A Reminder for Rob Renfroe

Rob Renfroe's latest editorial is a mess. I don't have any other word for it. His overall point is made clear and well in his very last words. "We have traveled the same path for many years, really decades. It has led to acrimony, disobedience, dysfunction, and decline. It's time to choose a path that will make all the difference." True enough. The problem is the editorial is more than those final three sentences. So here's a reminder of some truths that matter.

The editorial is titled, "Who Will Prevail in Minneapolis?" Then the entire editorial pretends that traditionalist leadership has always wanted a peaceful, respectful solution where everyone wins. As the title itself suggests, that simply is not fair or true. Here's why:

1. The entire editorial puts the word "centrist" in quotes. You know that putting something in quotes is a literary way to discount it. It means; "They call themselves centrists but we know they really aren't." Let me make this personal. In one of my last two appointments, the knock on me before I arrived was that I was too conservative. In another appointment the knock was that I was too liberal. I think that qualifies as centrist. Rev. Renfroe has boiled all theology down to one question. Do you approve of same-sex marriage and ordination? My answer is yes. And I also can say the creeds of the church without crossing my fingers behind my back. And I know many pastors and laity who can say that exact same thing. Renfroe must make this about progressives and traditionalists. In the real world there are many variations in-between.

2. Renfroe claims he and other traditionalist leaders want "a solution that has no winners or losers." I don't believe him. In fact, as I and others have previously shared, in 2004 Good News published a document that explicitly says a disadvantage to traditionalists leaving the denomination intact is that " It also leaves the United Methodist denomination somewhat intact". I want to state that again.

Good News, which Renfroe claims wants no losers, published a strategy document that explicitly says progressives must lose. And, in fact, when you listen to traditionalist rhetoric it is easy to understand why. If those who favor full inclusion (progressives and many, many centrists) are truly distorting God's word and will then one can understand why they would want us to lose. We have previously been called false teachers by traditionalist leaders. Forgive me for finding it difficult to trust an organization that has called me and those who I agree with false teachers and our continuing existence as a denomination a disadvantage.

3. Renfroe asserts that centrists and progressives want "an abrasive and harmful fight they believe they can win." I can assure you that this is not the case. Most of us believed there were already appropriate ways for churches to withdraw from the denomination. Now it is clear that there must be a way for larger blocks of churches to form something new. No serious observer of our denomination will argue that there is a way forward where the entire denomination stays intact. It is not possible. The issue that remains is how we can best facilitate separation of those who must separate. The reason centrists and progressives believe that traditionalists are the ones who should separate is that they are the only group that has said they are willing to leave. This is why the centrist and progressive group UMC Next has a proposal that "provides a method for groups of churches to form new expression of Methodism." The door is open. We are willing to open it wider. And we will not call you false teacher or put your descriptors in quotes on the way out.

The Bottom Line

At the end of General Conference 2020 we will set the terms for the divorce. The traditionalist caucuses have consistently vilified centrists and progressives. We have consistently said that we really truly want to work together. They have refused. Because traditionalists have refused, the divorce must happen. A marriage cannot last if one party wants out. The remaining questions are 1) How many churches will choose to be United Methodist and how many will choose otherwise and 2) How will we divide the assets. UMC Next, the Indianapolis Plan, and other proposals all have different models to answer these questions. Don't let Renfroe or anyone else distract you from the reality.

Indianapolis in Africa

The WCA recently endorsed the Indianapolis Plan, alongside most other traditionalist groups in the United States. I will have more to say about the Indy Plan later, but first I want to focus on Africa. Some of my friends who live in and/or are from Africa have asked for this. The short answer: It's not good.

1. The Indy Plan continues the United Methodist Church in the "centrist" grouping and automatically puts all United Methodists outside of the U.S. in the "traditionalist" grouping. 2556.2 reads "The United Methodist Church shall continue as a convention or association of churches, as a successor, for the constituent units that realign by choice or default with the Centrist UMC." The traditionalist group may use United Methodist in its name but is not required to. My understanding is that the UM name is important for Africa. It could well be lost in this plan.

2. More significantly, all of the General Boards and Agencies will stay in the centrist group. That means all of Africa will immediately be separated from the boards and agencies that have been so helpful to them. The WCA has promised support for United Methodists outside of the U.S. with a "Central Conference Ministry Fund," but they have only reported once on the amount raised? Why? Because it was an embarrassingly small number.

3. One reason the number was so small is that traditionalists in the U.S. continue to leave the denomination and/or not pay their apportionments. For example, The Woodlands UMC, the flagship church of Good News, paid no apportionments to the General Church in 2018, including to Africa University. They give zero support to the denomination's ministries that directly benefit Africa.

4. The asset allocation plan proposed by U.S. traditionalists will make it even worse. Walter Fenton, associated with both Good News and the WCA, said in 2017, "For many U.S. conservatives, general church matters are not a high priority. They see little benefit in supporting several of the denomination's general boards and agencies..." Tom Lambrecht said the same thing earlier this year. "Many traditionalists believe the current structure of the UM Church, with its many boards and agencies, has become more of a liability than an asset to the ministry of the local church."  Perhaps this is why the asset allocation plan would largely de-fund the agencies. Agencies would keep their buildings and one year budget of cash. All other funds would be divided between the new denominations. Since some of the funds are reserved for specific purposes, it is possible that a general agency would have virtually no money to use for their mission beyond the week to week giving they receive. It is true that no matter the path forward we will need to make some hard decisions with the organization and funding of the general boards and agencies. It is also no secret that traditionalists in the U.S. have wanted to radically downsize or eliminate them for many years.

5. The new Book of Doctrines and Disciplines shows how a WCA denomination will be governed and has some worrying provisions. Perhaps the most worrying is the way clergy are deployed. The WCA envisions a denomination where every local church picks its own pastor. Technically they are appointed but the process is very clearly weighted for the local church to decide. There is a rule that churches must interview at least one woman and at least one person who is not of the predominant ethnicity. There is no rule that those people must receive an appointment. I don't know what this will mean in Africa. In the United States, I am especially concerned about what this will mean for Africans who have come here. Racism is still real. I want to be clear - I do not believe that the authors of this plan are racist or are trying to keep ethnic minorities or women out of ministry. I do believe that the result of the plan will be fewer opportunities for ministry.

6.  There is also another danger. I am speculating but I think it still should be named. The Indy Plan has a provision for another denomination to form with 50 or more churches. That means any group could choose to simply leave the denomination. I think some churches would do that. Just leave and don't pay any apportionments. I don't know why traditionalists would want to include this option unless some want to leave the rest of us, including Africa, entirely.

Alternatives

I encourage all of us to consider some alternatives to the current Indianapolis Plan.

1. Modify the plan so that every church including international churches are in the centrist UMC by default and can vote to be in a different group if they choose to. A church or conference should be allowed to leave but if the centrist group is officially the United Methodist Church then that is where every church and conference should be unless they vote otherwise.

2. Eliminate the option for 50 churches to leave.

3. Support regional self governance. Bishops from the Philippines have called for this already. It is the only practical step forward.

Standing on the Shoulders

I am not the first (or in the first million) to use the phrase. We are like people standing on the shoulders of giants, seeing further only because of those who have preceded us.

Last Sunday as we celebrated All Saints Day at Old Mission, our opening prayer included the phrase - "Be present with us...as we celebrate those whose shoulders we stand on..." We do see further, know more, and can improve our lives and the lives of others because of so many great people who have come before us. Science, theology, and the humanities all build upon their work. I will continue to use this phrase with this meaning.

At the same time, on Sunday morning I heard this phrase in a different way. There are others who we also stand on.

I think of some current and retired colleagues in ministry who are LGBT+. I am a better pastor because of them and stand on their shoulders. And I also risk just standing on top of them, preventing their voices from being heard because of the weight of mine.

Some of those colleagues are women and ethnic minorities. I stand on their shoulders, informed and being formed by their wisdom and grace. And I acknowledge that historically women and (at least in my denomination) ethnic minorities in ministry have been crushed. We have stood on them, I have stood on them, instead of lifting one another up to greater heights.

It is exaggeration, I think, to say that everything in our country that is good has come about because of slavery. It is not exaggeration to say that we in the dominant culture have, well, dominated. We crushed those in slavery and then stood on top of the descendants of slaves making their journey to prosperity more difficult. It's hard to stand up when somebody is on top of you.

The intent, I think, of the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants" is to remind us that we should be grateful for those who came before us and to accept humility lest we think we have accomplished what we have done on our own. I still believe both of those ideas. I would simply add one more. We must be aware not only of those who have lifted us up, we must also be aware of those who we have simply stood on and (often unintentionally) pushed down in the process.

Two Traditionalist Arguments that Fall Flat

In the quest for historical support for their case against inclusion, traditionalist Methodists have broken new ground in Scripture and tradition. Emphasis on broken. Neither argument holds any water.

Broken Argument #1

First, from Scripture. Most of us are familiar with the "clobber" passages against "homosexuality" that have been argued over for decades. Recently a new one was "discovered. Proponents of same-sex marriage have correctly pointed out that Jesus was silent about it. In and of itself this proves nothing. There are many topics that Jesus was silent on but that we can reasonably interpret what he would say today. Nevertheless, traditionalists apparently became desperate to find some instance where Jesus spoke.

The best they could do is Matthew 19. This is eisegesis (reading into the text what we want it to say) at its finest. In  Matthew 19:3-12 Jesus is asked a question about the lawfulness of divorce. In his answer, Jesus references Genesis: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." So yes, technically Jesus mentions heterosexual marriage. And that reality is completely beside the point.

I'm reminded of a blog post years ago when I compared Pax Romana (an imposed peace in the Roman Empire) to the current United Methodist Church. One person's critique of the post was that I didn't do a comprehensive look at the Roman Empire. The critique missed the point entirely. The post wasn't about Rome - it was about our Church. The metaphor worked whether or not it was perfect. After all, every metaphor breaks down at some point. This interpretation would be like turning to Matthew 21:21-22 and saying that we should be able to literally throw mountains into the sea through faith. Jesus says it but for the purpose of making a point.

So what's Jesus point? His point is made in verse 6: "Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate" and further in verse 9 "whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery." The point is that divorce is wrong. And yet at General Conference in St. Louis when a motion was made to include this understanding it was roundly criticized as political maneuvering by the same people who want to take this passage out of context to condemn same-sex marriage. You can't have it both ways.

Broken Argument #2

The Book of Discipline is not our Doctrine. In a brief online argument I had with Bishop Scott Jones, Bishop Jones stated that doctrine means teaching and therefore everything we teach is doctrine. That may be true if it is doctrine with a microscopic d and not Doctrine with a capital D. Flipping to a random page, I don't think that we want to claim that  having a Curriculum Resources Committee (paragraph 1121) is doctrinal.

Our real doctrine is in Part III, Doctrinal Standards and Our Theological Task which begins with paragraph 102. This is rich stuff which more United Methodists should read. Sections like Basic Christian Affirmations and Distinctive Wesleyan Emphases are great. Buried in paragraph 104 we note that in addition to what is printed in the Book of Discipline we also consider The Standard Sermons of Wesley, the Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, and The General Rules of the Methodist Church are considered doctrine. Thus to teach something contrary to these sources would violate our doctrine.

In my 46 years of life and 20 years as a pastor I have never heard anybody quote Wesley's notes as doctrine until this last year. Because supporters of inclusion have rightly noted that our doctrine is silent on same-sex marriage, traditionalists became desperate to find some place where our doctrine actually does say something. They hit paydirt with Wesley's Notes. Chris Ritter is one of many who cites Wesley's Notes in this regard. In short, Wesley unsurprisingly read the clobber passages the same way that many people today read them and would not have approved of same-sex marriage.

This may all be true. But this is the most selective reading of Wesley that has ever been performed. Let me share simply one example. In his notes on Revelation 13 Wesley makes multiple references to the pope and/or the papacy as an antichrist. Not one, not a handful, but a multitude of references. Following the same logic that Wesley's Notes are doctrinal any of us who are unwilling to call Pope Francis an antichrist are not following our Methodist Doctrine. The truth is that for all of us Wesley's sermons and notes are at most a second tier source of doctrine. None of us truly treat them as primary doctrine that must be adhered to precisely.

What's It Mean?

I'm clear that the silence of both Jesus and our Doctrine do not necessarily mean that the inclusive position is the correct position. Those are not the primary reasons that I favor inclusion. Let's be honest, though, that they are indeed silent. Let's make our cases using legitimate arguments instead of resorting to desperation.

The Twelve Tribes of Methodism Pt. 2

In part 1 I made the case for twelve groupings (tribes) within the Methodist denomination:

Inclusive, Small Tent, Progressive	Inclusive, Big Tent, Progressive	Exclusive, Big Tent, Progressive	Exclusive, Small Tent Progressive
Inclusive, Small Tent, Centrist	Inclusive, Big Tent, Centrist	Exclusive, Big Tent, Centrist	Exclusive, Small Tent, Centrist
Inclusive, Small Tent, Traditionalist	Inclusive, Big Tent, Traditionalist	Exclusive, Big Tent, Traditionalist	Exclusive, Small Tent, Traditionalist

In part 2 I'll start describing what each of these groups may be like. We'll walk down each of the columns. The columns roughly line up with Rev. Tom Berlin's categories of Progressive Incompatibilist, Progressive Compatibilist, Traditional Compatibilist, and Traditional Incompatibilist. I'll start with a one sentence description and then gives some thoughts.

1. Inclusive, Small Tent, Progressive - A liberal theology that believes the Gospel can tolerate nothing less than full inclusion. An organization like Love Prevails could be in this group. This tribe would have natural tensions with every other tribe except for those directly adjacent in the table above. I have to think this group is very small within the UMC. The small tent nature would make it likely that most have already left. At the same time, some of these members have been fighting for justice for 40+ years. If they haven't left now I would expect them to keep fighting.

2. Inclusive, Small Tent, Centrist - In theory, this person is someone who is theologically in line with the large majority of our UMC doctrine, is inclusive, and for whom issues of justice for the marginalized are first order issues. One of my critiques of the Traditional Plan is that it puts full participation of LGBT+ people ahead of even the deepest pieces of our faith like the divinity of Christ. That happens with this group, too. For example, this person might be willing to remove the Virgin Birth from our doctrinal standards but simealtaneously will not live in the same denomination with someone who excludes LGBT+ participation. These folks could conceivably work with either of the groups in this column or, reluctantly, the second column. Theological centrists have fewer essentials than either progressives or traditionalists (traditionalists increasingly approaching fundamentalism and progressives increasing approaching relativism that rejects any absolute) which is why both ends will sometimes call them wishywashy. They (we) are not. If you challenge a centrist's essentials there will be a reaction. The centrist simply has fewer essentials to begin with. Anecdotally, I think this group is probably very small. The people I can think of who may fit here are Big Tent centrists who are weary of the fight.


3. Inclusive, Small Tent, Traditionalist - This person holds to orthodox views including an exceptionally high authority of Scripture, but rather than a literalist hermeneutic this person uses a hermeneutic of love. If the starting point for interpreting Scripture is 1 John 4:8 - "God is love" and if exclusion represents not loving then inclusion is a necessity. I had a friend in seminary who may be in this category. I remember him saying, "I take the Bible so seriously that I have to be a Democrat." For the record, I disagree with his assessment that any Christian must be in one political party or the other. I share that example simply to help the reader understand this position. Like the Inclusive, Small Tent, Progressive, I have to think this person has a hard time working well with others. 


Some notes about these tribes:

- The second and third probably have vanishingly small numbers. A small tent and inclusive ideology don't naturally fit well together.
- The most versatile of these tribes still cannot work well with at least half of the other tribes. 
- Especially if you are a traditionalist, I encourage you to think about all of the examples you have heard of the radical nature of those who are inclusive. I'd wager almost all of them come from the upper left corner of the table. All four corners represent a kind of extremism. They are loud, but they are not representative of as large a number of people as you might think. 
- When those of us who supported the One Church Plan say it was a compromise, please understand that this column is one of the groups that would have had to compromise. Nobody in any of these three tribes liked the OCP. Without exception, the people in these groups that I know saw the Simple Plan as a compromise. 

Part 3 will look at the next column. This is the column where I find myself and where I think most OCP supporters were. The failure of the OCP came in not translating our message for column 3.

The Twelve Tribes of Methodism Pt. 1

In 2016 Rev. Tom Berlin began using a model that has been very helpful in understanding four different groupings of people that now divide the United Methodist Church. The short version: One is either traditional or progressive in regard to LGBT+ inclusion and one can either function in a denomination with those who disagree (compatible) or cannot function in that denomination (incompatible). You can lay the groups out from left to right and cover the ecclesiological landscape.

Berlin's language really has been helpful because it is both clear and simple. As our journey in these times continues we need a different way of describing the perspectives.

Take a person like Steve Harper. I was pleased to preview his latest book, a very readable personal and biblical story of how he came to change his mind. Dr. Harper is theologically orthodox by almost any definition - except that of the WCA which insists that LGBT+ inclusion is wrong. Harper is not a theological progressive; he is a theological traditionalist, or maybe centrist, who happens to believe in inclusion.

This distinction is critically important. In 2018 some evangelicals enjoyed quoting Rev. Roger Wolsey, a United Methodist pastor and campus minister, denying a whole host of traditional Christian beliefs. Wolsey has clarified some of his beliefs since, but there is no doubting that he is truly a "Progressive Christian." And there is no doubt that Harper (and me, too, for that matter) disagree with Wolsey. It really doesn't work to put both Harper and Wolsey in the same progressive compatibilist camp.

 We need to add a third dimension - the broader theological spectrum. It may also help to rename the existing categories. Here's my proposal:

1st Dimension: Do you believe that LGBT+ Christians should be fully included in the life of the church, including ordained ministry and marriage? Those who support this could be labeled "Inclusive" and those who do not "Exclusive". Please note that I'm not using the word exclusive in a derogatory sense - it is simply a descriptor.

2nd Dimension: Can you remain in a denomination with those who disagree with your belief in the 1st Dimension? If you can, you believe in a Big Tent rather than a Small Tent. Rev. Jeff Greenway, President of the WCA, has publicly shared that a big tent church is a bad idea. The proclamation from the recent UM Forward event in Minneapolis suggests a different kind of small tent. This tent welcomes the outcast and rejects powerful. The One Church Plan envisioned a big tent that supporters felt was in keeping with a long Methodist tradition.

3rd Dimension: The new, third dimension relates to a more wholistic theology: Progressive (like Wolsey), Traditional (like Harper), or Centrist (like perhaps my friend Dr. Rebekah Miles).


When we put these three dimensions together we get a table like this:

Inclusive, Small Tent, Progressive	Inclusive, Big Tent, Progressive	Exclusive, Big Tent, Progressive	Exclusive, Small Tent Progressive
Inclusive, Small Tent, Centrist	Inclusive, Big Tent, Centrist	Exclusive, Big Tent, Centrist	Exclusive, Small Tent, Centrist
Inclusive, Small Tent, Traditionalist	Inclusive, Big Tent, Traditionalist	Exclusive, Big Tent, Traditionalist	Exclusive, Small Tent, Traditionalist

Reading the table, the right side is exclusive, the center columns are big tent, and the rows moving down are progressively traditional. Each grouping is unique, and each grouping will have a unique set of other groups that they can work with.

Some implications of this methodology:
- the WCA and Good News led wing of the church really is a wing - a right wing that is likely not representative of the church. But the leadership has done a fantastic job of messaging.
- The UMC Next gathering in Kansas City invited people from nine of the twelve groups. And I'm not sure all nine will ultimately be able to stay in the same denomination.
- This methodology forces us to acknowledge that we are a complicated bunch. This is part of why our current impasse is so tricky.
- Note: the twelve tribes listed are theoretical. Four of these groups are probably only theoretical and don't exist in any meaningful way in the real world.


In Part 2 I'll describe characteristics of each of these groups and begin to look at where there are some affinities and tensions between the groups.

Another Glimpse Behind the Curtain

I just received an email from Good News  that is a reply to Dr. Rebekah Miles' excellent article that you can find here. Dr. Miles is fully capable of defending her work from Good News. I want to point out only one item. But it is an item that really matters.

Good News' reply states that Miles critique of the Traditional Plan begins at the wrong point in history. They say that Miles acts as if the Traditional Plan came out of nowhere and that the most important moment in the story really happened with a series of progressive actions in 2011.

Good News as an organization tells an intentionally selective, misleading history.

The story really begins in 2004 with this document. Note that the original document has been removed from the web. This link is to a mirror. Good News has never argued against the authenticity of the document and I have a hard copy myself from a completely independent source.

I hope you read the whole document. If you don't, then just read this excerpt that explains the strategy Good News and its allies have been working on implementing.

"This option is a type of Forced Departure, which is based on the model of church discipline, wherein the majority party within the church would essentially expel the minority party in order to create unity. The expulsion can be done either indirectly or directly. It would be done indirectly through making the environment of the church so hostile to the minority party that they choose either to leave or to agree to amicable separation. It would be done directly by requiring some type of "loyalty oath" or other enforcement mechanism that would require individuals and congregations to choose to leave if they could not live with the current majority policy."

Forced Departure

Expel

hostile

loyalty oath

These are not words that opponents of tradiationalists are using in a derogatory fashion. These are words that the right wing fringe is using to describe their own tactics. Good News and its allies are attributing a kind of rigidity and hostility to progressives and centrists that they perfected themselves more than ten years ago. 

To my theologically traditional friends, and you are many, I share this: 

I agree with you on so many things. Those who know the breadth of my own personal theology will recognize me truly as a centrist. To dismiss another false claim, I can sign off on our doctrinal statements in the Book of Discipline without "crossing my fingers." I can even sign off on every statement on the WCA's "what we believe page" - with the exception of the one they care most about.

You have concern about a progressive slippery slope leading to a denomination that you would not feel welcome in. I get that. I don't think that is what will happen, but I understand that concern. But it is a hypothetical concern. We are actively watching a fundamentalist slippery slope that most of you don't believe in either. That slide is actually happening right now. The document proves it is a planned slide.

Don't let yourself be used by a hidden agenda that is not true to who you are.

After UMC Next

We wrapped up the UMC Next gathering just a few hours ago. A few thoughts as we prepare for what comes after.

1. The event was good. In the earliest stages of organization there was concern about having an inclusive leadership team. The concerns were heard and addressed, and a fantastic group of 17 led us through the three days together.

2. The event was hard. After the 2016 General Conference, Tom Berlin gave us a really helpful map for understanding the different groups within our denomination - four groups based on progressive/traditional and compatible/incompatible. The map was helpful but I discovered this week that we are much more complicated. I'm hoping to blog tomorrow on an expanded version of this map with 12 groups instead of four. nine different groups in my twelve group format would have felt welcome to attend UMC Next. It will not be possible for all nine to live in the same denomination. So if our goal was to reach complete consensus we were set up to fail.

3. We were able to reach some significant consensus. We adopted four principles to guide our future work. That's a significant accomplishment. As we journey forward and further refine our principles I expect three of the nine groups will find they can't continue in the long term - but it's not clear which three.

4. The key question for the moment - Is resistance futile or is resisting the resistance futile? One of the four commitments that we agreed to is rejection of the Traditional Plan and resistance to its implementation. Frankly, some forms of resistance are pretty easy to accomplish. It will begin with some annual conference sessions this year. It will expand after new rules take affect January 1. It will continue at General Conference 2020. Those of us in the One Church Coalition worked very hard at ensuring there would be no protests at General Conference 2019. It will not be possible to stop at least one of the twelve groupings within the denomination from significant protests in 2020. I really mean that. It will happen - it cannot be stopped. I don't think every group represented at UMC Next will vocally resist. Some probably will choose not to resist for a long period of time. But I guarantee that a significant number will resist for a significant period of time.

"Traditional Incompatabilists" - one of Rev. Berlin's groupings - are going to be the first people with a hard decision to make. They need to understand that when we said in St. Louis that we will not be moved we meant it. Our baptismal covenant to resist evil and injustice is part of our commitment to the United Methodist Church. A General Conference decision does not take precedence over our baptismal covenant.

UMC Next, John Wesley, and Star Wars

I'm spending three days at UMC Next having learning and conversing with about 600 people. Everyone who has been part of any church committee knows that after the meeting adjourns there's a meeting in the parking lot where you talk about the meeting that just happened.

So that's where I was tonight. Except it was raining really hard so we weren't actually in the parking lot. I was drinking a milkshake. It was delicious. Then I drove home.

The meeting after the meeting, just like the UMC Next gathering itself, was a mix of centrists and progressives. I heard some hurt from progressives, which I think it's fair to say was also heard in the full gathering. I also shared my own kind of hurt. Mine is of infinitely less quantity and quality than those who are LGBT+. It is real, but I acknowledge it is much, much smaller. The hurt I spoke of stems from a frustration that I want to be an ally and an advocate and also sometimes feel like I get attacked or yelled at simply for being a white heterosexual male. Some of you reading this right now are saying YES! and others are saying YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! and I acknowledge that both of those view are correct. I'm telling you how I feel sometimes, and I'm aware that it may be analogous to a person complaining about stubbing his toe while kicking a turtle. I have more sympathy for the turtle than for the jerk that kicked it. Let me explain my frustration in Wesleyan terms, and then with the help of Rey and Finn take a step back.

My hope for UMC Next is that a large majority of United Methodists, at least United Methodists in the U.S., will be able to walk together into the future hand in hand in the spirit of Wesley's sermon Catholic Spirit. Wesley takes as his text 2 Kings 10:15. Jehu meets Jehonadab and says, "if your heart is as my heart, take my hand." If our hearts are the same, even if we disagree on particulars, then take my hand and let's walk together. That's what I want to do.

Now go back a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away to one of my favorite scenes in The Force Awakens (which in this Star Wars geek's opinion is one of the best movies in the series). Finn (John Boyega) is on the run from the First Order. He's standing next to Rey (Daisy Ridley), who is now guilty by association. When they're spotted by stormtroopers, Finn grabs Rey's hand and tells her to run. He keeps tugging her hand while they're running until Rey says, "Let go of me! I know how to run without you holding my hand!" After hiding briefly they take off to run again. Finn - again - grabs Rey's hand and Rey yells, "Stop taking my hand!"

So here's my aha moment on the drive home. I want to put myself in the role of Jehu (Finn) and not Jehonadab (Rey). I want to say, "If your heart is as my heart, take my hand," or "I want to help save you, so take my hand."  In today's context, that's not what I need to say. I do believe that we need to hold hands and move forward together. But I don't get to demand it. I don't get to offer a hand to someone on my terms.

A better approach in today's context for me, and maybe for some of you reading this too, is a question instead of a command. "I think my heart is as your heart. Can we hold hands together?"

I hope the answer is yes.

Will you be loyal to the United Methodist Church?

I had never really thought about it before. For 20 years I've confirmed students into full membership in the United Methodist Church. I've always used the prescribed liturgy from the Book of Worship. So I've always read that question and expected an affirmative answer.

Last Saturday we took the Confirmation Class of 2019 through a rehearsal so they would know exactly what to expect and when to do what. I read the question in a new way. "Will you be loyal to the United Methodist Church and do all in your power to strengthen its ministries?"

I had a brief internal crisis. I have been clear that I do not intend to leave the denomination. I have been equally clear that the February passage of the Traditional Plan is unacceptable, unworkable, and unenforceable. So how can I ask our Confirmands to be loyal?

I can ask them to be loyal in the same way that I am loyal - by supporting that in the denomination that can be supported and holding our denomination accountable when it does not live up its own ideals.

I said as much during the Confirmation service itself on Sunday. I interpreted the question before the Confirmands were able to answer to clarify what I understand the question to me in the context of a Reconciling Congregation and our current denominational dispute. In that way, our public Confirmation Sunday became also for me a private reconfirmation moment.

I confirm that I will be loyal to the United Methodist Church by strengthening its historic ministries, including ministries of love and reconciliation.

I confirm that I will be loyal to the United Methodist Church by continuing to follow Wesley's First General Rule, to do no harm. I will fail at that, but I will continue to strive to do my best. Doing no harm includes treating all people as whole people even when the Book of Discipline makes some people "less than."

I confirm that I will be loyal to the United Methodist Church by fulfilling my baptismal covenant to "resist evil, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves." I will fulfill that covenant even when the actions of General Conference itself perpetuate injustice and oppression. I will not oppress those who disagree with and I will not oppress those who are harmed by our current position.

I confirm that I will do this by "accepting the freedom God gives me" to resist. I will not be coerced to disregard the Spirit's clear leading by threats of punishment. I will not reject the oppressed

I confirm that I will be loyal to the United Methodist Church through my:
Prayers - that we may be healed from division and distrust and constant prayer for discernment
Presence - that I will be a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves out of fear of retribution
Gifts - that I will use my God-given gifts including financial gifts to support equal treatment
Service - that I will use a portion of my time and energy to move the denomination in the direction I believe we are compelled to move
Witness - that I will share the Good News of God's love and redemption through Jesus Christ, who is my Lord and my Savior. It is this love that calls all people to turning toward God and working for God's Kingdom.

I will be loyal to the United Methodist Church - not to the Church as it is, but to the Church as God is calling her to be. And so I pray that "The God of all grace, who has called us to eternal glory in Christ, establish [me] and strengthen [me] by the power of the Holy Spirit, that [I] may live in grace and peace." So may it be for all of us.

**quotes taken from Baptismal Covenant 1 of the United Methodist Church.

What Has Changed with the Judicial CouncilRuling

Methodist watchers already know that the Judicial Council has issued their ruling on the actions taken at the special 2019 General Conference. So what does it all mean?

1. The UMC is officially anti-gay. But I want to put a caveat on this. The only true change in the UMC position comes in one petition that references "self-avowed homosexuals" instead of "self-avowed practicing homosexuals." Even though our language is archaic this change is significant. Proponents of the Traditional Plan said that this petition's language was a mistake - that they accidentally left out the word "practicing" - and they were prepared to amend the language had we not run out of time. I can't ask the authors because while we have been told a small group of bishops were involved in writing the petitions none of them have ever come forward and taken credit. I believe that it was a mistake. I also believe it speaks to the subconscious. When we have been using the same phrase for 40+ years it seems incredulous that the same word was left out twice in the same petition completely on accident. I think it speaks to the true intent and a tacit acknowledgement that the phrase "self-avowed practicing" is nonsensical - which will be a blog for a different day.

2. There were no real surprises. Some hoped for a different decision, but ultimately Judicial Council ruled the same way that they ruled prior to General Conference. There were no surprises.

3. With one exception. Judicial Council did surprisingly reverse their decision on an exit provision. For the record, I think that from a legal perspective their original decision was incorrect. Now that there is a legal exit plan I invite you to read the WCA's interpretation of the rulings. Because,

4. The WCA is revealing their true intent. My last speech at General Conference was in favor of the exit plan. I said that if they want an exit plan so they can leave then they can have it. The exit was advertised as a plan for progressives, which importantly no progressive said they wanted. In the interpretation above, the WCA notes that some traditionalists will welcome the exit so that they can leave - and makes no mention of the possibility of progressives leaving. In the days ahead you will see more traditionalist congregations preparing to leave than progressive or centrist congregations.

5. Finally, I encourage you not to make any new decisions based on the Judicial Council outcome. In the course of greater events in our denomination this is a minor occurrence. It confirms what we already knew would be the case, mostly beginning January 1st and lasting only until May 2020. Stay the course. Resist the harm. Something new will emerge and you will want to be part of it.

A Case for Divesting from Africa

That's a tough title for a blog post. And I should be clear from the top that I'm not endorsing divestment. But I do think that a case can be made for United Methodists in the United States to change their giving and partnerships with African conferences without it being viewed purely as being punitive after the General Conference vote.

The argument is actually very simple. I have now been to four general conferences. At each of them there has been at least one speech from an African that goes something like this: "Africa is different from the United States. We need for you to understand that our context is different. We need to not recognize homosexuality as OK because in our context that is important."

I know that this is not universally true. I know a United Methodist in Nigeria who actively works for LGBT inclusion. I'm familiar with an MCC ministry (the MCC denomination is predominately LGBT) is Uganda, where it is illegal to be gay. But I will accept that this is largely true. This is one primary reason that the One Church Plan allowed decisions to be made by every annual conference and every pastor - no church in Africa would have been forced to change.

Because this is largely true, every general conference has respected the different contexts in Africa and other central conferences and has not forced a change. I believe that was and is the right thing to do. With that in mind, if I could talk to all the African United Methodists, this is what I would say today:

The United States is different from Africa. We need you to understand that our context is different. We need to not universally condemn homosexuality so that we can do ministry in our context." I recognize that this may not be true throughout the entire U.S. It is true, though, in my context. The fact that roughly 2/3 of U.S. delegates voted for the One Church Plan is evidence of this.

We have willingly entered into a relationship with Africa that recognizes that cultural adaptations need to be made. Now we need for that to be reciprocated. The truth of the matter is if that is not reciprocated then our connections with African United Methodists will end. As long as we are all United Methodist denominational loyalties will help us continue to work together. But if progressives and centrists are forced out by traditionalists (which is what they seem intent on doing) then that connection is severed. Why would I, for example, not work with the MCC church in Uganda instead?

I serve in the Great Plains Conference. We have three mission partnerships - Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and Haiti. If Nigeria and Zimbabwe refuse to allow us to do ministry in the context that we live in does it really seem unreasonable to redirect our funds and mission efforts to other places where we can actually have a partnership? There are so many places in the world that can benefit from our work. Why would we feel morally compelled to continue a partnership with a group that is not treating us as a partner, too?

It would be morally unacceptable to reduce our total funding or mission work overall. We couldn't just redirect those funds to, say, our camping ministry or conference staff salaries. But we could redirect funds and efforts to places where there is truly mutual ministry.

Should we do that? I don't know. I haven't made up my own mind. But it's not crazy to ask the question.

The Art of Eisegesis

This is not a post about General Conference or LGBTQ rights. But it does start that way.

Over the last several months LGBTQ+ allies have insisted that Jesus said nothing about same-sex marriage. This has been one of their responses to the use of "clobber verses" like Romans 1:26-27 that are used to show the Bible speaks against same-sex practices.

The response from traditionalists was...creative. Citing Matthew 19:4-5, they claim that Jesus did indeed speak against same-sex marriage. “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the creator made them male and female?And God said, ‘Because of this a man should leave his father and mother and be joined together with his wife, and the two will be one flesh.’” In reminding us of the words of Genesis, Jesus tells us that marriage is between one and one woman. Let's set aside for the moment that Genesis repeatedly talks about marriage as one man with multiple women and looks specifically at Matthew.

Taken at face value, one might concede that the traditionalists have a point. But it would be a mistake to take these verses at face value. This is actually a perfect example of something we are all guilty of - eisegesis. Exegesis is the art of interpreting scripture. Bible commentaries are full of exegesis and hopefully your pastor is as well. Exegesis helps us understand the meaning behind the text. Eisegesis is a lesser known word that means the opposite. In eisegesis we take our own interpretations and understandings and read them back into the text. One good (and for the large majority of us uncontroversial) example of eisegesis is end-time prophets. Somebody who is convinced that the world is about to end can easily take current events and find a way to interpret the Bible so that it seems to confirm the prophet's prediction. So far the end-time prophets have all been wrong - at least I think they have - but that doesn't stop others from continuing to make predictions allegedly based on the Bible.

The eisegesis of Matthew 19:4-5 is not much more complicated than those end-time prophets. The best way to avoid eisegesis is to look at the context around the verses (especially if the passage questioned cites only one or two verses.) In this case, the context is clear. In verse 3 Jesus is asked a question about divorce. "Does the law allow a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" Saying that Jesus answer rejects same-sex marriage is the same thing as saying that Jesus commands a married couple to be physically grafted to each other when he says the two become one flesh. That's just not what he's talking about.

The proof comes just two verses later when Jesus makes his point clear: "I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." This is also proof of how easy it is for us to practice eisegesis without realizing it. An amendment to ban pastors from remarriage was defeated at general conference by the same people who used the first part of Matthew 19 to same-sex marriage. There is no possible way Jesus meant for this whole passage to refer to same-sex marriage and also not refer to remarriage after divorce. No rational person can make that argument. But when we already know what we believe we tend not to think rationally.

My point is not about whether general conference ultimately made the right or wrong decision in continuing to ban same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ ordination. I'm quite confident that traditionalists could point to other texts that they believe I have interpreted wrongly. My point is that all of us, regardless of theology, must always be vigilant about how we read the Bible. We all interpret. Even the act of translation from the Hebrew, Latin, and Greek manuscripts to English involves interpretation. We all need to be incredibly careful that we do our interpretation as faithfully as possible.

A Glimpse Behind the Curtain: GC2019

I waited in the car for my contact to return. It was 10:30 at night in the parking lot of a hotel. My contact told me to stay where I was - it would be dangerous for the person we were meeting if I were to go inside. After a couple of minutes of nervous silence my contact returned with an African man who glanced around before coming to our vehicle. He opened the front door for a brief hug before sitting down in the backseat. We visited for about five minutes. He got out, returned to the hotel alone, and we drove away.

It sounds like a spy novel. But I'm no spy. I'm just a clergy delegate to General Conference 2019. The story is 100% true. After this encounter I was driven to a second hotel where I met two acquaintances. Together we followed my contact to a room and waited there until he returned with three people from another African country. We shared with one another for maybe 15 minutes and followed the same ritual in reverse for our departure.

I'm pretty naïve. I texted my daughter about what I was doing. When she asked why we were meeting so late in the hotel I told her that I thought it was because of the time zone difference - that maybe this was just the time that worked best for them so I was adjusting to their time as an act of hospitality. My contact cleared that up. At 11:00 not many people were milling around the hotel so it was safer to meet.

This is the nature of discussing homosexuality in a worldwide church with close to 40% of the votes coming from parts of the world where being gay itself is, in some cases, illegal. We counted our votes. We believed that we had a minimum of 88 votes from Africa and potentially 30 from the Philippines. We believed this because we had people we believed were working with us in those various countries who agreed that the One Church Plan was best for the denomination even if they personally did not agree with same-sex marriage or LGBT ordination. Today our estimate is of those 88 and 30 we probably actually received 15 from each. I don't know how any of the four that I met with that night voted. I do know that three of the four said if their vote was known they would lose their jobs.

The pressure on Africans in particular to conform to the wishes of their bishops and fellow delegates is intense. And the pressure on American delegates and political interests to use whatever tools are needed is real, too. Here's a portion of a message I received via Facebook from another African acquaintance last fall as we talked about how to increase our votes: "And let me be clear here about getting the votes from Africa on our side, we must do everything that we can do to make this happen. This is about politics and using money to influence votes from Africa must not be ruled out." Let me be clear that my response to this individual was an unequivocal "no." I was involved at the highest level of the One Church Coalition and I know of nobody in that coalition who ever took any unethical act to secure any votes. Quite the opposite. We were clear that if saving the denomination required bribery then it wasn't worth saving. The day after my late night meetings it was clear that we never had the votes for the OCP. We had been outmaneuvered before General Conference even began. So what do you do when the Traditional Plan train is rolling and you don't have the votes to stop it? You change the game and use strengths as a weakness. The traditionalists had given voting guides to all the African delegates. Please hear me - I do not doubt the ability of people from all across the world to have their own minds and make their own decisions. The cultural differences, language barrier, and parliamentary procedure make it very difficult to have everybody on an even playing field. It is also true that the traditionalists didn't want an even playing field. I'm quite confident that at the multiple meals and the days long pre-conference session for African delegates there was no attempt to give an unbiased view of the One Church Plan or Simple Plan. To the contrary, I was told by one African friend that if I were to speak on the floor I should make a point that I am married and have kids because Africans had been told that everybody who was not for the Traditional Plan was gay. You can hear me awkwardly mention my wife and kids at the beginning of the first speech I gave for precisely this reason. So we used the voting guide against them. The Traditional Plan as it passed is largely unconstitutional because of the one parliamentary victory that we achieved. At the beginning of legislative committee day the traditionalists quietly told everybody to vote for their amendments and then vote to Call the Question to end debate and go to a vote. We let them make a couple amendments - we argued against them but knew we would fail - and then we called for the question. This is how you know that so many people didn't understand what was going on. They needed a minimum of eight more amendments to make their plan constitutional. There was no rational reason a TP supporter would vote to end debate without those amendments. But the instructions given were clear: vote for our amendments and then vote to end the debate. So they did. We moved to end debate and even though we only had 45% of the delegates on our side of the question the motion passed 577-234. The incomplete, unconstitutional plan moved on to the following day's plenary session where we mostly successfully killed clock until the end of the General Conference session. I attended my first General Conference as a delegate in 1996. As we drove to Denver, my GC mentor told me that I would see the Church at its best and at its worst. The political machinations that you read hear and, I'm convinced by second hand accounts, far worse on the opposing side, are the Church at its worst. What will follow from this vile event will, I believe, be the Church at its best. General Conference has become the Principalities and Powers that Paul says in Ephesians 6 that we should work against. It is the evil and injustice that we are baptized to resist. I intend to do that. I invite you to join me.

General Conference Day Zero

I do not expect to write every day from St. Louis. Our official days are long and there are unofficial meetings both before and after sessions. So we'll take it a day at a time.

For today, you might consider reading this post from Chris Ritter. Chris puts his spin on a pre-conference meeting in Illinois. You need to take everything he writes with a grain of salt. There are reports out of Illinois that differ significantly from what he writes.

What I want you to focus on is a number that I do believe. Ritter shares that the WCA vote count from the U.S. is 180. Sounds like a lot until you remember that there are 504 delegates from the U.S. Multiple sources in favor of the OCP have said that we will have 2/3 of the U.S. in support. So that you don't have to do the math, 180 is 35%. In other words, Ritter and the WCA have confirmed what we've been saying. 2/3 of the United States, including a majority from every jurisdiction (region) of the U.S., support the One Church Plan.

The magic number for any proposal to pass is 433. The WCA has conceded that 324 of those votes will come from the United States. If the OCP does not pass it will be because fewer than 109 of the 360 Central Conference delegates, less than 30%, choose not to allow the U.S. to adapt to our cultural reality. I think that is very unlikely.

What a New UM Survey Really Tells Us

You may want to look at this survey that UM Communications commissioned. Right off the bat two shortcomings should be noted. First, with only a little more than 500 respondents it's hard to know how accurate it is. A statistician I am not, so maybe it is a large enough sample. Second, it consistently uses the vague terms progressive, moderate, and conservative.

The second point is especially important now as next week we consider a "progressive' Simple Plan (which some supporters argue is still not really progressive), a "centrist" One Church Plan (which some opponents call progressive), and a "conservative" Traditionalist Plan (which supporters call the status quo and some opponents call fundamentalist). But none of the three plans (and a fourth, the Connectional Conference Plan, which is a hybrid plan) focus on an overall theology. They focus instead of the question of how we include lesbian and gay people in the life of the church (note I only say the first two in the long string of letters LGBTQ+ because the plans only address those two initials - a significant shortcoming.)

This matters because between this survey and a separate Pew survey we have proof that our views on same-sex marriage specifically do not correspond precisely with our overall theology. The UMCOM study shows that 44% of U.S. United Methodists consider themselves traditional, a plurality but not a majority. 28% are moderate, 22% progressive, and the remainder unsure. For the record, I would put myself in the moderate camp. A 2014 Pew study reported that 60% of U.S. United Methodists believed that same-sex marriage should be accepted by society and 49% believed it should be accepted by the church. If every single progressive and moderate in 2018 believe in same-sex marriage AND if the UMC has defied all societal norms by not moving in a more pro-LGBT direction over the last five years then about 1 in 4 self-identified conservatives still believe that same-sex marriage is acceptable.

So, unintentionally, the UM survey tells us that what we are voting on at General Conference isn't really the biggest issue we face.

The survey also shows just how much we need each other. In his 2008 book Staying at the Table Bishop Scott Jones says, "Liberals need conservatives and conservatives need liberals. If one group leaves, we are all worse off." One question in the survey stood out to me. The question was whether the primary purpose of the denomination is to save souls or transform the world. Our mission statement says both - Make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Our statement is consistent with John Wesley who both preached about salvation and also visited prisoners in jail. In the surveys conservative/progressive breakdown the difference is stark. 88% of conservatives said our primary purpose is to save souls as opposed to 32% of progressives. 62% of progressives chose transforming the world as opposed to 12% of conservatives. Moderates, predictably, fell in-between. But our mission statement and our history say that we need both. In other words, Bishop Jones is correct. In order for us to embrace the full call of our denomination, we need both. We need conservatives to hold us accountable for our lack of evangelism and we need progressives to hold us accountable to be the Body of Christ healing the world. The left wing and right wing keep the bird flying straight. Our left wing and right wing keep our denomination going in the right direction even with the tension that we live in. And that, in a nutshell, is why I support the One Church Plan.


Here are just a few other pieces of insight:

1) None of us really agree about the role of Scripture. We are often told that progressive don't take scripture seriously - that the Bible is unequivocally our prime authority. The survey tells us that only 41% of conservatives view Scripture as our prime authority. Granted that is far more that progressives and moderates, but as someone in the moderate camp who does believe Scripture comes first I think this is a significant issue.

2) Progressives do take the Bible more seriously than they are accused of. When asked more specifically about how they understand the Bible, virtually nobody in any theological camp dismissed it as just an old book. 2/3 of progressives still call it inspired. I am equally disappointed in the 1/3 of progressives who don't think it is inspired as I am by the 30% of traditionalists who call it the "actual word of God and should be taken literally." That is a fundamentalist view. Broken down, then, roughly 15% of UMs take a fundamentalist view, roughly 15% take a view clearly outside of our doctrinal standards, and the remaining 70% have an understanding someplace in between.

3) There is remarkable agreement in many theological views. If you read the full report you'll see a series of theological statements that, with the exception of a belief in a literal hell, show a strong level of consistency. And also show no unanimity even among the three theological groupings.

One Church Plan - Impacts on Clergy

Getting the Facts Straight

As the Special Session of General Conference draws close, it is especially important for all delegates and interested United Methodists to gain as clear as possible a sense of the facts before us. There are and will continue to be legitimate differences of opinion and conflicting interpretations of implications of potential decisions, but there are also some realities we all ought to be able to agree upon. Tom Lambrecht of Good News recently posted comments about impacts on clergy that he perceives as possible from the One Church Plan (OCP). There are several misinterpretations that should be corrected.
 

Respect for Different Opinions

The One Church Plan makes more options for ministries and holy conversations possible. But it does not force people to engage in practices or conversations or even take votes, unless their faith communities want to do so. Tom Lambrecht rightly notes that the OCP gives clergy a freedom that they have not previously had to marry same-sex couples. He says, “The downside of this freedom is that local congregations would also gain the right to make decisions that until now have been made at the general church level.”
 

Impacts on Congregations

Certainly one of the most important benefits of the OCP is that it allows congregations to engage in holy conversations and make decisions that up to now have been suppressed or prohibited. Evidently, some fear having hard conversations in the local church about such matters. But no counselor would suggest that a family should categorically avoid such encounters. Certainly we don’t find Jesus avoiding hard conversations with his disciples. Nevertheless, if a congregation isn’t ready, doesn’t see the need, or chooses not to enter into discussions about same-sex marriage, under the OCP they have the complete right to make that choice. The OCP opens up more options about matters that affect the lives and faith of our people. It does not force conversations or votes.
 

No Need for Schism

The OCP takes great pains to honor the consciences of all people in these matters. In fact, the OCP explicitly protects individual conscience no matter what stance one assumes regarding same-gender relationships.

In his sermon “On Schism,” while acknowledging that there are specific situations when a person may need to leave a church, John Wesley speaks about this in a way that is entirely relevant to our current circumstances. “Suppose the Church or society to which I am now united does not require me to do anything which the Scripture forbids, or to omit anything which the Scripture enjoins, it is then my indispensable duty to continue therein” (On Schism, II.7. emphasis added).
 

Freedom to Choose

Tom Lambrecht asserts that “Many evangelical clergy by conscience could not continue to serve in a denomination that they believe has contradicted Scripture…” But there is nothing in the OCP that requires any layperson, clergyperson, local church, annual conference, jurisdiction, or central conference to take any action. Any anxiety generated by pastors who choose to leave the denomination is caused by their own decisions, not by the OCP. There is nothing in our Wesleyan heritage and teachings and nothing in the OCP that introduces new reasons for any clergyperson to relinquish their credentials.

Tom Lambrecht points out that under the Modified Traditional Plan (MTP), “For clergy who are willing to abide by the current requirements of the Book of Discipline, there would be little change.” And the truth is that there would be no change for those same clergy under the OCP. And yet, to the contrary, with the MTP any clergy whose consciences lead them to differ from unbending interpretations that are advocated for inclusion in the Book of Discipline could find no place within our communion. 
 

The One Church Plan Honors Conscience

We can all agree that, as Lambrecht says, “In some ways, clergy may have the most to lose if the General Conference is not able to find a constructive way for the church to move forward.” But by careful and prayerful work, and with the endorsement of nearly two-thirds of our bishops, we do have a way forward that makes room for all.

Let’s choose then to move forward, together.