. Uniting Methodists is a group that will be working to a united way forward in our ongoing controversy about LGBTQ marriage, ordination, and inclusion. Without giving a specific plan, they have proposed six principles for moving forward as a denomination. I hope you'll visit the website and prayerfully consider signing on.

And I would understand if you don't. You may be someone who supports the current positions of the United Methodist Church. Or you may believe that the proposal from Uniting Methodists doesn't go far enough. It is "inclusion lite" at best, giving clergy the option of officiating same-sex weddings and giving conferences the option of allowing LGBT ordination but not requiring either. If you believe it does not go far enough I hope you'll read the rest of this post, because I'm with you - and I have signed on. I want you to know why.

1. I signed because I needed a church that "agreed to disagree."

In 1996 I was a 23 year old lay delegate to General Conference. Up to that moment in my life I'd spent very little time even thinking about human sexuality outside of my stereotyped images. I wasn't "against" people who were different from me. I loved them, and believed that God loved them too. If pushed, I would have said something like "I believe that God's best for a person is heterosexual marriage. There are people who don't recognize that for themselves yet, maybe because there is a bigger issue for them to work through first." I considered myself to be open, loving, and just. And if there were two United Methodist churches, one dominated by the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) and one dominated by Reconciling Ministries, I would have been with the WCA. I never would have experienced a tremendous number of influential people in my life, including a man about my age who sat behind my chair in my General Conference subcommittee who helped me start to understand a world that was bigger than I was aware of.

I want a United Methodist Church that can do for someone else what this one did for me in 1996. And the journey that began for me then continued for at least 10 years. Maybe in some ways it still continues. We need a Church that can give space for people like me to continue to process thoughts. And I also understand that there are some who cannot sign because they need a space where they know people will agree.

2. I signed because I can.

I'm a centrist in all kinds of ways. I spent time as a registered Independent, I always vote a split ticket, I try to preach sermons that invite people to consider multiple sides to issues rather than sticking with what they already believe, and I'm a Royals fan who can tolerate Yankees fans. I have heard from some who have been fighting this battle for more than 40 years. I have deep respect for them. I don't know if I could do that. And so I have no animosity towards those who now say "I can't do this anymore." You need to know that I haven't been fighting for 40 years. I've been fighting in earnest for maybe 8 years. You also need to know that I have friends of every theological stripe. I can work with them, even as I disagree with them. I'm convinced that we are better together whenever we can be together. UMCOR's response to the recent hurricanes is evidence of that. So because I can work with people across the spectrum I plan to continue doing just that.

3. I signed because I believe a United church is a faithful witness to the world "for such a time as this." 

If you don't know that our nation is divided you have closed off every sense organ you possess. Polarization is at an all time high. In fact, when I hear people say, "We shouldn't be following culture - we should be leading culture" I say, "I agree. But instead of following culture with LGBT rights I say we're following culture by dividing and conquering. We're following the cultural norm of dehumanization and polarization." The reality is the places in the United States where public opinion is opposed to same sex marriage are precisely the places where the UMC witness is strongest against it (and vice-versa.) If the times were different, I might come out in a different place. But at this time, and in this place, the need for us to find commonalities with others is critical. I believe that part of our witness to the world is to proclaim that we can be united through diversity. Which also means rejecting the notion of the WCA that a big-tent Methodism is a bad idea.

4. I signed because I understand that this is not the end of the story.

2019 will not be the last time that the question of human sexuality comes up or that other controversial questions come up. I've argued previously that a WCA dominated church will debate (not necessarily pass, but almost certainly debate) whether or not women should be ordained. I suspect that a denomination dominated by progressives will debate (not necessarily pass) theological questions of salvation and the divinity of Christ. And I imagine that a Uniting Methodist dominated church will continue to debate matters of human sexuality. The reality of our situation is that none of us are finished products and the Church will be imperfect until Christ comes again. So to those who cannot be part of this proposal because it continues to exclude, I hear you. It is not perfect. Not by a long shot. And I promise that if this picture of the future comes to fruition I will be among those who continue to work for change from the inside. I deeply respect those who feel they can no longer do the same.

Friday, August 25, 2017

Why the Monuments Matter...And Why They Don't

History does not repeat itself.

There will never again be a time when we churn our own butter and use horses as our primary means of transportation.

History does spiral. The same themes come up over and over again, reminding us of where we were but like the difference between a spiral and a circle never precisely replicating where we were.

In 1896, 41 years after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court upheld the right of states to have "separate but equal" laws in the case of Plessy v. Fergusen. In the years following, more and more Jim Crow laws were enacted (the Louisiana law that Plessy challenged appears to be the first law referred to as a Jim Crow law) and more and more Confederate monuments and memorials went up. In fact, the large majority went up during this time period - it's not even close.

It was not another Civil War - history did not repeat itself - but the Supreme Court sent a message that discrimination was OK. That was not their intent. The majority opinion was that all people really should be treated equal. They just thought that we could have separate facilities, in this case railroad cars, and those facilities could really be equal. But that wasn't what your everyday ordinary racist heard. Monuments went up and there was a spike in lynchings. People were given permission by the government to be racists.

I heard President Trump with my own ears say that racism is not OK in his first statement about Charlottesville. But that's not what white nationalists heard. Both David Duke and Richard Spencer thanked Trump for his words. What they heard, regardless of Trump's intent, was permission to be racist. When we allow monuments to the Confederacy to remain up we do the same thing. We give an implicit message that we are OK with the racism represented in the monuments. And remember the timing of when those monuments went up is strong evidence that the motivation was racial - they came at the same time as the racist Jim Crow laws, not after the war in honor of the fallen.

On the other hand...

In 1954 the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education ruled that separate cannot be equal. It was not another Civil War - history did not repeat itself - but we can see the spiral. Civil unrest, protests, racism raised its head again, and we had another spike in monument construction. Once again, the monuments were built because of racism. But this time the racism came out as a result of the courts ruling against inequality. In other words, when racists felt vindicated monuments went up and when racists felt threatened monuments went up.

What's it mean?

The monuments of the Confederacy are not racist. They are stone and metal. But they symbolize racism in the same way that Trump's words symbolized racism regardless of his intent. and regardless of his heart. Allowing the monuments to remain is a sign for some that their racism is OK. They should all come down and go to museums where we keep our history. And at the same time, taking down the monuments does nothing to take down our racism. They are a sign of something deeper within us. Unless we are willing to dig into our hearts, look deep inside to see what is there, merely taking down monuments will matter very little.

**throughout when I reference racists/racism I'm speaking of individuals who identify as alt-right, white nationalists, etc. Systemic racism and the ways in which all of us who are in the majority have privilege are important subjects that deserve attention in their own right. Those are not my focus here.

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Trump, Kim Jong Un, and "Moral Authority"

Dallas pastor Robert Jeffress, who is one of President Trump's religious advisors, has announced that "God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un [of North Korea." He says this on the basis of Romans 13.

So let's take Romans 13 literally, as Jeffress wants to do. "Every person should place themselves under the authority of the government." We run into two very clear problems:

1. If you want to take every verse literally, then the leader of North Korea (and Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and Russia...) could use this same verse to demand authority be given to them by the citizens of their country. The passage makes no distinction between leaders of different countries or different types of government. In fact, the only kind of government that Paul had experience with was more like North Korea's dictatorship than the United State's democracy.

2. These verses have nothing to do with foreign policy. There is nothing here about how one leader ought to treat another leader. It is all about how residents of a country should relate to the leader(s) of that country. Romans 13 actually would treat Trump and Kim Jong Un as equals, both put in place by God.

It is clear that Pastor Jeffress is reading Romans 13 to justify what he already believes (as, by the way, we are all tempted to do.)

So what is it really about?

Context matters. The early Christians were trying to live out "the Kingdom of God," a Kingdom that we modern Christians also claim citizenship in, while also living as residents of the Roman Empire. How does one go about living in two kingdoms at once? Paul speaks to them (not to the rulers!), saying that governance rather than anarchy is part of God's plan for this world. We have freedom in Christ, but we still should follow traffic laws. We should give freely to the Church and to those in need, but we also should pay our taxes. Unless the law of the State contradicts the law of Christ we are to follow both.

There is also a longstanding Christian tradition that there are times when it is a Christian's responsibility to resist the state when laws are against the Christian's calling. So, for example, a Christian pacifist ought not fight even if drafted. We'll be talking about issues like this in a three part War and Peace series at St. Paul's in September.

Should Trump "take out" Kim Jong Un? That's a question I won't presume to be able to answer. But the answer doesn't come from an isolated passage from Romans. It comes from prayerful, faithful, study not only of Scripture but also psychology, sociology, and policy. It is dangerous to reduce such complex questions to our own biased readings of a text.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

From Pentecost to Babel

The United Methodist Church should not observe Pentecost this year.

Pentecost is the birth of the Church. It is also the culmination of a story that began centuries earlier. The story begins in Genesis 11:1-9 with the construction of the Tower of Babel. Remember in that story the whole world speaks one language. A prideful group gathers together and begins building a Tower to reach the heavens. To thwart their efforts God confuses their languages. They can no longer communicate with each other. Thus they have no choice but to separate one from the other into tribes and nations across the Earth.

Pentecost is Babel Part 2. As people from all across the world speaking all different languages gather in Jerusalem, the Spirit descends upon the believers and enables them to speak different languages. They share the Good News in multiple languages, or perhaps in a spiritual tongue that could be understood by multiple languages, and as the shared the news that has the power to unite all people 3,000 individuals were converted in one day.

It is not a complete reversal of Babel. The multitude of languages still exist. The multitude of tribes and nations still exist. But the multitude could exist together because even with the differences they were able to communicate. They were able to listen, share, and grow together. Diversity in the Church continued even into the writing of Scripture as we have four Gospels that tell the same story in four different ways.

The United Methodist Church should not observe Pentecost this year because we have gone back to Babel. We speak different languages literally (both in the United States and certainly across the globe) and figuratively traditional, progressive, centrist, exclusive, inclusive, conservative, liberal...) Our figurative language differences identify the tribe to which we belong (WCA, Love Prevails, Good News, MFSA...) Instead of being drawn together in Christ with our differences as happened at Pentecost we have chosen to withdraw to our tribes in the spirit of Babel.

We don't have to talk to each other. We can simply go our separate ways. We can associate only with those who think like us. But we can't do that and celebrate Pentecost. We have become people of Babel instead.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

A New Methodist Map

Some helpful work has been done recently in attempting to categorize the various constituencies within the United Methodist Church as we inch closer to a report from The Way Forward commission and a special 2019 General Conference. Categories can be helpful handles for us to grasp as long as 1) we don't grasp so tightly that we can't unclench our fists when we find someone in a different category and 2) the categories fit with our lived reality. As Gordon Livingston (no relation) said, 

“If the map doesn't agree with the ground, the map is wrong”

Tom Lambrecht first developed the map that is now becoming well known. It was enhanced by Tom BerlinChris Ritter took it another step. In each design, the map categorizes United Methodists into four groups based on their position on LGBTQ inclusion and willingness to share a denomination with those who disagree. The groups are labeled Progressive Non-Compatibilist, Progressive Compatibilist, Traditional Compatibilist, and Traditional Non-Compatibilist. There is value to this map. It highlights well the immediate situation that we face. But it doesn’t reflect the broader ground around us. Once we get over the current hill in front of us the map becomes worthless. So I want to try changing the map. I want to try a map that speaks both to the ground we are walking on now and to the ground that we will inevitably walk on in the future.

If you are a reader of this blog you undoubtedly know that I have grave concerns about the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA.) It is ironic, then, that I'd like to change the map because of the words of Jeff Greenway, chair of the WCA, at a gathering in Memphis a few weeks ago. As reported by Good News Magazine, Greenway said, 
"... I believe human sexuality is the presenting symptom of much deeper theological fissures and systemic problems that are dividing The United Methodist Church. The foundation for our theological crisis has been in place since the very beginning when we embraced Theological Pluralism --resulting in a sort of ‘big tent’ Methodism where a variety of theological expressions were appreciated and valued. There was a sense of mutual appreciation and tolerance at that time. I can remember talking with some of my older, more liberal colleagues who would not agree with my more orthodox perspectives, but they would say there was room in their church for me. It was a generous pluralism whose limits had not yet been truly tested. Those limits are now being tested...."
He's right.

The reality is we are divided on a great number of issues, not just human sexuality. This is the presenting issue for a deeper crisis. Which means that coming to a final resolution on human sexuality would not solve the deeper issues. One who is a Progressive Non-Compatibilist on LGBTQ rights may be a Traditional Compatibilist on rebaptism, for example. Thus, using Greenway's language as a springboard, I propose three different categories. 

The New Categories

Progressive Exclusionary - this group consists of those who take a consistently progressive view. But to belong to this group one must not only have a progressive theology, but also insist that this progressive theology is unquestionably the future of the church. Individuals in this group might say something like "We know through science that miracles can't occur and never did occur and it's embarrassing to be associated with people who still hold on to old superstitions like that." This group is sometimes labeled as "tolerant of everyone except those who aren't tolerant," which can also become "tolerant of everyone except those who don't think like them." In Greenway's quote above, this group is represented by the phrase "Those limits [of pluralism] are now being tested."

Traditional Exclusionary - on the opposite end are the traditional exclusivists. This group consists of those who take a consistently traditional stance AND insist that the denomination must always do so as well. They will fight for the faith that was handed down to us. They conserve. When they say "The Bible is True" they mean "The Bible is True in the way that I understand Biblical truth as it was handed down to me. Period." This group is sometimes labeled (unfairly) as haters of anyone who is not like them. But they are naturally suspicious of theological innovation. I cannot speak for where Rev. Greenway comes down, but the quote we began with sounds like what one would expect from the Traditional Exclusionary group.

Wesleyan Inclusivists – This is the final group. They are inclusive in their thinking. In Greeway's words, they are in favor of "big tent Methodism." Theological Pluralism is a good thing, in part because I may be wrong and you may be right and the only way we'll find out in this lifetime is if we stay in relationship. But this group is not entirely inclusive. The Wesleyan Inclusivist holds in Wesley's sermon on a "Catholic Spirit" high regard. Wesley clearly communicates in this sermon the inclusive principle that people of different opinions can coexist in the same church. “Every wise man...bears with those who differ from him, and only asks him with whom he desires to unite in love that single question. 'Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?’” But there is more. In the same sermon Wesley also speaks against latitudinarianism, which today we could translate as an "anything goes" approach. A latitudinarian would end the story of the woman caught in adultery with "Is there anyone here to condemn you?" and skip the "Go and sin no more" part. Wesleyan Inclusivists, then, would hold to a core of the faith that the Progressive Exclusionary group would not hold to and simultaneously hold to a smaller core of essentials than the Traditional Exclusionary group. In the words of Albert Outler, "Here, then, is a charter for a distinctive sort of doctrinal pluralism - one that stands at an equal distance from dogmatism on the one extreme and indifferetism on the other." (from his introduction to “Catholic Spirit” in The Works of John Wesley.)

Making the Map

So now we can start making the map.

We need a new map because the Lambrecht/Berlin/Ritter map categorizes us primarily in relation to one topic, albeit a very important topic. The bigger question is the one Greenway named. "The foundation for our theological crisis has been in place since the very beginning when we embraced Theological Pluralism --resulting in a sort of ‘big tent’ Methodism where a variety of theological expressions were appreciated and valued." 

If you agree with Greenway that this is a problem and the solution is some form of denominational purification (aka enforcing the Book of Discipline) then you are in the Traditional Exclusionary camp.

If you agree with Greenway that the "big tent" is a problem but you think the solution is to enforce a deep pluralism and those who cannot accept the pluralism will need to exit then you are in the Progressive Exclusionary camp. 
Progressive Exclusionaries cannot agree with Traditional Exclusionaries. Again, Greenway is right. The limits of a generous pluralism are being tested. And we are failing the test. We are failing because, like the current culture of the United States, we are moving ever more rapidly to the poles - to the extremes. One extreme has forgotten how to be generous; the other has forgotten how to be pluralistic. And so we stand in opposition. 

In the middle of the map sits the Wesleyan Inclusivists. This is my preference and where I would place myself, so I’ll take a short tangent. As a Wesleyan Inclusivist I led the church I serve through the process of becoming a Reconciling Congregation. At the same time, anyone who has been a member of the congregation through the previous four senior pastors will tell you I am the most theologically conservative pastor this church has ever had. When I arrived we lost some members because I was too conservative. More recently we lost members because of our pro-refugee stance. Now I’m too liberal. Some will say we talk about sin too much and some will say you can only be comfortable here if you're a Democrat. And those statements will surprise the many Republicans in the congregation and those who thank God daily for saving them from sin. We've also baptized four adults in the last month who are finding a fresh, authentic faith.

In other words, the Wesleyan Inclusivist lives in the tension of the real world. Some say we will not be able to move forward as a church until we have a final resolution to the issues before us. I remind you that the first church fight is recorded in Acts 6, not long after Pentecost, "while the number of disciples continued to increase" (Acts 6:1, CEB). We live in tension not because of our current dispute, but because we are human. The church has always and always will exist in this tension.

The Wesleyan Inclusivist will embrace from the Progressive Exclusivist a spirit of Christian pluralism. The tent should be big because Wesley’s tent was big and Jesus’ tent was big. But there are pieces that the Wesleyan cannot take from the Progressive. For example, we must be able to say that Jesus is the Way. A universalism that says all religions are ultimately the same diminishes our own faith while also doing a disservice to other faiths (see Stephen Prothero's God Is Not One for a good survey.) We cannot succumb to a pluralism whose only boundary is excluding those who believe in boundaries.

The Wesleyan Inclusivist will also embrace pieces of the Traditional Exclusivist. In short, we would hold onto the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith in the Book of Discipline. And, to quote another WCA presenter, we would hold onto those statements "without crossing our fingers behind our backs." But the Traditionalist will have to let go of some things, too. The Traditionalist will have to note that our statements on Scripture include the phrase "Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith..." (Confession of Faith, Article IV.) This means that there are some things you might want us to hold as essential that...aren't. And we may have some legitimate disagreements about what precisely is revealed in Scripture.

Now to finish the map. In themselves, the Progressive and the Traditionalist cannot be reconciled. But the Wesleyan invites both into relationship, taking pieces that can be embraced by all in order to bridge the gap. Because the Methodist tent is big. It is not all-encompassing, but it is big. And that’s a good thing.

We need to be realistic. There will be those who are not able to stay united in this denomination. The person I interviewed years ago who held to the idea that God dictated Scripture word by word doesn’t belong in the same denomination as the person who believes the Bible is a human construct with divine inspiration.

Rob Renfroe said in the March/April issue of Good News that, “A win for the Kingdom is coming out of the present mess with as many faithful Methodists as possible connected to each other and working together for the Kingdom (p.3).” We will not stay entirely united. But if we can see beyond the presenting issue to the deeper issues, we can stay mostly united. We can work together towards common goals and allow differences in matters of opinion. 

Monday, May 8, 2017

Even the Gentiles

Acts 10 tells the story of the conversion of Cornelius. As I preached on Sunday, the story could equally be referred to as the conversion of Peter. Not a conversion to faith, obviously. We're well past that time in his story. But Peter's conversion is incredibly important nonetheless.

As the story begins Peter holds the traditional understanding that a person had to essentially convert to Judaism before converting to Christianity. By the end of the story his understanding of how God is working is dramatically changed. Verse 45 is a key verse.

"The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the
Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles."

Did you notice that last phrase? "Even on the Gentiles." You can hear in this the way in which the circumcised believers felt about the Gentiles. It reminds me of John 1 when Nathaniel asks Phillip, "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" The nerve of God! To go beyond our understanding, to go beyond our expectations, and bless someone who is different from me with the Holy Spirit! Yes, God blessed even the Gentiles.

Which group of people do we think of today as Peter and the others thought of as the Gentiles? What country, or gender, or economic status, or political party, or religion, or denomination, or sexual orientation, or skin color, or ... do you (we) assume God will not work through?

I pray that God surprises us again and again with the ones that God chooses to bless.