A New Call to Grace

 In December, 2019 a group of prominent United Methodists took an important step forward in helping us resolve our longstanding frustrations by drafting the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. My personal position on it remains unchanged since that time - it is very flawed but still, in conjunction with the Christmas Covenant, it is the best bad option we have. If General Conference happens in 2022 and if the Protocol is not amended I will vote for it. The likely alternative is lawsuits that would cost tens of millions of dollars and a horrible witness to the public.

BUT

Covid continues to make holding an international gathering unlikely. As I've previously written, a virtual or "distributed" General Conference is not allowed by our admittedly outdated rules. If General Conference does meet, there is no guarantee that the Protocol will pass. My guess is if we voted today it would pass, but it does not have quite the support in the U.S. that it once had. Also, as I clearly stated above, my vote is contingent on there being no amendments and passage of the Christmas Covenant. Even one amendment throws the balance the Protocol achieved out of whack and will almost certainly make passage of the full set of petitions more difficult. 

So what if we get to the fall of 2022 and one of these two scenarios plays out? There is no Plan B. The Global Methodist Church has assured us that they will being leaving the denomination in the fall of 2022 regardless of what happens at General Conference. But without an organized way of exiting the denomination the worst-case scenario of lawsuits seems inevitable. We already have one in the North Georgia Conference. There's the additional possibility that the GMC will fail to launch - Wespath has latitude in determining whether or not it is a viable denomination.

We need a Plan B. We can't afford not to have one. The Call to Grace statement released yesterday is, in my view, a good plan B. In the hours before it was publicly released, more than 100 prominent United Methodists signed on to the statement. At this writing, close to 1,000 have signed on including people from every jurisdiction in the U.S. and every continent with United Methodists. 

The Call is very simple: Let churches leave now, using language that is already provided for in the Book of Discipline. In fact, they can use the very same language that traditionalists passed in 2019 while calling it "the way [we] would want to be treated if [we] were leaving." When I spoke in support of the petition in the closing moments of General Conference 2019 I said, "It's your exit plan. You're welcome to take it." I believe bishops and conferences can creatively work with traditionalist churches and pastors to make it even a little easier to leave. 

The only part of this Plan B that is awkward is the timing. Normally you take the second option only after the first option is no longer viable. The problem we face is that the risks are too high. The nightmare scenario of lawsuits is too likely. We have proven over the last 50 years that we are unable to pass legislation at General Conference that will end this conflict. It would be far better for us to split as amicably as possible and as soon as possible than to risk the disaster that will come this fall. It's time for a different plan. It's time for a new call to Grace. I hope you'll consider signing on.

Why I'll #BeUMC Part 6 - The Quadrilateral

 I'm going to do a series of posts later on what I've discovered by reading through the breakaway group's Transitional Doctrine and Discipline. There are, I think, several items that you may have missed. One that did not surprise me - there is no mention of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Why? Bad bathwater. It's been misused and misunderstood from time to time. But it's a beautiful baby that needs to be preserved. Throw out the bathwater, but keep the baby.

Reason #6 I'll still #BeUMC - The Wesleyan Quadrilateral remains an important way to understand and ultimately to put our faith in action.

Many traditionalists have argued that our fracture today is not really about human sexuality, but about the authority of Scripture. This is not the case. Yes, there are a handful of United Methodists on the far left that will deny the authority of Scripture, just as there are a handful on the far right who have made the Bible a god. Traditionalist leadership continues to exploit this small minority to make it sound like, as Rob Renfroe said recently, "People who have any kind of orthodox faith will not be able to remain in the post-separation UMC." 

The Quadrilateral Is not a Square

In short, the Quadrilateral is the concept that Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience (or Christian Experience) are all factors in how we make our faith decisions. You might see this graphically as a square. Some people will then say that, as in a square, all sides are equal and each of these four factors should be equally considered. But quadrilaterals aren't always squares. 

The Quadrilateral is best understood with Scripture as the base, interpreted through the lenses of reason, tradition, and experience. So, for example, we would never say, "The Bible says women shouldn't preach but tradition, reason, and experience outvote it three-to-one." Instead, we might say, "The Bible says women shouldn't preach. Experience and tradition suggest we should take a closer look than just the surface. Reason helps us see what the context was in that moment and, when looking at other passages, we come to a new interpretation of scripture that allows us to discern God wants women to preach."

Scripture is primary. It is authoritative. And we also use God-given resources to understand what Scripture says. This should not be controversial. In fact, at a join conference for churches over 400 in average attendance and pastors under age 40, when asked, "What do I value most about the UMC?" the third most common response was, "Theology shaped by Scripture interpreted with the aid of tradition, experience, and reason." It rated even above, "A wide welcome for all people." But, on the altar of doctrinal purity, the breakaway group has entirely removed the Quadrilateral. Instead of removing this helpful metaphor from use, we should reaffirm it and help people use it appropriately.

I want to be part of a church that lets people think. I don't want to be part of a church that frowns on, if not outright bans, people from using God's gifts of reason, tradition, and experience.

P.S. At that same conference mentioned above, a conference intentionally geared towards those who plan to remain or are open to remaining in the UMC, 94% of those present identified as "compatibilist," meaning that they are willing to be in a denomination with people who disagree about human sexuality. No pastor will be forced to marry people they don't want to marry. That's part of the definition of "compatible."

Why I'll Still #BeUMC Part 5 - Scripture

 The Wesleyan Covenant Association, which is the backbone for the group leaving the UMC next year, formed five years ago. Remember this is the group that allegedly is much more serious about Scripture than progressives and centrists. The group formed with a big splash - website, articles, speeches, and a fatally flawed statement on...scripture.

Here was the original statement:

“The Bible itself is the sole and final source of all that we believe. It is the inspired and infallible Word of God that speaks with final authority concerning truth, morality, and the proper conduct of humanity.” 

It was scrubbed from the website in a matter of days and replaced with a different, much better statement. You can read my take on the change here. Neither the original or revised statement appears in the current draft of their new Discipline, but I maintain that the first version is the truest version - the Freudian Slip of the WCA that tells us what they believe. And it's not Methodist.

Reason #3 to #BeUMC - a Methodist understanding of Scripture

The original statement is fundamentalism. It is not what we have historically believed. It does, though, give an important clue to what the group leaving us actually believes. 

David Watson, who is heavily involved with the WCA and others, has a great article on what we actually believe that I encourage you to read. In a nutshell, our current statements on Scripture are sufficient. I absolutely love the former EUB statement: 

We believe the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice. Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith nor is it to be taught as essential to salvation.

Among the key differences, our current statement

- Limits Scripture to what its actual purpose is - revelation of God for our salvation, not for example, for science or history
- Identifies Jesus as the Word of God, so that we don't commit bibliolatry. 
- Notes the role of the Holy Spirit in understanding
- Allow for differences in theology 

If the issue at hand is that progressives and centrists don't believe in Scripture appropriately, why not simply say, "We believe and will practice what Methodists have traditionally believed and practiced regarding Scripture, as contained in our Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith."? 

Only time will tell how the breakaway group ultimately treats Scripture. In the meantime, I'm grateful to be in a denomination that has a nuanced, faithful, and historically Methodist view of Scripture.

Why I'll Still #BeUMC #4 - The Big Tent Still Matters

 We all know why we are here. 

We have argued about abortion, government provided health care, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, the trust clause, the mission and purpose of the Church, environmentalism, I could literally go on all day. Every social issue and nearly every theological issue have been raised at General Conference and certainly in congregations around the world. And yet, organizationally, the story of the Methodist movement over the last 50+ years has been about uniting denominations, not dividing. 

Traditionalists will say this division is about the authority of scripture. They are wrong at best and lying at worst. We have disagreed about the interpretation of scripture for decades, too. None of these issues or conversations have caused a split. The split is simply because of one thing: LGBT+ people want to be fully accepted.* Maybe that's enough of a reason for the split, but we should at least be honest about it. 

Having said that, the group that is now leaving the denomination will differ from the UMC in a lot of ways besides just their exclusion. As evidence, you need go no further than ❡101 of the current draft of their Book of Doctrines and Discipline with the use of the word canon. There is a parenthetical - "the Greek word kanon means rule." It is true. It is also entirely unnecessary for the points being made in this section of the document. But the inclusion of this ancient definition is important - this group is focused on rules. It's not that rules are unimportant. Rules matter. One can think of the old metaphor of a tent - every tent has stakes that hold down the edges of the tent. If you go outside of the edges of the tent then you are no longer in the tent. 

Reason #4 I'll still #BeUMC - the Big Tent still matters.

I don't love the language, but the metaphor still works. The new denomination's tentative Discipline is heavy on just that - discipline. Everyone is welcome, as long as you think like us. That's not a denomination I want to be part of.

The church I serve now is a beautiful shade of purple. We can disagree on any number of topics and still worship together on Sundays. When I was on the Board of Ordained Ministry, I regularly voted for commissioning or ordination of candidates who were more conservative and more liberal than me theologically. Their theology was different than mine, but it was still Methodist. We do not all need to think alike. In fact, we are healthier when we have a degree of diversity. 

The Tent is not all-encompassing. There will be limits - again, on both sides of the theological spectrum. The tent may end up a little bigger or a litter smaller than I would personally prefer. But, at the end of the day, I don't want to be part of an intentionally Small Tent denomination that is defined by who they choose to exclude. I would much rather be part of a Big Tent defined by who we include. I don't want to be in a church defined by "Rule." I want to be part of a church defined primarily by Grace.

*I haven't finished reading the full text of the transitional Book of Doctrines and Disciplines. My favorite part so far is the paragraph on inclusiveness. First, note that we aren't splitting because inclusiveness is a priority either. They use the word! And they use it broadly! It's a good paragraph - except they don't mean really mean it. "Therefore, inclusiveness denies every semblance of discrimination on the basis of...[large list], or gender (defined throughout...by a person's immutable biological traits identified by or before birth.)" Literally, we won't discriminate against you unless you are LGBT+. Similarly, "Inclusiveness means the freedom for the total involvement of all persons who meet the requirements of our Book of Doctrines and Discipline in the membership and leadership of the Church at any level and in every place." Taken literally, this means people who are LGBT+ are not only banned from ordination, but from membership and leadership. That's an interesting definition of inclusion.

Why I'll Still #BeUMC part 3 - Spirit vs. Letter

I remember when I first read the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. The principles articulated were spot on. Progressives, Centrists, and Traditionalists would all receive something less than they hoped for but more than they feared. That makes for a good compromise. It felt like leaders were actually able to make progress despite our lack of trust and our theological differences. 

Then the legislation came. Then the disconnect.

Regionalization, such as the Christmas Covenant, is an integral part of the Protocol principles. You can still read it at the link above. Because of technicalities, that was not put into the legislation that was proposed. I still support the Protocol, including its legislation, as the least bad choice we have. But conversations over the last several months have reminded me again and again of one reason I could never join the new denomination and must stay United Methodist

Reason #3 - The Spirit of the law is more important than the Letter of the law.

Protocol

Without getting into the weeds, the Protocol alone does very little for centrists like me and for progressives. It suggests an abeyance on charges (which is significant but which some bishops are choosing to ignore). Long term, what really matters to us is regionalization like the Christmas Covenant. The principles of the Protocol assume this will happen but the legislation omits this. There is an easy solution. In the spirit of the Protocol principles, either 1) debate and pass both the Protocol and Covenant at the same time or 2) Pass the Protocol first with the understanding that traditionalist delegates would either leave the general conference floor or abstain from voting if they cannot in good conscience support the Covenant. With a spirit of cooperation and helping each group do what they need to do we could get that done.

I can't recall hearing a single traditionalist endorse what I just described. Instead, over the last year I've heard only excuses for why this isn't workable. The letter of the law is that a delegate should stay and vote as they were elected to do. The spirit of the law is that a delegate would allow an alternate, who also was elected, to vote instead so that we can all move forward. 

I can honestly say that in all the conversations that I've had with progressive and centrist leadership since 2019 there has been no talk of how we can "get" or "take advantage" of traditionalists. There are many who, if general conference happens, would like the Covenant to be passed  before the Protocol because traditionalists have not demonstrated good faith in allowing the Covenant to pass. None of those people have said they would support the Covenant and then actively try to prevent the Protocol passing for the traditionalists. In other words, progressive and centrist leadership is still trying to abide by the Spirit of the law.

Scripture

I would argue that this is one of our fundamental differences in interpretation of Scripture. This is why a traditionalist might quote Romans 1:26-27 to point out homosexuality as a sin without continuing on to Romans 2:1, "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." The letter of the law in Romans 1 names more than 30 ways in which people sin, including what is sometimes translated as homosexuality. But the spirit, the whole point of the passage, comes in Romans 2 that we are not to condemn.

In Galatians 3:28, Paul says, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." The letter of the law limits our equality to those three factors; nationality/ethnicity, status as free or slave, and gender. The letter of the law allows division on any other basis. The Spirit of the law recognizes that the point of the passage is to tear down the divisions that Paul's readers have experienced or even perpetuated. Paul was not writing down an exhaustive list of divisions, he was demonstrating a principle.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." He then promptly contradicts the letter of the law with his, "You've heard it said...but I say to you..." sayings. How can he do this? Because Jesus also taught that the law is ultimately fulfilled in the Great Commandment to love God fully and to love our neighbor as ourselves. That's the spirit of the law. Love. 

I want to be part of a church that strives to follow the Spirit of the law, whether we're talking about church politics or Holy Scripture. 

Why I'll Still #BeUMC Part 2 - Connection

This one is very personal for me right now. My mom is dying. She has untreatable cancer. She and my dad are United Methodists at another church. In the midst of this very difficult stage of life for them and for me we are learning once again to count our blessings. Here's one of them:

#2 - the UMC Connection really matters

I know my parents' pastor. I know a lot of other United Methodist pastors better, but still I know him. I know that I can trust him with my mom's spiritual care so that I can be her son right now and not her pastor. In talking with my parents, I know that their pastor is doing a wonderful job. I don't know all the ins and outs of his theology. Their church tends to be more conservative than the one I serve now and much more than the one I served previously. I'm sure he and I have some differences. But I know that I can trust him as a United Methodist pastor to provide sound care and guidance.

Over the past year the church I serve now has provided pastoral care for a United Methodist who was hospitalized a long distance from their home community, had a pastor from another UMC lead a wedding in our sanctuary, and another pastor help with a funeral. In every case, while we all would have differences on any number of topics, we knew that we shared a common grounding and a common ministry and could trust each other. I've definitely been to some weddings and funerals led by people of other traditions that have made me squirm in my seat and, in one case, almost walk out. I don't have to worry about whether what the pastor says or how the pastor cares is appropriate. 

Do we have important differences in opinion? Of course. We need to not minimize that. But one reason I will always be UMC is because we will continue to celebrate a truly connectional system that has important ramifications for our real-world ministry. 

Why I'll Still #BeUMC, Part 1 - Disaster Response

 I'm starting a long series of posts today on why, when the dust all settles from our current turmoil, I will still be a United Methodist. I think about all the times someone more traditional has said to me, "If you don't agree with the denomination's position on inclusion then why don't you just leave?" My answer has always been that there is so much good and there is so much I do agree with. The other church that is now forming is focused on one issue. Don't get me wrong - inclusion is a critically important concern. There are many other concerns, too, that need our attention. And the UMC either is or can address those also. So here we go.

#1: I'll still BeUMC because of our collective response to disasters.

We can do so much more when we are united together. Even if the most pessimistic predictions come true (and they won't), the United Methodist Church will still be the second largest protestant denomination in the United States. That presence is bolstered by the millions of additional members across the world. Together, as millions of people united in our mission we will continue to change the world in crucial ways. Within the U.S., we're doing it right now in relief from Hurricane Ida. Efforts will ramp up soon worldwide to help with Covid-19 vaccination. The United Methodist Church saves lives and changes lives because we are willing to work with each other even when we have theological differences of opinion. 

We are stronger together, we are better together, and we are more effective together. I want to be part of a church that recognizes how important it is to continue to respond to disasters and that has the size and power to really make a difference.

GC 2022 - Hard Truth

 I know others are thinking it. I'll be the first to say it out loud.

General Conference 2022 isn't going to happen. 

It should happen. We need it to happen. The Protocol is still the least bad of all our bad options, only a General Conference can enact it, and we can't wait until 2024. But it's not going to happen.

General Conference Can't Meet in Person

Whether in-person or online, General Conference must be a global gathering. Although technically we could reach a quorum with only U.S. participation, I'm sure we will agree across all lines that divide us that United Methodists from across the world must be represented.

Covid-19 will continue to make that impossible. 

The Biden administration plans to require vaccinations for those travelling to the U.S and the rate of vaccinations are impossibly low in many countries where we have members. As just one example, the Democratic Republic of Congo has vaccinated less than one percent of its population so far. Getting a visa to travel to the U.S. from many countries takes months in the best of times. With Covid still causing problems, the process will be much harder.

I'm not suggesting it's time to cancel plans for 2022. I am suggesting that we need to be realistic that the odds are low.

General Conference Can't Meet Online

The obvious alternative is an online meeting. At least that's the obvious alternative to those of us surrounded by high-speed internet. The Council of Bishops planned on trying it in May and then cancelled their own called session. I don't have any inside information on why they made that decision, but it could have been for any or all of these three reasons that an online conference is impossible.

First, the outcome can't be trusted. Our trust deficit may be the single biggest obstacle we have in the denomination. Rob Renfroe and others have suggested we can have regional gatherings in areas where internet is more reliable. In 2019 I watched a traditionalist leader look over a table of delegates just before a key vote. At another point in time we had to be reminded from the platform that our votes could not be tracked back to us individually even though our names were on our voting devices. Was the person I saw monitoring  votes? Were people spreading rumors about votes getting back to their bishops? I don't know. But the fact that I'm asking the questions is evidence of the trust gap. If the 2019 General Conference had been held online and the vote ended up roughly as close as it was tell me who on the losing side of the vote would trust that there was no foul play? Online Annual Conferences have had some success over the last year. This is because, compared to General Conference, the stakes are lower and the trust is higher. This will not be duplicated at a 2022 online General Conference.

Second, it is impossible for an online General Conference to be fair. Remember that we are scheduled for a regular General Conference. That means more than 1,000 pieces of legislation, all that must be dealt with. Even if we had a special session to just deal with the Protocol (and the Christmas Covenant, which must not be separated from the Protocol) how could we possibly give equal voice to people across the globe, awake at all hours of the night in their local time zone, trying to speak their mind, with translation problems always an issue. Personally, I support the Protocol as it is written because once we start making changes the critical balance will be lost and it will become more unlikely to pass. My opinion does not take away the right of others to suggest changes. The process cannot help but be unfair and limiting if we are meeting online.

Third, and very practically, it's simply not allowed. The special session the bishops called for May had, essentially, one agenda item - pass a new set of rules that would let us meet online. Let me say that again. The plan was to have an online session so that we could pass rules allowing us to have an online session. We may very well need those rules. In order to adopt them, we need a regular session. Unfortunately, our system as it is right now does not allow for a session of General Conference to meet virtually. Our Standing Rules are in place until new rules are adopted, and our Standing Rules do not allow for a virtual session. We're stuck with it. If we have a virtual session in 2022, some group of people will lose a vote. They will appeal to the Judicial Council. Judicial Council will, without question, rule that the session met illegally and all votes will be thrown out. You think we have chaos now? |Just wait!

So What Now?

The ball is in the court of traditionalists. Honestly, if it were me, I'd probably try to wait it out. Miracles do happen. Maybe GC2022 is one of those miracles. But I would also consider pulling the trigger now with an organized departure. The GMC is ready. We passed a plan in 2019 that traditionalists labeled "a gracious exit" and "the way we would want to be treated." It may be time to take it. What is gained with one more year of waiting when the result is almost a forgone conclusion? Additionally, I hear day by day more people from across the globe who are more skeptical of the Protocol. Again, I'm in favor of it. But, realistically, its chances of passage grow less with each passing day. We're stuck. Traditionalists will decide when we get unstuck.

Sentimentalism and Scripture

 “Infinitely more harm is caused by spineless and sentimental church leaders who misrepresent the truth because they like being liked by people more than they like people loving Jesus,” 

- Rev. Eric Huffman at the WCA Global Gathering

Huffman has tried to walk this statement back some in social media forums, but his whole speech and a recent article in Good News lead to the same conclusion: Progressives don't value Scripture the way they ought to.

It's always a shame when we put a comprehensive label on any group. Using myself as an example, I am unabashedly progressive on LGBT+ inclusion. As a straight, cisgender, white man I acknowledge that I can't fathom what it is like to live any other way than I do. I can't comprehend being gay. My inability to comprehend another person's reality does not lessen that person's authentic witness to Christ's love or their gifts for ministry in all forms. It just means I am a limited, finite human being. I am an equally unabashed believer in the Trinity and specifically in Jesus of Nazareth as fully human and fully divine and that something salvific happened through his life, death, and bodily resurrection. I believe Article IV of the Confession of Faith in our Book of Discipline contains beautiful language describing my understanding of Scripture.

In short, to dispute a famous WCA trope, I can happily recite our doctrines (which, by the way, are silent on human sexuality) without crossing my fingers behind my back. Are there progressives who can't do that? Of course, in the same way that there are currently traditionalist pastors and churches who openly advocate against infant baptism (websites available upon request).

Now about that sentimentality...

In his speech and article, Huffman hinted at his own story of moving from a more progressive mindset to a traditionalist mindset, in great part through a conversion experience in the Holy Land. God bless you! I'm genuinely grateful for this experience. I presume his own experience includes a shift from being spineless and sentimental to salvation (note that in his speech, Huffman is emphatic that nobody is questioning the salvation of LGBT+ Christians. That is belied by 1) his own statement in the article that he was not saved when he believed in inclusion, 2) repeated references to progressive pastors by Good News and WCA leadership as "false teachers", which, if you take the Bible literally, condemns us to hell, and 3) my memory from General Conference 12 years ago when somebody said on the floor, "Why are we talking about this when they are going to hell anyway?") Huffman's experience is his own. It is not the experience of all.

The current version of the Global Methodist Church's Book of Discipline and Doctrine makes no reference to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. This is no surprise since it has been despised for decades as a device for putting tradition, reason, and experience on the same level as Scripture. I get that. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Quad is not supposed to be a square. Scripture is primary. I prefer to think of reason, tradition, and experience as three lenses through which we view Scripture. "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" has never worked. We must all look through at least one lens. 

So here is the super short version of how a guy who, frankly, is not overly sentimental came to change his mind on the "compatibility" of LGBT+ people and Christianity. Previously, as I looked at the Bible through our tradition and reason, the message seemed clear. To use the archaic language of the UMC, "the practice of homosexuality" was wrong. And if you had an "inclination" towards same sex attraction then you needed to control it, just like if you had an innate desire to steal you needed to control it. Then I met people who were gay. Or, more accurately, I met people who were willing to tell me they were gay. I listened to them and I looked at their lives, including the fruit they bore. Yes, I used experience. But that's not the end of the story. I never said, "well, I guess since they aren't hurting anybody whatever feels good must be OK." This is the stereotype that I hear, and it is not what I or the people who I know best have done. Experience is only the start of a dialogue with the Bible.

The internal conversation that now began for me was, "When I read the Bible with tradition, the answer seems clear. When I throw in reason, the answer is not quite so clear, but I, we, can't simply throw out centuries of tradition and a plain reading of the Bible because of what I'm hearing from a handful of people. The Bible says what it says." Some well-meaning people end the conversation here and stay traditional. I did for awhile, too. I think that is a mistake. Like Jacob wrestling with God, if we are really going to take Scripture seriously we have to wrestle with it. So I did. I read authors and books that I would not have touched before. I learned some new Greek and Hebrew. My question changed into this: "Is it possible for me to read the Bible in a way that opens the door for inclusion without compromising the integrity of the Bible?" Or to turn Huffman's words around, "Is it possible that the best representation of God's truth comes from reading Scripture in light of sentimentality (emotion, experience, compassion)?"

When I added the lens of experience to my reading of the Bible, words and ideas that didn't make sense took on new meaning. It did not reduce my appreciation for Scripture - it enhanced my appreciation. This is what reason and tradition do, also. Our understanding is deepened, not lessened, by bringing these lenses to it. 

I'm going to say it one more time, plainly, so that there is no misunderstanding. Scripture is our primary and authoritative source for understanding God's self-revelation through Jesus Christ. Our debate in the denomination is not about the authority of Scripture. When people choose to go to the GMC or stay in the UMC they will not be choosing whether or not to be in a "Bible believing" denomination. Our debate is about the interpretation of Scripture - the lenses through which we read Scripture. It would be best if Huffman and others would refrain from telling me why I believe what I believe. Our rhetoric is not helpful. 

Less than Zero

 In a recent  important column, Rev. Chris Ritter of the Wesleyan Covenant Association wrote that the UMC and soon to form GMC are engaged in "a zero-sum game" in North Georgia and by  implication much of the U.S. He's wrong. Not because the stakes aren't high, but because they are even higher than his statement acknowledges. 

I'm typing with a broken hand so I'm not going to go through all the backstory. Instead I commend both Chris's compilation and Rev. Jeremy Smith's commentary if you need more information on what the denomination faces. I'll list only the most crucial recent developments:

• The 2020 General Conference that was to vote on a plan of separation was delayed until 2021. A handful of churches chose not to wait and have exited the denomination. 
• The postponed 2021 General Conference was postponed again to Fall 2022. More churches, mostly traditionalist but now also some progressive have or are in the process of exiting.
• Even a 2022 General Conference is in doubt because in our world of scarcity and inequity much of Africa will not be vaccinated in time to receive visas to travel to the U.S. 
• Rumor from multiple sources is that if the 2022 General Conference is postponed again the bishops will not call us together until 2024.
• There is increasing concern that the separation agreement may not have the votes to pass when it does finally get to the floor. For the record, I remain a supporter of the agreement, even with its flaws.

Ritter is wrong that this is a zero-sum game. It's less than zero. If we have wait three more years for resolution, if churches and pastors even believe there is a strong possibility that we will have wait three years, the stream of traditionalist churches and the trickle of progressive churches leave will accelerate quickly. The GMC has the most to lose because there potential churches are leaving faster but it would be foolish for progressives or centrists to celebrate this - we will lose too. Just not as much.

So here's where in a rare moment I agree wholeheartedly with Chris. Our bishops, likely along with Wespath and possibly GCFA, must work on finding a creative way to utilize paragraph 1504.23 as amended in 2019 to facilitate official formation of the GMC and allow traditionalist congregations to exit. 

This really should never be about winners and losers. But if it is, the very real risk is that we are all about to lose. God has entrusted us with building the Kingdom/Kindom. When we lose, the work we are called to loses as well. 

The Elusive Promise of the Global Methodist Church

 "I just want the fight to stop."

How true. Don't we all want to be part of a church that doesn't fight? It is one of the major impetuses for the formation of the Global Methodist Church (GMC). We have fought about human sexuality long enough. Let's move on so that the fight can stop and we can all go about making disciples. 

Unfortunately, the church that doesn't fight doesn't exist. It never has. 

I sometimes hear people longing for that original church to come back - you know, the church of Acts that was caught up by the Spirit and was making thousands of converts a day. The Church of Acts 2.The problem is the Church of Acts 2 is the same Church that we find in Acts 6 when we have the first church fight. The Church will never be void of conflict as long as imperfect humans are part of it.

The GMC  has offered a denomination of doctrinal peace. It will not stay that way for long. 

Women in Ministry

At the 2016 General Conference, the lay leader of a conservative annual conference in the U.S. told me unapologetically, "90% of our churches won't take a woman pastor." Based on their 2020 Journal, only about 85% of clergy in that conference are men - remarkably consistent with the lay leader's statement. Conversations with women both currently in and who have left the conference anecdotally confirm this. I'm aware of a church in a different conference that left the denomination in 2020 instead of receiving a woman as pastor.

I believe the leadership of the GMC when they say they intend for women to remain in ministry. I also believe in the law of unintended consequences. In the past, I've compared the traditionalist movement in the United Methodist Church with the Anglican Church of North America. That denomination did not begin with the intent of not allowing women to be ordained, but they do now allow their equivalent of our conferences to make that decision on their own. 

This is not a prediction that the GMC will at some point change their doctrine to disallow clergywomen or to make their ordination optional. It is a prediction that there will be a conversation and likely at some point a vote. The denomination will not have doctrinal peace.

This shouldn't surprise us when we look back at Acts 6. The first church fight was about othering. Greek speakers believed they were being treated unfairly. We still do it today. We just choose different categories of people. Who will the GMC choose?

Baptism

It's an open secret that some United Methodist churches and pastors practice rebaptism and/or adult only (or adult preferred) baptism. It's hard to get to something more fundamental in our faith than our understanding of baptism, yet the discrepancies are real. A few years ago a parishioner asked me why their grandchild was rebaptized at confirmation. I said they couldn't have been. She said every teen confirmed at that church was baptized as part of the liturgy regardless of whether they had been baptized previously. This was backed up by the parents. 

Don't believe me? Here's a direct quote from a United Methodist Church's website regarding baptism that I accessed today.  

"Do you baptize children?
As parents, we can help point our children to Jesus, but they are the ones to decide if they will commit their lives to Him (Romans 10:9). At [Church], we baptize children when they are old enough to express their own decision to follow Jesus and understand the meaning of baptism."

I have other examples, too, but my point is not to chastise churches or their pastors. My point is simply that at a very fundamental level there will be significant doctrinal differences in the new GMC. Perhaps, as many of us tried to do with the One Church Plan two years ago, the GMC will "agree to disagree." That's fair. But it's not what the GMC is selling.

The Myth of Doctrinal Purity

There are plenty of other examples of doctrinal, social, and polity related disagreements. I just wanted to pick the two most obvious big ones so that you know what you're getting into if you choose to join. I won't pretend like the post-separation UMC that I'll be part of is going to be void of conflict.

Since at least the Great Schism in 1054 Christian churches dividing because of differences in belief has been part of our lived reality. It is not helpful for us to pretend that 2021 will be any different. The United Methodist Church will split. So be it. The Methodist Church split before over how we treat African-Americans. Now we'll split, from a historical perspective largely along the same geographic lines, over human sexuality. Then, as has always happened in the past, the new "pure" denomination will find something or someone else that needs further purification. 

As for me, I'm not going to be part of a perfected, pure denomination. I will rely on a perfect and pure Savior that allows people of all genders to preach and people of all ages to be baptized instead.

GC 2020... I mean 2022 Part 2: What's Good for the Goose

 The 2019 Special Session of General Conference was a nightmare. Doing my best Agatha Harkness impression from WandaVision, I need to take you back there to see one important moment to remember how we got here.

After the Traditional Plan passed there was one more petition that had to be dealt with. It was a petition with a minority report presented by Rev. Beth Ann Cook. The purpose of the petition was to provide a path for churches to leave the denomination if they disagree with the outcome of the 2019 General Conference. The petition created a new paragraph 2553 that allows churches to leave provided that they pay certain expenses. It is, to be sure, an expensive way to exit the denomination. But it works. And it's fair.

I know it's fair, because that's what Rev. Cook said in her presentation at the 11:20 mark. "The intended process is literally how I would want to be treated if I were the one hurting because of [the outcome]." Although as a supporter of the One Church Plan I believed that nobody needed to leave the denomination, we had finally reached a point where it was clear this was inevitable. So I spoke in favor. I said, "Traditionalists made the original exit plan, traditionalists made the minority report, traditionalists passed their plan; this is their exit."

Now back to 2021. 

What I said two years ago is still true.

Progressives and Centrists are not leaving. U.S. Traditionalists, please know that I and many others still want you to stay. I still believe that all people should be able to be part of this denomination. But if you have to leave you can - and you don't need the Protocol to do it. You passed your own exit plan. 

Traditionalists may say they can't leave under this provision because they don't disagree with the outcome of General Conference. However, the new paragraph also says a church may leave, "...because of the actions or inactions of its annual conference related to these issues..." Nearly every annual conference in the U.S. has at least one pastor who could be charged today and hasn't been, either because of their gender or sexual identity or because of a wedding they have officiated. No church that attempts to leave under this paragraph would be stopped.

As I've already written, nobody wants this separation dragged out. It would be better for everyone if the Protocol and Christmas Covenant could be voted on this year - and it would have been even better if they could have been voted on last year. But it's not reasonably possible, and they weren't voted on last year. We are where we are. So do what you need to do. After all, it's only what you asked of us.

The GC 2020, no 2021, no 2022, Mess Part 1: Best Bad Option

 By now you've likely heard the news that General Conference is delayed - again. 

Technically, that's not the case. There will be a one-day General Conference on May 8th. It is possible, but highly unlikely, that the Protocol will still come to a vote. To simplify complicated rules stuff, there's a better chance that nothing will be voted on than that the Protocol will be voted on. 2/3 of the delegates present would have to agree to vote on ANYTHING and then  a second 2/3 supermajority would have to agree to vote on the Protocol. My guess is that the bishop who presides will find a way to avoid having the protocol come up even if there is pressure to do so, and in a virtual format there won't be any practical recourse to a bishop strong-arming the process.

I don't think I've spoken with anyone who is happy with this development. We all some kind of split is coming and we all want to get it behind us so we can move forward. We are faced with choosing the least bad option. Holding off on the protocol for now is probably that least bad alternative for a few reasons:

1. If you've ever heard me preach, you've heard me say context matters. The Protocol was written in a pre-covid context. How does the pandemic change things? Honestly, I'm not sure. Maybe it doesn't. But we need to have conversation about that before perhaps the most critical vote in our denomination's history.
2. The integrity of the process is hopelessly compromised. The virtual General Conference will be attended by a fraction of the delegates and the paper ballot format for voting that is being recommended is easily tampered with. 
3. My concern about tampering dovetails with the third concern. Annual Conferences have met virtually with some limited success. But our Annual Conferences tend to involve lower stakes decisions with higher trust bodies. General Conference is the opposite - our trust is at a historic low and the stakes are at a historic high. Virtual won't work well in this context.
4. I'm not convinced that the May 8 meeting is even following our own rules. Remember, we are meeting to decide if we can change the rules of how we meet. But how can we meet to change those rules if the rules don't allow us to meet in this way? The answer is what one of my parishioners calls "Pandemic Grace." We all know this has to get done - so let's get it done and agree that we won't throw wrenches in the process during crazy moment. Pandemic Grace won't stand up in a court of law, though, and if we vote on something like the Protocol then I would fully expect someone who doesn't like the outcome of the vote to challenge it legally. That opens up the nightmare scenario we all hope to avoid.
5. The Protocol is most important to U.S. Traditionalists. The Christmas Covenant is most important to U.S. Centrists and Progressives. Delegates from other countries are split. The Protocol and Christmas Covenant really need to go together. It would make no sense for progressives and centrists to vote for the Protocol in a special session unless the Covenant is also going to be voted on. 

Again, this is not good new for anyone. The best option would have been for us to take covid more seriously so that some of the 2 million plus people worldwide would not have died. But this is where we are. In part 2, there is one way this mess could end before we get to 2022 - but don't hold your breath.