A Reasonable Look at Schism

Take a quick look at any United Methodist related social media and you will quickly find that everybody thinks that everybody they disagree with is in schism. It is asserted from the left that those who would leave the UMC if the One Church Plan are schismatic and from the right that the left is already in schism because of the election of Bishop Karen Oliveto. Both are right. And both are wrong.

Wesley's sermon On Schism is the source that we must turn to. It's noteworthy that Wesley begins by saying that churches in schism seem to always disagree about who is schismatic. We are replaying history that has itself been replayed multiple times. He goes on to make a clear case for a scriptural definition of schism from 1 Corinthians. He says, "Can anything be more plain than that the 'schisms' here spoken of were not separation from but divisions in the church of Corinth?" [language and emphases throughout are taken directly from The Works of John Wesley, volume 3.] The plain meaning of the text does seem to be clear. Go to 1 Corinthians 1:10 yourself and see what you think.

So let's pause. One could certainly make a case that in electing Bishop Oliveto to the episcopacy the Western Jurisdiction acted in a way that made our schism plain. We can almost hear two people arguing with one saying, "I'm with Bishop Oliveto!" and another saying, "I'm with Bishop Lowery!". That, Wesley says, is the Biblical definition of schism. But in this sermon Wesley does not cast blame on one group or the other. He notes the reality of the situation. To one degree or another both parties are to blame - both parties are in a relationship of schism with one another - because both parties have "an alienation…of affection toward their brethren."

This is the argument from the right. The liberals are in schism because they have violated the covenant of the Church while they are in the church. The point is valid. And the point could be reversed. I'm not sure an objective observer would see much affection flowing in either direction. That's one reason I appreciate Mainstream UMC's position that we want all people to be part of the denomination. We really do think a big tent church is good.

Now let's move on, because Wesley has one more critical point to make. The WCA and others would have you believe that this is the end of Wesley's sermon. It is not. He goes on to say that while most of Christianity has misunderstood schism, the popular conception of it (separation from a church) is still valid. "Schism, even in this sense, is both evil in itself, and productive of evil consequences." He goes on, "To separate ourselves from a body of living Christians with whom we were before united is a grievous breach of the law of love. … The pretences for separation may be innumerable, but want of love is always the real cause." Wesley then goes on for five paragraphs about all the evil that comes from church splits, including that it harms our evangelistic efforts.

But here's the kicker for those who defend the exodus that the WCA has proposed. Their argument for leaving if the One Church Plan passes amounts to, "we can't stay in a denomination with people who will practice so differently than us." Wesley acknowledges that there are times when a person may need to leave a body of believers. That time comes only if "...we could not continue without sin" or "I was not allowed to continue therein without breaking a commandment of God." He then uses his contemporary Church of England as an example. It's not entirely different from our situation. Wesley believed the Church had largely missed what God wanted them to do, yet he never separated from them. Why? Because as wrong as he thought the Church was on certain matters continuing in the Church never caused him to sin.

Listen: "...suppose the church or society to which I am now united does not require me to do anything which the Scriptures forbids, or to omit anything with the Scripture enjoins, it is then my indispensable duty to continue therein. And If I separate from it without any such necessity I am justly chargeable…with all the evils consequent upon that separation."

So here's what it boils down to. The One Church Plan very intentionally avoids forcing people to make decisions that they believe Scripture forbids. No Bishop must ordain, no pastor must marry, no conference must certify. In fact, the One Church Plan remains the only plan that does not force a split. It is the only plan that allows space for people to believe differently while holding us together. And in that sense it is the only plan that is not schismatic.

If Wesley was alive today would he favor same-sex marriage and LGBT ordination? I think he probably would not. But he would have a loyalty to the Church and such a high view of the Sanctity of the Church that I think he would approve of the One Church Plan as a reasonable path forward to hold us together for the sake of the mission of the Church.

Which Tent Do You Want to Live in?

Far-right traditionalists have long maintained that General Conference in February 2019 will not really be about human sexuality. It will be about something deeper. They are right.

A sample of what I mean:

- "This is not a new battle in the church. Every generation has had to confront the false gospel that would deny the Lordship of Jesus." - WCA President, Keith Boyette

- "The Fallacy of the Big Tent" - title of column by Good News Vice-President, Tom Lambrecht

- "The Judicial Council has defined connectionalism in a new way which will change the United Methodist Church. As now defined by the Judicial Council, connectionalism allows 'room for diversity of theological perspectives and opinions.'" - Boyette, after the October 2018 Judicial Council decision


These are the primary spokespeople of the far right in the UMC. Just look at what each of these quotes means:

- If you disagree with us on human sexuality then you are preaching a false gospel and deny the Lordship of Jesus. I've pointed previously to Lambrecht saying the same thing. He denied saying what he said because it's not politically correct. But just listen to the words. I hope we can all agree that denying the Lordship of Jesus is a pretty high offense. I don't want to be in the same denomination as one who denies the Lordship of Jesus or preaches a false gospel. That person is pretty much by definition not a Christian. This is why many people with traditional views on human sexuality will ultimately not want to be part of a WCA denomination. We are capable of recognizing that significant differences in theological opinion does not mean some are dismembered from the Body of Christ.

- "The Fallacy of the Big Tent" makes for a good title but poor theology. First, every tent has stakes in the ground that mark the boundaries. I, for one, appreciate those who remind us of the boundaries. But in his column Lambrecht criticizes "a 'big tent' enclosing many varied perspectives, opinions, and practices within one over-arching church." This should be contrasted with "if your heart is as my heart take my hand" and "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." The choice before us is whether we will live in a big tent or a pup tent. The One Church Plan envisions a big tent that is bound together by our doctrinal standards. The Traditionalist Plan envisions a pup tent where we achieve unity by group-think.

- And as further proof of that statement, see Boyette's rebuttal to the Judicial Council. He criticizes their judgement that connectionalism "allows room for diversity of theological perspectives and opinions." I am not familiar with a Methodist church that does not allow room for diversity of theological perspectives. Which of our local churches does not allow room for diversity of theological perspectives? Which of our annual conferences? In  which era of Methodism did everybody agree?

The areas where we do have, or at least should have, agreement are our doctrinal standards. Those standards are silent on LGBT inclusion. A trumped up case was made to the Judicial Council that our doctrinal standards do speak to this because Wesley's Notes on the New Testament (which are officially part of our doctrine) refer once to marriage as between one man and one woman. I can't recall any other time in my ministry that someone has appealed to Wesley's notes, which are out of print by the way, as the sole basis for a doctrinal position. Wesley's notes also identify the Pope as the beast in Revelation (chapter 13, verse 1). So if those notes really are doctrinal standards that we all need to adhere to then we all need to be clear in our teaching on Revelation.

I believe the vast majority of United Methodists - even the vast majority who have signed on to be WCA members - do not envision pup tent Methodism.  We envision a big tent with lots of room. A Methodism that holds fast to essentials and allows diversity in non-essentials. That's what we're voting on in February. I'll be voting to keep you and me in the same tent.

What a Real "Gracious Exit" Might Look Like

Delegates to General Conference from the Great Plains are getting plenty of emails sharing opinions about the best path for the United Methodist Church. Those opinions are very diverse. I had a brief dialogue with one person whose email can be summarized as "please vote for the traditional plan, but if you can't do that at least give us the gracious exit." If only it were so simple.

Before sharing why I don't think it is so simple you should know that I told that person I would support that church's decision to leave the denomination if that's what they felt they needed to do. The starting point for any conversation about leaving a denomination should be the same as the starting point for an individual leaving a local church - nobody should be held hostage. That doesn't do anyone any good. It is completely conceivable and appropriate for churches (and individuals) to have the ability to leave. The question is how that is best done. What principles should be applied to a plan for a "gracious exit?" I suggest there are at least two.

1) A gracious exit may look different for one church than it does for another church. The church I serve is 35 years old. We are on the verge of paying off debt that was accumulated over those years. We are fairly well off financially and we have a good piece of land. We have always paid our apportionments and we have also received a number of grants and good leadership from the conference. My email dialogue partner didn't feel the same. Their church was over 100 years old. It is small and rural and the conference investment in more recent times has been minimal. It seems to me that if a 100+ year old small church with a part-time pastor wants to leave the denomination the financial cost should be minimal. The local church has undoubtedly given greatly to the connectional church. Perhaps an apt metaphor is the way we might care for an elderly parent - they have given of themselves already and we owe them a debt, not the other way around. Frankly, though, the church I serve is in a different position. We are more like the caregiver. Financially, we are now giving far more to the Conference than the Conference is giving to us. But we're only 35. We still owe our very existence to the greater United Methodist Church. I can't put a number on it, but I will say unequivocally that if we choose to leave the denomination we should be required to pay something in return for all the denomination has done for us. A real "gracious exit" must allow for conferences to treat local churches as individual churches instead of treating every church the same.

2) A gracious exit must happen at a time when both the local church and the conference can treat each other with grace. True story. I was talking with a husband who was considering divorce. Without question the marriage had been in trouble for a number of years. In this moment it was particularly fragile. They were about to become empty-nesters and an unexpected and unwelcome job change was coming that would require at least one spouse to relocate. My pastoral word to him: "I know that I don't make my best decisions when I'm in a time of really high anxiety. Maybe this isn't the right time for a life-altering decision. What would happen if you stick together for another year while you work through some of these changes?" The year hasn't elapsed yet - I don't know what the outcome will be. But I do know that if this couple divorces it will be less messy if they are able to do it at a time with less stress than they were experiencing in that moment. A real gracious exit must not be forced. It must allow space for the right action at the right time.

Is such a gracious exit possible? Yes. In fact we already have this kind of gracious exit. Our Book of Discipline already allows churches to leave the denomination. It allows conferences to treat these churches individually and it doesn't impose a time limit. If we can treat one another with grace then we can allow churches that need to leave our connection to exercise that option without any changes to the Book of Discipline.

What about the Traditional Plan's Exit?

The "gracious exit in the Traditional Plan (TP) violates both of the prerequisites above.

1) The TP's exit treats all churches the same. We have learned that one-size-fits-all just doesn't work anymore. It doesn't work for church growth, it doesn't work for pastoral leadership, it doesn't work for local church or annual conference organization. It won't work for an exit plan either.

2) The TP forces churches and annual conferences to make an exit decision at exactly the wrong time. The decision on leaving the denomination must be made in roughly 12 months. For annual conferences, it would almost certainly require a special conference session. We would actually make our best decisions if the clock were reversed - if we had to stick together for another 12 months before being able to leave the denomination. Many states have a mandatory waiting period for a divorce. Should we not have the same kind of standard for splitting the Body of Christ?

A More Gracious Plan

A more gracious exit plan might look like this:

First, have a process that is followed by every conference that allows for the possibility of different outcomes. For example, every church that is considering leaving should have a church conference rather than having only officers of the church make a decision. That's a process that every church can follow. A common process can ensure that all members who wish to remain United Methodist have a place to go.

Second, every conference (through district superintendents and boards of trustees) should work in partnership with the local church to determine equitable terms for closure. My guess is that in most cases payment from the local congregation to the conference will be minimal (outside of what has become a unanimous agreement that churches should contribute to future pension obligations).

Third, churches are not bound by time constraints. If a church determines two years from now that it needs to leave then that option is open. If a church decides one year from now that they need to leave that option is also open.

How Would We Implement a Gracious Plan

If this seems like a reasonable plan then I have good news. This is pretty much what the current Book of Discipline does. We know that this process works because there are churches today that are leaving the denomination instead of waiting until after General Conference. They are doing that now because the process actually works now.

In fact, ironically, the Traditional Plan incorporates an exit path allegedly  for progressive churches to leave that progressive churches have said they don't want. I don't believe I've heard from any pastor or lay member of a progressive congregation that they need an exit plan other than what we currently have. The only call I've heard for an exit plan is from traditionalists.

We should be fair. We need to be fair. We need to allow those who need to leave to do so. We don't need a new way of doing what we have already proven we can do right now. I appreciate that the One Church Plan focuses on how to help us stay together rather than forging new and unnecessary ways for us to separate.

The Power of And

A few years ago a member of the church I serve taught me about the importance of choosing the correct conjunction. One example: If my child gets upset after I correct her misbehavior I could say, "I love you but I want you to do the right thing." All she will hear is "I want you to do the right thing." The word "but" negates the first half of the sentence even if that is not what the speaker intends. If, instead, I say "I love you and I want you to do the right thing" then she will hear two equal statements. I love her. I want her to do the right thing. The word choice is subtle. The difference is huge.

I think some people are not able to support the One Church Plan because of a missing And. They hear "I may disagree with you but we can stay in the same church."

What I hope everyone can hear is "I may disagree with you and we can stay in the same church."

"I may disagree with you but..." sounds like a negation of your opinion. I'm right, you're wrong, but you can still stay in the church with me. It reminds me of my first seminary class. After a sentence that used "God" 6 times instead of any pronouns was lifted up as an example of good inclusive language I revolted - it may have been good inclusive language but it was poor writing. That evening a well-meaning student said to me, "That's OK, you just aren't there yet. But you'll get there." I didn't want to "get there!" I wanted to stay right where I was! Who was he to tell me that I needed to change?

The alternative, and as a "progressive compatibilist" what I would argue for, is "I may disagree with you AND..." I believe in full LGBTQ inclusion. And I can live in a church with people who disagree with me. And I can live in a church where those who disagree with me may never change their minds.

The question before us as United Methodists is not whether or not we agree or disagree on "the practice of homosexuality." We already know the answer to that. Using General Conference votes as a guide, about 40% of us believe homosexuality is compatible with Christian teaching and about 60% of us don't. In the United States the percentages are probably flipped - 60% approve and 40% disapprove. That's not what we will be voting on in February. We'll be voting on which conjunction we choose to use.

Choosing to live with an AND means choosing to live with some tension. We need to be OK with that. We live in a world of tension. AND tension is part of our faith tradition. At the much discussed Council of Jerusalem we were given an AND. James' word to Paul was "You do your thing AND we will do ours." We don't see the Jerusalem Church suddenly stopping the practice of circumcision. They continued their practice AND they allowed Paul to continue his. I'm quite confident some tension remained.

Here in Kansas most of our churches are AND churches. We disagree about all kinds of stuff. Politically we are labeled a red state but we're really more of a deep purple. There is a clear Republican majority but I would guess 95% of United Methodist churches have at least a few Democrats. Kansas has had one President - Republican Dwight Eisenhower - under whom the highest tax bracket was 90%. That's purple. Spiritually, most of the churches I have served have been, on the whole, conservative. But I can name conversations in each of those places with people who have said "I know what our official teaching is on human sexuality but I don't know if I agree with it."

What I most appreciate about the One Church Plan is that it sounds like it came from Kansas. In fact it is similar to legislation the Great Plains Conference sent to General Conference in 2016. We disagree with each other AND we know how to live with each other in the midst of disagreements. We do it every day. Maybe that's why a reported 100 people attended a WCA organizational meeting advertised throughout Kansas and Nebraska not to long ago while at a church in the same town just a few weeks later about 80 people gathered, mostly from that church alone, to hear about the One Church Plan. Do we all agree? Absolutely not. AND that's OK. We're still going to do church together. We're still going to do life together. We're still going to do faith together. That's what we do. We're the Body of Christ. We don't let disagreements stop us.

You may agree with me, you may disagree with me, either way I hope you AND I can stay united.

A Plea from a Pastor

Dear friends in the pews,

Yesterday, in a church that is widely considered one of the most "liberal" United Methodist churches in the state, we did an exercise intended to point out the discrepancy between what men and women think about regarding sexual assault. By a show of hands, we saw that this is something the majority of women think about regularly while very few men do. It was just a one question survey - "Have you ever felt the need to prepare for the possibility of being sexually assaulted?" After one worship service a person, it happened to be a woman, said something like "Your bias showed through. You should have also asked if anyone has ever been scared that they would be falsely accused of sexual assault."

One state south of me, another United Methodist preacher used a story in worship that (full disclosure) I would never have used and probably wasn't fully thought out. Another person, also happened to be a woman, walked out five minutes into the sermon and missed that the message was not intended to be about politics, but about reconciliation.

I don't blame the pastors; I don't blame the people. Words that a distant two years ago would have been seen as docile now cause people to leave churches - I know, because two years ago that happened to me as well. Pastors are told to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted." We are in a time when everybody feels afflicted. The pastor now must choose between afflicting some of the afflicted more or just ignoring what lies outside the stained glass.

I share with new pastors that there are three sermons every Sunday. One is the sermon that you write. The second is the words you say (hopefully you aren't reading word for word from the manuscript!). The third is the sermon that people hear. The listener brings all their stuff to the sermon process. If the congregation I serve is a typical gathering of people, yesterday my message was heard by someone who is recovering from abuse, someone who is currently being abused, someone who has been an abuser, someone who is an abuser, someone who has been and/or is being abused and is in denial, someone who has a relative living in danger...the list goes on. Every one of these people heard what I said in a different way. It is not possible for the same sermon that I wrote or that I spoke to be heard in the same way by that variety of people. It's not that one person hear it "right" and another heard it "wrong." They simply heard it "different," and at least in some cases differently than I intended. It's nobody's fault - not mine, not the woman who spoke to me yesterday, not the pastor in Oklahoma or the person who spoke to him.

I've been preaching pretty much every Sunday for 19 years. Never in that time have I chosen my words more carefully and never in that time have I regularly felt like I ended up choosing the wrong words.

So, as a pastor, on behalf of your pastor, please understand the bind that we are in right now. When we say something that hurts please let us know. Say something afterwards like "I don't think this is what you intended, but when you said X I heard Y". Please don't ignore what hurt you - we need to know when our words aren't helpful - and at the same time please know we really truly are doing our best.

1 Corinthians 13 reminds us that love is patient and kind and rejoices in the truth. May we be patient and kind with one another while also speaking the truth to and with one another in love.

Peace,
David

I'm a Christian, Too

Tom Lambrecht from Good News believes I'm not a Christian. He may not think you are one, too.

But don't take my word for it. Read his commentary on unity and the United Methodist Church. That's right, in a commentary about unity he said I'm not a Christian.

You should read it, but if you don't here's a brief summary: Citing Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17, Lambrecht points out that true unity comes not primarily from our desires but from Jesus Christ. Further, he notes that sometimes organic union in a denomination is not possible because of differences in teaching. Those like me who advocate the One Church Plan compare it to the diversity of belief adopted in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) but Lambrecht rightly notes that in other cases believers are counseled to separate. He cites 2 John 9-10 and 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1. Make note of this. We'll come back to them. Lambrecht then asks if our current situation is the former or the latter and ultimately asserts that we would best be a witness by dividing to avoid "pain and turmoil." He closes by asking, "If we must take the road of adversarial choices, can we not do it with love and grace toward one another, giving the world a witness of how we believe Christ followers should treat one another?"

It is a good question. But it is based on a false premise. What Lambrecht has actually done is set up an artful strawman. And, if I am wrong about that - if Lambrecht's characterization is correct - then he has no choice but to forcibly remove me and so many others from the denomination as worshippers of a false god. Further, the entire Traditionalist argument against the One Church Plan is built on this precise argument.

The Strawman

I've planned for a while to write a blog arguing that John 17 should be a basis for our denominational unity and the One Church Plan. That whole post can be summed up in two sentences: "Jesus says that our unity will be our witness to the world. What better witness could there be today for the transcendent power of God's love than the counter-cultural message that people with very different beliefs can still be united under the banner of Christ?"

But Lambrecht says we can't do that because "we have in the church two groups that believe the other group is bringing erroneous or false teaching into the church. " He argues that Traditionalists believe that progressive teaching on LGBT rights is wrong and progressives believe that traditionalists teaching is discrimination. This dichotomy is precisely what the One Church Plan rejects. I believe that there will be a time when the large majority of Christians look back and say "Wow. We were wrong to treat our gay sisters and brothers differently" the same way that many people who are white now think of our history with people of color. But this is not that time. Those who support The Simple Plan, the only plan that is truly a progressive plan, may believe that this is that time but, along with many other supporters of the One Church Plan, I disagree. Let me say it clearly:

Tom Lambrecht is NOT a false teacher. He is a brother in Christ who happens to be wrong, in my opinion, on a matter of great significance. 

The One Church Plan is based on the premise that we do not have to all be exactly alike in order to be in the same denomination. As a pastor of a reconciling congregation, there have been occasions when a church member or participant has shared that they are no longer comfortable worshiping here because of our stance. I always direct that person to another United Methodist Church, just like other pastors in the community have directed people to me. Why? Because while we disagree about this there is so much more that we agree on! We are not arguing about our doctrinal statements, sacraments, women's ordination, infant baptism, prevenient grace, predestination, the list goes on. We aren't arguing about any of the things that make all of us Methodists.

I profoundly disagree with Lambrecht on the proper role for LGBT people in the church. And also, he is a brother in Christ and not a false teacher. But that's not what he thinks about me. Because if he believes the strawman he created then the only faithful response is to refuse amicable separation.

False Teachings and the Teachers that Teach Them

Remember those two passages that Lambrecht cited when noting that the Bible tells us sometimes we need to separate? 2 John 9-10: "Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching..." and 2 Corinthians beginning at 6:14: "Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness?" To this, let me add Lambrecht's own words in describing what people like me believe and teach: "Such teaching would be false and not true to the Gospel and therefore unacceptable in the church." And he says that I believe that traditionalists teach "false teaching that must be change and repudiated by the church." 

I trust that Lambrecht has chosen his words and as a firm Bible believer he has chosen his citations carefully. This means that while I call Lambrecht and those who believe like him brothers and sisters in Christ, he calls me a false teacher. And the passages that require a separation of him from me (or us from them) separate the true Church from the false Church. Do not pass over this lightly. This is very serious. This is as serious as anything that has been raised in this 40 plus year debate. This is beyond the 3-5% of the population that identifies as LGBTQ. This is beyond the claim that we reject Wesley's ideas. This is beyond the argument that we defy Christian tradition. Lambrecht is fundamentally saying that those who believe like me are not Christians. I'm not exaggerating - look at those scripture passages again if you think I am. He could have quoted the oft used story of Paul and Barnabas parting separating in order to share the Gospel in different ways. Or even Abraham and Lot staying family but leaving each other for different fields. But he chose to use relatively obscure passages to escalate our differences to the point of worshipping other gods. 

If I really am a false teacher, if the people of the church I serve are really not Christians, then why in the name of God would Lambrecht suggest that there should be amicable separation? Could there be any better example of giving to Caesar what belongs to God? If those of us who support the One Church Plan are really false teachers then there can be no compromise - no compromise on the language of the Book of Discipline and no compromise on keeping all the assets of the denomination. 

Different Opinions and the Reasonable People Who Disagree About Them

But I don't think that's what 90% of the people who call themselves "traditionalists" really believe. I think back to other churches I've served, including pretty traditional places in rural Kansas. If I was still serving those churches do you know what we would do? We would respectfully disagree. We would not call each other's salvation into question. We would not call each other names. And we would still stay in the same church. Because they would understand that I still believe Jesus Saves and I would understand that they still believe God Is Love. 

One of the reasons that I believe we need the One Church Plan is because as a united body we are able to guard one another against our worst impulses. None of us want a church that sounds like the comments on a Facebook post. We need each other to remind us that we are united more by God's love than by our rightness of doctrine AND to remind us that doctrine does matter. We need to be reminded that the tent must be a big tent with room for many, not a pup tent with room only for a few AND to remind us that every tent must still have stakes in the ground that help mark boundaries that can't be crossed.

Tom Lambrecht is my brother in Christ, regardless of what he believes about me and regardless of what happens at General Conference 2019. Because he is right about this - our unity is in Jesus Christ, whom both of us strive to serve. I believe that 90% of United Methodists agree on this and that we will pass a plan at General Conference that affirms our common faith.

The Best Reasons to Oppose the One Church Plan Aren't Good Enough

My support for the One Church Plan (OCP) is unequivocal. This has disappointed some of my friends on both the theological left and right. There are good reasons for this. For me, they just aren't good enough reasons. 

In this post I share what, for me, are the single best arguments against it from the left and right. This is subjective, of course. For example, I'm persuaded that one can make a scriptural argument for either position. I've made those arguments and held both positions at different times in my life. So I'm not arguing scripture in this post. To me the best arguments against the OCP relate to inclusion and tradition.

The Argument from the Left

As soon as I voiced support for the OCP some of my friends called me a traitor. For many years I fell into the camp of a traditional compatibilist. Now I suppose I'm a progressive compatibilist. I fully understand, though, those who see the OCP as a compromise on a basic God-given right. The argument is that we would not be "compatibilists" on racism or sexism so why would we be compatibilists on heterosexism? It's a good argument. I hope that we can all reject racism and sexism today.

The answer, for me, is that progress is important. Let me use a different analogy. I'm opposed to the death penalty, which is legal in Kansas where I live. If I was a legislator and had the opportunity to vote to abolish the death penalty I would. But what if that wasn't a politically viable option? What if a bill came up that did not abolish the death penalty but did eliminate it as an option for 60% of the crimes that it is currently an option for? I would vote for that bill, too. 60% is not enough, but it is better than the status quo. In the same way, the OCP is not enough. My hope is that the day will come when we are as clear on this as we are on racism and sexism (which, note, doesn't mean neither racism nor sexism have been eliminated.) That's not where we are right now. I will take the possibility of significant progress over the status quo any day.

The Argument from the Right

So I'm not a "traditionalist" when  it comes to LGBTQ inclusion. I am pretty traditional, or even conservative, in a number of other areas. I value history and believe it can be a guide for our future. For me, the best argument to maintain our current position as a denomination is the clear Christian witness for the last 2,000 years. As best as I can tell ordaining and marrying "self avowed practicing homosexuals" is a departure from the large majority of Christianity over the entire course of Christian history. We should take that very seriously. In fact, if it wasn't for the clear harm that we are doing to LGBTQ people this might be a strong enough argument to persuade me to stay with the status quo even though I personally disagree with it. But the weakness of the argument actually comes from its own strength.

I have argued elsewhere and continue to maintain that if the United Methodist Church splits into progressive and traditional denominations it will not be long before the traditional group has to deal with the question of women's ordination. To be clear, I believe the leadership of conservative caucuses who say that they don't intend for this to be questioned. But I also believe the individuals who have told me that they already do question it, including high-ranking conference officials who have shared that many churches refuse to accept women as pastors. But the best argument to end women's ordination is the exact same argument used to reject LGBTQ ordination. 

The largest branch of Christianity in the world is the Catholic Church. A full 50% of Christians are Catholic. The Catholic church does not allow women to be priests.

Roughly 12% of Christians are some form of Eastern Orthodox. Again, by and large women are not ordained.

That leaves about 37% of Christianity as Protestant, the only grouping that allows women's ordination. Except in the United States the largest Protestant body is the Southern Baptist Convention - which does not ordain women. In fact, the United Methodist Church is the largest denomination that does ordain women. It is also the only mainline denomination that ordains women and does not ordain people who are LGBTQ. In fact, by my count only about 11% of people in the U.S. are members of a denomination that allows for women's ordination. 

When you account for today's statistics along with the whole scope of Christian history, the hard reality for traditionalists is that women's ordination is only slightly more popular than LGBTQ ordination. If we want to be in harmony with Christian tradition and with our sister denominations around the world then we have already moved too far beyond the norm.

Helenor Davison was ordained in the Methodist Protestant Church, one of our ancestor denominations, in 1866. She was the fourth woman ordained in a denomination in the United States (the second was a woman in the Wesleyan Church, which also has Methodist ties). I'm glad that we chose to buck such a solid Christian norm so that Rev. Davison's calling and the calling of so many of her descendants-in-faith including many of my colleagues could be fulfilled.We are richer because of it. So it is for my colleagues and could-be colleagues who happen to be gay.

Bottom Line

There are certainly other arguments as well as these two. It is clear to me that the OCP is not an unambiguous final answer to a deep question. It is a compromise. Compromises by their very nature leave people on both sides unsettled. But I've found that much of life, including my faith life, is often unsettled. We often must wrestle with the next right decision. God journeys with us but does not always make all the answers clear. I believe the OCP is the best way for us to continue journeying together for this season.

What's Wrong with the "Traditionalist" Plan - Part 3

The last two posts have hit on ten different issues with the seventeen petitions that make up the traditionalist plan. None of those are tied to where a person may stand on LGBT inclusion. They are all about the language the petitions use and larger implications for the denomination. They are all also specific to individual or groups of petitions. In this post I address additional concerns that come from the overall plan. Quotes are from Appendix 3 of the document released by the Judicial Council titled "A Conversation within the Council of Bishops: A Traditional Plan." Numbering picks up where we left off:

11. The section of this document titled "Theological and Biblical Foundations" lets the cat out of the bag. The purpose of the plan is to divide. The first paragraph finishes with, "it is appropriate for there to be two different Wesleyan bodies who teach differently on the question of Christian marriage between same gender persons" and goes on to say, "We should see the formation of a new Wesleyan denomination as an opportunity for a different type of unity..." We have repeatedly been told that this is the plan that will hold the denomination together. Let's be clear - the Traditionalist Plan is the ONLY plan (other than a plan to dissolve the denomination entirely) that specifically says one of its purpose is to divide. It's no secret that no matter what happens at General Conference in 2019 some United Methodists will leave the denomination. Heck, that's old news by this point. We've been declining in size for decades. But there is a difference, both theologically and practically, when a group actually announces that this is part of their purpose.

There is an important second piece here, too. Recall that the traditionalists say it would be good to have two denominations so that "different Wesleyan bodies" will teach differently on same-sex marriage. OK. Let's do that. Adopt the One Church Plan or the Simple Plan. While the traditionalist authors appear to be thinking broadly about a Wesleyan witness they are forgetting all of our sister denominations. Among the denominations in the Wesleyan family tree are the Free Methodist, Wesleyan, Church of the Nazarene, AME, CME, AMEZ, Salvation Army, and Assemblies of God. To the best of my knowledge none of these denominations allow gay clergy or marriage. As a person who supports inclusion, I've been asked why I haven't already left the United Methodist Church for another denomination before now. The simplest answer is this: I'm a Wesleyan Christian. I would need to give up so much more of my theology to leave for a different denomination. When the church I serve was discussing becoming a Reconciling Congregation someone asked me about whether taking that designation would exclude someone who is not reconciling from attending. My answer was something like this: "My understanding is that to be reconciling means everyone is truly welcome. I wouldn't want anyone to leave. I also know that if someone needs to be in a church where LGBT people are not fully included there are many to choose from. So if I have to make a choice between being a pastor for someone who is gay or someone who does not welcome full inclusion it's an easy choice. There aren't other options for our LGBT members." That's true for us as denominations, also. The simplest way to allow for the stated goal of having "different Wesleyan bodies who teach differently" is to vote for change in the UMC.

12. This is a related point. Regarding the effects of adopting the Traditionalist Plan, the group states "All general boards and agencies remain the same..." Officially this is true. In reality it won't be. We know this because some of our boards and agencies have been regularly attacked by Good News and other right-leaning caucuses. There is no question that a theological shift to the right that would happen in this plan would result in changes to the support in general boards and agencies. Indeed, some would welcome this.

13. The plan also states that there would be no change for clergy. "Clergy would continue to be subject to the Discipline of the church as they agreed in their ordination vows." Not exactly. The Discipline changes every four years. Our statements on inclusion and practice have changed significantly in the twenty years that I've been ordained and we have active pastors who were ordained forty years ago. In fact, this plan has the most change in the Discipline of any viable plan proposed. 

14. The traditionalist plan is supposedly the only plan that "provides assurances that traditional UM can continue to make disciples among people who value traditional teaching on marriage and sexual behavior." This ignores repeated guarantees in the One Church Plan that provide the same assurances to traditionalists. This is the only plan that forces the denominations will on all pastors, conferences, and local churches.

15. Finally, particularly for those who are more conservative, this plan does not end the debate. Let me give you one very clear example. The biggest "scandal" that has arisen recently in the denomination is over the commissioning of M. Barclay as a Deacon. M is transgender. Transgender is not the same thing as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. The traditionalist plan does not directly impact M's commissioning or ordination at all. So when will that plan hit the floor?

It would be so nice to have this all over. It would be so nice if we could just be a big happy church family like in Acts 2. That's the kind of purity and simplicity that the Traditionalist Plan aspires to. But the reality is that only four chapters later in Acts 6 the church has a big fight. Church is messy. Family is messy. Church family is messy. I hope that we can resolve this debate sometime soon. But ending one debate is also just prelude to another debate. We will never have the church that each of us believes is the perfect church. It just won't happen. Instead, God asks us to live with our mutual imperfections, including our imperfect theologies, and work together for the common good. I hope we can do that together in the UMC.

What's Wrong with the "Traditionalist" Plan - Part 2

There are so many issues with this plan that I can't fit them into one post. The first post contained 7 critical issues covering the first 5 of 17 petitions. Note, again, that all of these issues are independent of how you feel about LGBT inclusivity.

Similar to one of the earlier points, I want to note that the 6th petition requires nominees to the Board of Ordained Ministry certify that they will uphold the Discipline solely in the area of "self avowed practicing homosexuals." There is no other requirement for a BOM member. I'm not numbering this as an additional issue but it bears attention.

8. Petition 7 gives us a third way of categorizing people. Some petitions keep our current language of "self-avowed practicing," petition 5 simply says "self-avowed" and now in petition 7 we have only
"practicing." Inconsistent language confuses the issue instead of bringing the desired clarity.

9. Petitions 8 and 9 are fascinating (these petitions have identical language applied to two different paragraphs). "Every Annual Conference shall certify that the bishop has nominated only members of the Board of Ministry..." consistent with petition 7. This is an enforcement mechanism for petition 7. And if the Annual Conference doesn't do this then the entire Annual Conference is kicked out of the UMC. Let me rephrase this. I'm not on the Board. I don't know if my bishop has asked the proper questions. For that matter, I don't know if the nominees have been truthful. But I'm expected to vote to affirm nominees without any way of knowing if those nominees actually qualify. And if as an Annual Conference we don't vote to affirm that all nominees for the BOOM believe something that we cannot verify, if we don't vote to affirm that the bishop has done something that we cannot verify, then we as an entire Annual Conference are kicked out of the denomination. That is a remarkable vote to ask for.

10. Petition 10 is the big one. It's titled "Implementing Gracious Accountability." Gracious is in the eye of the beholder. In summary, the 13 page petition creates a new paragraph that "provides a mechanism for ensuring that annual conferences and bishops will uphold the Discipline, while also providing a gracious exit for those conscious-bound not to do so." To accomplish this, every annual conference must vote by the end of March 2020 to affirm the new statements contained in all the other petitions that we've covered so far. There is the possibility of an extension for Central Conferences. Failure to affirm these statements means the entire Annual Conference is kicked out of the denomination. And that vote must be taken within 13 months of this proposal passing. One of the most critical votes an annual conference will take must happen within 13 months of learning that the vote will have to be taken. Bishops have until June 30, 2020 to sign the same kind of statement for themselves individually.

That's the Accountability part. The Gracious part is, I think, what follows. Every annual conference that chooses not to sign off on the statement above now has an opportunity to becoming "a self-governing Methodist church." This is the gracious exit strategy that many are concerned the One Church Plan doesn't have. It also allows any 50 or more congregations to form a new self-governing Methodist Church with no financial ramifications other than helping to fund any unfunded pension liabilities. To be clear, these churches are very definitely no longer United Methodist. I would note two items here. First, many churches that choose to leave the denomination are already leaving under these same basic terms. The reality is most annual conferences are not going to want to deal with a rural congregation's church building or a suburban/urban church building with substantial debt. In almost all these cases the local church holds the cards and the annual conference will ultimately allow them to leave. Second, under this plan any church can exit for any reason. We know that there are some within the WCA and other conservative caucuses who believe that the best option is to dissolve the denomination. The WCA president has submitted the necessary legislation. The traditionalist plan is supposed to hold the church together, but in reality it makes it very simple for any local church to leave.

I'm not addressing petitions 11-17. A couple of these, particularly petition 11 (which contains harsh minimum mandatory sentences) are likely going to be ruled unconstitutional. The others could be appropriate changes regardless of where we end up with the traditionalist plan overall. But I'm not done with concerns about the plan. I'll have one more post still that looks at some big picture pieces. I'll also compare some of the arguments against the One Church Plan (OCP) with the Traditionalist Plan. I think we'll see that many of the concerns about the OCP, both legitimate and illegitimate, are not care for any better with the Traditionalist Plan.

What's Wrong with the "Traditionalist Plan" - a partial list

I believe in keeping an open mind going into any deliberation and vote. I also believe there are so many problems with the "Traditionalist" plan authored by some of our United Methodist Bishops that I can't conceive of how I could ever come around to voting for this set of petitions. Why? Let me count just some of the reasons:

1. This plan is supposed to bring accountability - but it is the only legislation, perhaps in the history of the UMC, whose authors themselves are unaccountable. Officially the petitions were submitted by Tom Lambrecht, but Lambrecht didn't write them - "a few members of the Council of Bishops" did. Those bishops have not shared who they are, so the authors of petitions calling for accountability have no accountability themselves.

2. It twists the definition of "self-avowed practicing". One of these days I'll blog about why this is an almost nonsensical phrase to begin with. Today is not that day. Today, I'll just remind you that the long-standing United Methodist definition involves genital contact. Following up on a poor Judicial Council ruling, the first petition of the "traditionalist" plan codifies that practicing now also means "living in a same-sex marriage, domestic partnership, or civil union ...". OK, you can define it that way if you want to but then you can't pretend the issue is gay sex. There is such a thing as a sexless marriage. The group most likely to be in one? Lesbians. One might think that an evangelical would celebrate two women who are committed to each other as chaste life partners. This petition criminalizes them.

3. It turns our bishops against each other. Granted, this has already happened when a small group of bishops write legislation directly opposed to a reportedly 60-40 vote within the council (Officially, we've been told the vote was more than 50% and less that 66%. Unofficially the 60% figure has been reported). The second petition in the "traditionalist" bundle actually calls on the bishops to vote each other off the island (puts them on involuntary retirement) on the recommendation of the "council relations committee".

4. Speaking of, this plan is so much of an inquisition that it forms a new committee for the sole purpose of kicking out bishops. It's the aforementioned council relations committee. The committee is formed in the fourth petition. The third petition specifies that those bishops kicked out and into retirement will receive no benefits after six months. Oh - unless I'm missing something this no benefits situation applies to retired bishops, also. They too can be kicked out by the inquisition committee.

5. I call it an inquisition committee because that's what it is. "The Council of Bishops shall refer to the Council Relations Committee any bishop who is unwilling to certify that he or she is willing to uphold, enforce and maintain The Book of Discipline relative to self-avowed practicing homosexuals." Every bishop has to sign this document. If you don't, you're kicked out.

6. Please note, and this is probably the most important item in this whole list, this inquisition committee and the question it is charged with is proof that this whole debate is about sex, not doctrine. Proponents of the traditional interpretation of Scripture have repeatedly asserted that the real issue is not sex. The real issues is doctrinal. It's really about the authority of Scripture. I believe that many are sincere in this understanding. But note that there is not one word about doctrine or the authority of Scripture in this entire plan. Zero.

In 2003 Bishop Joseph Sprague was brought up on charges of violating our doctrine. You can read about it here. Lambrecht himself was one of the people who brought charges. Personally, I'm not a fan of many of Sprague's beliefs. But there is nothing in the "traditionalist" plan that would prevent somebody with nontraditional beliefs like Sprague from being consecrated as a bishop. The charges against him didn't involve the issues of the day. If Sprague or someone like him agreed not to perform same-sex marriages he could continue as a bishop. If this is really about doctrine why is there no doctrinal language? This is one reason I put "traditionalist" in quotes. I'm pretty traditional. This plan isn't.

7. Or maybe it's not about sex. Maybe it's about just being gay. Because petition 5 references only  "self-avowed homosexuals." It is possible that this was a mistake. But if it was a mistake then it was a consistent mistake - all three references in the petition are to "self-avowed homosexuals". Combined, these three mentions mean that "practicing" or not, no gay person can be ordained deacon or elder, commissioned on the deacon or elder track, or consecrated as a bishop. Let me say that again - even a committed celibate Lesbian, gay, or bisexual person is prohibited from commissioning, ordination, or consecration as a bishop.

There are 17 petitions all together. That's the first five. There are many more problems that I'll share over the next several days. Note that none of the reasons I've given even have anything to do with whether it is appropriate for an LGBT person to be married or ordained. These are reasons that every United Methodist regardless of their views on human sexuality should be concerned about the "traditionalist" plan.

I'm a clear supporter of the One Church Plan instead. Is it perfect? Absolutely  not. But we left Portland in 2016 unanimous that we can't continue with the status quo. The plausible alternatives before us are the flawed One Church Plan and the fatally flawed Traditionalist Plan. This plan is so problematic that we can't possibly approve it.

UMC Accountability - A True Story

The progressive wing of the United Methodist Church (UMC) refuses to show any accountability. If we allow same-sex marriage and ordination of "self avowed practicing homosexuals" then it's just a matter of time before other important pieces of our theology go away. This is a line-in-the-sand moment for the Church.

Or so the story goes.

Now for a true story.

Glide Memorial UMC in San Francisco is famous (or infamous) as one of the flagship churches of progressive Methodism. It has a well earned reputation of decades of very liberal theology and very significant social action. But now its very existence as a United Methodist Church is in question. Why? Because of this. Bishop Minerva Carcano, who has never been accused of being conservative, has announced that Glide is being held accountable for going beyond what is allowable in the UMC. In both theology and polity the church has violated our principles. As a result they no longer have a pastor and a process has or soon will begin that could result in the end of the church or a complete reordering of it under new leadership. That is what accountability looks like. And while most would label me theologically progressive (which in reality is true in part and false in part), if Bishop Carcano's portrayal is accurate then Glide Memorial is not United Methodist.

Like most United Methodists, I believe in a big tent. Even a big tent, though, has stakes planted that help set the outer limit. Accountability is a necessary part of having any organization generally and a Christian denomination specifically. This true story is proof that there actually is such a thing as accountability on the theological left. A progressive bishop has shut down a progressive congregation in part because it was too progressive.

So to my conservative Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) friends I ask, where is your accountability? I know that you would also shut down Glide. That's an easy decision for you. I know you would strip the ordination away from some of my friends and colleagues who are gay like I might want to strip away the ordination of someone who is a fundamentalist and outside the bounds of our theology. My question is where is your accountability for your allies?

I know for an absolute fact that there are pastors in the UMC that have rebaptized students at Confirmation. I've reported one. And nothing happened.

We all know that there are churches and pastors who are withholding apportionments. Which one of those have you criticized?

Did I miss your joining in with the likes of Franklin Graham and the Southern Baptist Convention in rejecting Attorney General Jess Sessions' gross abuse of Scripture in defense of the Trump administration's immigration policy?

When I heard someone say that sacrificing women's ordination may be a necessary sacrifice so that we can win the battle on LGBT ordination where was the outcry?

Tell me again about how the WCA is committed to the United Methodist Church - oh by the way we have an entire structure ready to implement on March 1, 2019 if we don't get our way.

Tell me again about your outrage about our lack of accountability. Except this time point your finger in the other direction. Tell me which of your friends and allies has gone too far the other direction. Instead of a self-serving accountability tell me about the real thing. Then I'll listen. Until then, I'll be grateful for the real leaders who make the hard call. Like Bishop Carcano.

Maybe We're All Heretics

I've been struggling to find the right words since learning yesterday that the United Methodist Church voted down two constitutional amendments aimed at ensuring the rights of women throughout the church. Please don't take these reflections as the last word, just as a word for this moment while I keep working on myself.


1. We should be ashamed that our lack of trust has caused harm.
My Facebook feed was full yesterday of people, mostly women, who were hurt by this action. The nearly universal response to them was "we support you as women and as female clergy, but the language in these amendments could have been used to push the LGBT agenda." To that, let me say two things.

First, even if that were true this action still caused harm.

Second, let me share a brief insight into amendment 2. I was in the subcommittee that worked on this amendment at General Conference. Some of us actually did want to do broaden the amendment to include some protection for LGBT individuals in the amendment. Not in a sneaky way - we were explicit about it. And for one day we succeeded. Our subcommittee voted in favor of the change by two votes. The next day, our subcommittee magically acquired three new members who switched from another subcommittee to ours. Coincidentally, all three were opposed to our recommended change. Coincidentally, these additions to the subcommittee mean that the "conservative" delegates now had a one-vote majority. So coincidentally our amendment to the amendment was reversed and defeated.

That's a dirty trick.

But I continued to work with a group to add language protecting LGBT individuals back into the amendment until it became clear that even if somehow it were to pass at General Conference it would never pass the whole constitutional process. So, operating in completely good faith, we stopped those efforts. It was not a trap. It was not a covert plot. It was a legitimate amendment.

I can't speak to other situations. In this situation, I can promise you that despite a dirty trick by traditionalists the moderates and progressives should have been trusted.


2. We risk becoming more Southern Baptist than the Southern Baptists.
In a column that was completely devoid of sympathy for those who were hurt, John Lomperis said, "The defeat of Amendment #1 would seem to indicate that this movement has crested, and is now mercifully fading within the United Methodist Church. Thanks be to God!"

It's interesting that Lomperis and others want us to move away from inclusive language while the Southern Baptist Church, widely seen as the most conservative Protestant denomination, actually expanded the use of inclusive language last year.

Those who know me from seminary can tell you that I was not a fan of inclusive language. I'm still not a fan of political correctness simply for the sake of political correctness. To the dismay of some in the congregation I serve, when we use the Communion liturgy we end with "all glory is yours Almighty Father" instead of "Almighty God" because the Great Thanksgiving is a prayer in the Trinitarian form and at that moment we are addressing the first person of the Trinity. To be clear, our understanding of the Trinity was never in doubt. It is enshrined in the Articles of Religion, which cannot be changed. 

There is an argument from traditionalists that we are on a slippery slope towards all kinds of heresy. Using that same argument, the slope may have reversed. Another flashback to General Conference 2016. A lay leader of a U.S. annual conference told me point blank that 90% of churches in his conference would not take a woman as a pastor. That conference voted more than 2 to 1 against both of the failed amendments. 

I'm not a gambler (gambling is a menace to society according to the Social Principles), but if I were I would bet the house that if the UMC splits into  liberal and conservative groups the conservative wing's version of General Conference will consider the question of women's ordination in the next 16 years. I'm not saying it will pass, but it won't be laughed off the table. Evidence? Barna says that 39% of evangelicals in the U.S. reject the idea that women should be pastors. Barna's definition of evangelical is entirely consistent with United Methodists' traditionalist wing and at odds with many progressives. A split denomination gives extremists at both ends a greater percent of membership and vote. 



3. We really have become a reflection of our culture

Just not in the way that some assert. It's not that we are a reflection of culture because we have caved to cultural norms for sexuality. In fact, we haven't. 

Here's how we have come to reflect culture. We do not trust each other, much less our institutions. We resort to dirty tricks to win instead of ethical processes. We insist that our way must be correct and refuse to compromise. We have resorted to calling each other names instead of engaging in real conversation. Many have chosen to take an "ends justify the means" approach that is clearly not biblical. The soul of our church is dying. And it has nothing to do with sexual orientation or gender identity. Jesus said we have one job - Love God and Love our neighbor as ourselves. We've forgotten our job. We've forgotten that love is a verb - it means taking loving actions. In that sense, maybe we all have become heretics. Maybe we've all quit following Christ as closely as we ought to.

1 Corinthians and the Right to Bear Arms

1 Corinthians 8 is one of my favorite Bible passages that nobody knows.

Here's a quick summary: Some Corinthian Christians, following Jewish custom and law, refused to eat meat sacrificed to idols and believed that it was wrong for anybody who believed in the Judeo-Christian God to do so. Others, following Gentile customs and believing Paul was correct that Jewish law was (generally) non-binding on Christians had no problem eating the meat. So who  was right?

Paul's answer, in essence, was that both were right. He reminded the Corinthians that idols represented false gods - fake gods - and so there really was no difference between meat offered to an idol and meat fresh from the market. So the Gentile approach was right. But he also acknowledged that, in modern terms, perception is reality. He said that eating meat offered to an idol really could affect someone's faith. If you believe that eating the meat is wrong and I as a respected Christian do it anyway then your faith could be affected negatively.

Then he says this (in the Common English Bible):

12 You sin against Christ if you sin against your brothers and sisters and hurt their weak consciences this way. 13 This is why, if food causes the downfall of my brother or sister, I won’t eat meat ever again, or else I may cause my brother or sister to fall."

Uh-oh. Paul pulled a fast one. He told us we could eat whatever we wanted, but then he said we have some responsibility for our sisters and brothers. This is, by the way, why I generally don't drink alcohol in social settings. I have nothing against alcohol but as far as taste and effect goes I could take it or leave it. If I don't drink then somebody who has a problem with alcohol might feel less pressure to go along with the crowd.

But back to Paul. What Paul is doing is reminding us that we have individual rights AND we have communal responsibilities. From a Christian standpoint, the question "What are my rights?" is not the best starting point. The best starting point is, "In this situation, how do I best love God and neighbor?" So Paul might say, "I love meat, but I love my siblings in faith more. If the best way to love them is to refraining from eating meat then that's what I'll do."

I'm not a Constitutional scholar. I don't understand how the state right to a militia in the 2nd Amendment became an individual's unfettered right to bear arms, but apparently it does. I do have great respect for the Constitution. But I'm a Christian. I don't worship it. I worship Jesus. 

It may be that the guns laid down at the altar of the Constitution should stay there not because we don't have a right to pick them back up, but because of the love we have for our sisters and brothers, our children. Love God. Love Neighbor. The rest is secondary.

The Illusion of Peace

"Can we all just get along?" Rodney King asked us the question as a nation after being beaten in 1991. The answer to the question, of course, is no. We can't.

I'm always a little amused when I hear people clamor for the Church to be more like the New Testament church. It's a little like hearkening back to "the good old days." As Billy Joel reminds us, "the good old days weren't always good and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems." I long for the early church of Acts 2 when "The y broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts." But that is the same church that only four chapters later had a major fight between those that spoke Greek and those that spoke Hebrew or Aramaic.

Christianity is meant to be a movement, and movements are messy. 

We should not expect the Church to be entirely at peace. We should expect the Church to grow, and as the Church grows we should expect to have moments of conflict. That's just how movements, and how people in general, work.

Within my denomination, The United Methodist Church, we're in the midst of a good old-fashioned church fight. We have at least two factions that are fighting and, much like Greek speakers and Hebrew speakers, it is often as if we are speaking different languages. We hope that the fight can end so that we can get back to the mission of the Church, making disciples of Jesus Christ. I certainly hope we can come to some kind of resolution. But if and when that time comes, we would be foolish to believe that a United Methodist Church or two Divided Methodist Churches created from a split will be conflict-free. We'll be free from conflict for maybe a day or two and then we will find something else to argue about. That's what the Church has always done. But I'd like to remind you about the prelude and postlude to that first church fight in Acts 6. Acts 6:1 starts "In those days when the number of disciples was increasing..." and 6:7 finishes with "...The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly..." Growth happened before and after. Conflict happened either despite or because of the growth and the conflict that happened didn't stop the growth.

If we define peace as the absence of conflict, we will never truly have a long-standing peace. If, instead, we define peace as an inner quality, an attitude with which we personally approach God and one another (Colossians 3:12-15) then even when we have conflict our hearts and souls will still be at peace. If we maintain a heart of peace, then even our arguments will happen with a different kind of heart.

World peace? It's an illusion until Christ returns. Personal peace? It's a reality for those who live in the Kingdom.