Yesterday I looked at two common ways that people interpret the Constitution. They are very different from each other, but in both cases they look at the Constitution as the primary source of authority for law in the United States. Debate on the 2nd Amendment is a good example of how the differences translate into policy.
Now let's look at the same two modes of interpretation - Strict Constructionalism and Living Constitution (or Loose Constructionalism) and apply them to the Bible.
Strict Constructionalism
In it's strictest form this is the "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!" bumper sticker. That's not an entirely fair way to describe what many people who follow this model actually believe. A fairer approach is this: The Bible is the Word of God. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is the only reliable guide for orthodoxy and orthopraxy. So while the Bible must be interpreted, we should use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and follow the plain meaning of the text whenever possible. Example: Physical intimacy between same sex partners is explicitly forbidden multiple times in the Bible. Even if isolated arguments can be made that some passages don't say what they seem to say (like Sodom and Gomorrah's sin was hospitality not sex) when we look at Scripture as a whole the condemnation is clear. The words mean what they say and the Bible means what it says.
Loose Constructionalism (another name for Living Constitution used yesterday)
Just as in the interpretation of the Constitution, the loose approach starts by acknowledging that the text has ultimate authority. I hear very few pro-LGBT indviduals talk about just throwing the Bible out because it doesn't say what we want it to say. The Bible is our starting point. But instead of starting with the specific words of the text, we start with the big picture. The Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it is also written by human hands. For example, when the Psalmist says, "Happy is...he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" the Psalmist is faithfully recording his own thoughts, not the heart of God. The Bible consists of Spirit-inspired words about God and God's people that point us to Christ, the Word of God (The Bible never actually calls itself the Word of God but in John it does refer to Christ as the Word). It is the most faithful witness that we have to who God is and so can be called God's Word even as we acknowledge it primarily points to something beyond itself. Example: The big picture that clearly comes through the Bible is that God is Love and we are to fully love God and each other. The Bible is the starting point for understanding what love means. Given what we know about humans through both reason and experience it is difficult to reconcile the apparent statements condemning homosexual practice with the life experiences of gay and lesbian partners. Because Scripture is authoritative we do not simply dismiss it. Instead, we read more carefully, search for the core message of what God is trying to communicate, consider the context in which various passages are written, and try to discover if reconciliation of reason and experience with Scripture can happen.
Which one is right?
What we need to notice is that if two people are talking to each other, one coming from each of these perspectives, they will mostly talk past each other. The first will say "This is what the Bible says!" and the second will say "But this is what the Bible means!" and they both may very well be right at the same time. Certainly they will not agree with each other. Just like two Supreme Court justices can look at the same Constitution and come to very different conclusions while agreeing that it is the basis for their decision, so too may two Christians look at the same Bible, or even a particular passage of the Bible, and come to very different conclusions while agreeing that the Bible is the basis for their decision.
Why does any of this matter?
For a number of reasons, many of which are articulated very well in Matthew Vine's new book God and the Gay Christian, I am persuaded that the traditional reading of Scripture as condemning the "practice" of homosexuality is not God's intent. I say that as someone who is equally persuaded that Scripture is our best, most authoritative, and most inspired witness to God. As a United Methodist, my understanding of Scripture is not at all in conflict with our Doctrinal Standards and General Rules. We do have a standard that the Bible "is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice." We do not have a standard about how Scripture functions as authoritative.
The real issue facing the United Methodist Church and many others is not sex, as the media would have us believe. It is not whether or not Scripture is authoritative as the "conservative" wing would have us believe. The real issue is whether or not the United Methodist Church is prepared to now demand uniformity in how we understand Scripture to be authoritative. I don't think we want to walk down that road. I want a Board of Ordained Ministry to ask a candidate "What is the significance of the creation story to you?" without the candidate fearing that believing in a 6-day creation or believing in evolution will automatically disqualify him or her from candidacy. I want to be able to preach on the woman at the well and know that in three more years I may have moved to another church and another pastor can preach that same story in the same pulpit from a different perspective and still be respected. I want to search, explore, and love Scripture without being told that we already know all the answers are - no more questions need to be asked. That's when we stop learning, and learning is a vital part of any relationship - especially our relationship with God. I don't want to be in that denomination. I want to be in this one, where there is space for the non-essentials and fidelity to the essentials. The way that we interpret Scripture is not one of the essentials. It never has been May it always be so.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
What We Mean by Authority Pt.1
"It's about the authority of Scripture!" silently yells one writer on a Facebook forum. "If only the people who don't believe Scripture is authoritative would leave the denomination then we could get back about the business of the Church!" There's only one problem (no, the problem is not that the speaker is a Fundamentalist. We have some in the UMC, I've talked with a few, but I think their numbers are very small). The problem is I haven't met the Christian who says the Bible is not authoritative. There are certainly many who would call Scripture an authority instead of the authority (ultimately I think we all do this, but that's a topic for another day), but we all believe in the authority of Scripture. What the speaker really should say, and perhaps the question that all of us in the United Methodist Church if not all of Christianity should be asking ourselves, "It's about how Scripture is authoritative!" That's something we could have a good Church fight about!
First, let me illustrate why it's about "how", not "if" Scripture is authoritative by analogy with the U.S. Constitution. Every Supreme Court Justice considers the Constitution to be authoritative. They have to - they are sworn to uphold it. But we have lots of 5-4 decisions. Why? Because Justices (and all of us, really) think of the Constitution in different ways. There are several different frameworks for interpreting the Constitution and lots of literature you can find online about each of them. To simplify, let's look at two:
Strict Constructionism
In a nutshell, "The Constitution says it, I believe it, that settles it." The text says what it says and unless an amendment is passed that changes the content of the Constitution the courts must enforce the letter of the law. This view tends to be upheld by more "conservative" justices although if we're honest probably most people will hold to it when it best suits their preferences. Example: The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. No law may be passed that abridges this right, period.
Living Constitution
The opposite of strict constructionism is the Living Constitution. This model says that while the principles of the Constitution remain sound, following the letter of the law can actually sometimes work against the overall purpose. What matters most aren't the words, but the concepts behind the words. As society changes, then, so to must the particular ways that we live out our Constitution. This view tends to be upheld by more "liberal" judges and is why we often hear of "liberal, activist judges legislating from the bench." Example: The authors of the Constitution never could have conceived of weapons that could fire dozens of rounds every minute. The 2nd Amendment is an important protection, but one that has to be understood in the context of muskets instead of machine guns. In the new context the rules must change.
Notice in both cases proponents appeal to the Constitution as their primary authority. They "believe in" the Constitution. But the way in which they appeal to it for authority is different. Tomorrow we'll flip the page and see what happens when we apply these principles of interpretation to Scripture.
First, let me illustrate why it's about "how", not "if" Scripture is authoritative by analogy with the U.S. Constitution. Every Supreme Court Justice considers the Constitution to be authoritative. They have to - they are sworn to uphold it. But we have lots of 5-4 decisions. Why? Because Justices (and all of us, really) think of the Constitution in different ways. There are several different frameworks for interpreting the Constitution and lots of literature you can find online about each of them. To simplify, let's look at two:
Strict Constructionism
In a nutshell, "The Constitution says it, I believe it, that settles it." The text says what it says and unless an amendment is passed that changes the content of the Constitution the courts must enforce the letter of the law. This view tends to be upheld by more "conservative" justices although if we're honest probably most people will hold to it when it best suits their preferences. Example: The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. No law may be passed that abridges this right, period.
Living Constitution
The opposite of strict constructionism is the Living Constitution. This model says that while the principles of the Constitution remain sound, following the letter of the law can actually sometimes work against the overall purpose. What matters most aren't the words, but the concepts behind the words. As society changes, then, so to must the particular ways that we live out our Constitution. This view tends to be upheld by more "liberal" judges and is why we often hear of "liberal, activist judges legislating from the bench." Example: The authors of the Constitution never could have conceived of weapons that could fire dozens of rounds every minute. The 2nd Amendment is an important protection, but one that has to be understood in the context of muskets instead of machine guns. In the new context the rules must change.
Notice in both cases proponents appeal to the Constitution as their primary authority. They "believe in" the Constitution. But the way in which they appeal to it for authority is different. Tomorrow we'll flip the page and see what happens when we apply these principles of interpretation to Scripture.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
What the UM debate is NOT about
The latest news on the United Methodist Church's future is that 'conservatives" are threatening "withholding funding from the church, advocacy with the Council of Bishops for greater enforcement of the Book of Discipline, and the possibility of creating a proposal for the division of the United Methodist Church into two denominations." Given the number of pastors who are now violating or threatening to violate the Book of Discipline I can't entirely blame them. But the reasoning is completely disingenuous.
The same article that reports the conversation among conservatives also quotes one, Charles Kyker, as saying, "We believe that the Bible is God’s word – inspired by the Holy Spirit in its entirety and authoritative for determining what is spiritually and morally true. Many progressives see the Scriptures very differently, so much so that they accept some parts as coming from God and dismiss other parts as being uninspired – even flat out wrong," Yet this is not what the argument is about at all..
If the Bible is not authoritative to progressives then why do we continue to quote it in support of a pro LGBT position?
If the Bible is not authoritative to progressives then why do we quote theologians who reflect on it?
If the Bible is not authoritative then why do progressive pastors still use Scripture in every worship service before preaching?
Of course the Bible is authoritative! And it is authoritative only because it is inspired by the Holy Spirit! If the issue was the authority of Scripture then the argument would be over holding to our Doctrinal Standards, specifically Article IV of The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church.
If the problem is really about the authority of Scripture then conservatives would be proposing resolutions that speak to the authority of Scripture. But that's not the problem.
The problem is that we disagree about what Scripture really intends to say. It's really that simple. But it is so much easier to simply dismiss progressives as saying that they don't believe in the Bible and conservatives as fundamentalists who don't use your brain.
We are engaging in a futile case of talking right past each other.
Article IV says, "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." If the conservative wing wants to hold all pastors to accountability for this passage I'm on board. Then we can talk about what God intends to reveal and establish about sexuality and, hopefully, agree that even if we disagree on what God is revealing we can agree that our opinion on sexuality is not essential to salvation.
The same article that reports the conversation among conservatives also quotes one, Charles Kyker, as saying, "We believe that the Bible is God’s word – inspired by the Holy Spirit in its entirety and authoritative for determining what is spiritually and morally true. Many progressives see the Scriptures very differently, so much so that they accept some parts as coming from God and dismiss other parts as being uninspired – even flat out wrong," Yet this is not what the argument is about at all..
If the Bible is not authoritative to progressives then why do we continue to quote it in support of a pro LGBT position?
If the Bible is not authoritative to progressives then why do we quote theologians who reflect on it?
If the Bible is not authoritative then why do progressive pastors still use Scripture in every worship service before preaching?
Of course the Bible is authoritative! And it is authoritative only because it is inspired by the Holy Spirit! If the issue was the authority of Scripture then the argument would be over holding to our Doctrinal Standards, specifically Article IV of The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church.
If the problem is really about the authority of Scripture then conservatives would be proposing resolutions that speak to the authority of Scripture. But that's not the problem.
The problem is that we disagree about what Scripture really intends to say. It's really that simple. But it is so much easier to simply dismiss progressives as saying that they don't believe in the Bible and conservatives as fundamentalists who don't use your brain.
We are engaging in a futile case of talking right past each other.
Article IV says, "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." If the conservative wing wants to hold all pastors to accountability for this passage I'm on board. Then we can talk about what God intends to reveal and establish about sexuality and, hopefully, agree that even if we disagree on what God is revealing we can agree that our opinion on sexuality is not essential to salvation.
Friday, February 7, 2014
Polio, Jim Collins and Racism in America
The November issue of Wired magazine ran a story on the effort to eradicate polio from the world. Long story short, an amazing amount of progress has been made over the last twenty-five years but finishing off polio like we did smallpox years ago will require an incredible an incredible amount of money and human resources. We're talking millions of dollars for every life saved. So there's a choice to make. Polio is not the problem that it once was. We've made incredible progress. Do we commit the resources to eliminate it entirely or do we settle for where we are now and focus on other killer diseases instead?
This is a real world example of the dilemma Jim Collins poses in his classic book Good to Great. Collins says, "Good is the enemy of Great." We settle for what is good enough instead of going all out for what is great. There are times when settling for good is, well, good enough. As a pastor, if I have a sermon prepared that is good but not great and a parishioner dies suddenly late in the week tending to the parishioner's needs may take high enough precedence that the sermon never becomes what it could have been. My time needs to be spent elsewhere. While it would be wonderful to wipe out polio, it is good to debate about the best use of our limited resources to fight disease. I have no idea what the best course of action is. What is important in this case is to understand that stopping at good would only be acceptable because the same resources are being used for a greater good, such as fighting malaria or another fatal disease.
Earlier today I was listening to a local radio program while driving. I heard this snippet:
Host to caller: The biggest problem with racism today is that we can't admit how much progress we've made.
Caller to host: I agree. I tell you what, put me with the blacks. I like watermelon and fried chicken.
You need to know that I did not hear the entire context of the program. I heard a couple previous callers and part of the next caller before I reached my destination. But as soon as the shock of what I just heard wore off my mind turned to Jim Collins and Good to Great. If we compare the United States of 2014 to the United States of the 1800's or 1960's it is undeniable that we have made great progress on racism. It is equally undeniable that we still are a country that has forms of structural racism and individuals that hold overt and covert racist beliefs. If you don't think you some of the covert racism in society has worn off on you you might try one of these tests. I'll admit that I was embarrassed at the results when I took the weapons test.
Racism is entrenched like polio. It is largely invisible until we look very closely (less than 1% of carriers of the polio virus display symptoms), but when we do look closely we see the disease is still with us. Wiping it out will take intentional, hard work. Compared to where we've been, we're doing pretty well. But "good" is not good enough. We can do better. We need to do better.
This is a real world example of the dilemma Jim Collins poses in his classic book Good to Great. Collins says, "Good is the enemy of Great." We settle for what is good enough instead of going all out for what is great. There are times when settling for good is, well, good enough. As a pastor, if I have a sermon prepared that is good but not great and a parishioner dies suddenly late in the week tending to the parishioner's needs may take high enough precedence that the sermon never becomes what it could have been. My time needs to be spent elsewhere. While it would be wonderful to wipe out polio, it is good to debate about the best use of our limited resources to fight disease. I have no idea what the best course of action is. What is important in this case is to understand that stopping at good would only be acceptable because the same resources are being used for a greater good, such as fighting malaria or another fatal disease.
Earlier today I was listening to a local radio program while driving. I heard this snippet:
Host to caller: The biggest problem with racism today is that we can't admit how much progress we've made.
Caller to host: I agree. I tell you what, put me with the blacks. I like watermelon and fried chicken.
You need to know that I did not hear the entire context of the program. I heard a couple previous callers and part of the next caller before I reached my destination. But as soon as the shock of what I just heard wore off my mind turned to Jim Collins and Good to Great. If we compare the United States of 2014 to the United States of the 1800's or 1960's it is undeniable that we have made great progress on racism. It is equally undeniable that we still are a country that has forms of structural racism and individuals that hold overt and covert racist beliefs. If you don't think you some of the covert racism in society has worn off on you you might try one of these tests. I'll admit that I was embarrassed at the results when I took the weapons test.
Racism is entrenched like polio. It is largely invisible until we look very closely (less than 1% of carriers of the polio virus display symptoms), but when we do look closely we see the disease is still with us. Wiping it out will take intentional, hard work. Compared to where we've been, we're doing pretty well. But "good" is not good enough. We can do better. We need to do better.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Call It What It Is
I'm going to say it: The United Methodist Church is at the brink of another schism. The first schism came just before the Civil War, supposedly because of slavery. This one will come supposedly because of homosexuality. The underlying issue in both cases is fear.
I want to start with statistics that need to be shared even though we don't want to talk about them. A study released in April broke down support for same-sex marriage by state. At the beginning of the Civil War there were 34 states. 15 were slave states. Today, of those 34 states the 11 lowest in support of same-sex marriage are former slave states. The only outliers are two that didn't secede (Delaware and Maryland), Florida, and Virginia.
Now, back to the cause of the split: fear. In his fantastic book A Disease in the Public Mind, Thomas Fleming persuasively argues that the primary motivator of the Civil War was fear. He notes that even in the slave states there were many, many people who found slavery abhorrent. They knew it was wrong. They just didn't know how to end it. Some people thought slaves should be sent back to Africa (which is how Liberia was founded), some people thought they should be set free at once, but most thought they should be set free very gradually if at all because they feared what would happen when the slaves were set free. They had a reason for this - slave rebellions had taken place in other regions and, in some cases, the former slaves had killed their masters. In what is now Haiti former slaves killed every white person on the island. They were also fearful of the economic implications. Slaves were an asset to the economy that many didn't feel could be relinquished.
If the southern states knew that there was a way to free slaves without losing their lives or livelihood, the Civil War may never have happened. But fear got the best of them.
So what are the concerns about allowing same-sex marriage in the United States? Obviously there are theological concerns. But we have widely different theological beliefs in the United Methodist Church. We are not having church trials over those! We are having church trials only over this one issue! When was the last time that you heard of a pastor on trial for re-baptizing? Here's a great list of 25 things we could be having trials for. But we don't have trials for any of these. The concern over same-sex marriage (and I would argue ordination as well) has to be something else.
So what are the other reasons?
"We'll continue to decline as a denomination." (we're pretty good at that already. Besides, in the Episcopal Church less than 10% of churches left since approving of gay pastors.)
"We will no longer stand for anything" (yes, because allowing same-sex marriage will eliminate the entire Book of Discipline)
"I can't in good conscious marry two men or two women" (that's fear based too - pastors already can choose who to marry or not marry
"It is a threat to the institution of marriage" (can you say that with a straight face with the divorce rate as high as it is?)
"It imposes bad morals on society" (I assume this is because it forces you into same-sex marriage even if you're straight)
"We stop believing in the Bible" (this will come to a surprise to people like me who believe in the Bible and believe that it does not say what you think it says)
"We'll surrender to culture" (we already have...as evidenced by the fact that our conferences vote the same way as the states that they are in, by our rush to criticize and demonize each other, by our refusal to have real dialogue, and by giving in to fear instead of standing firm for love)
And some unspoken fears:
"I don't want a gay pastor" (switch to a different UMC - plenty of people are already doing that)
"I don't want gay people in my church" (too late. Also reminds me of an African American pastor friend at a predominantly white church where one member was concerned that it would be become a "black church." In all fairness the pastor and spouse did double the size of the African American population in that church.)
So we're having our own civil war. Because we're afraid. Because of fear, even though it is obvious to every thinking person that we are not of one mind, a fairly narrow majority will refuse to admit the obvious and not allow a statement acknowledging our division. Because of fear we are willing to split on this one issue alone.
So we can split. It might even be a good idea. But let's understand what the real reason is. We are afraid.
I want to start with statistics that need to be shared even though we don't want to talk about them. A study released in April broke down support for same-sex marriage by state. At the beginning of the Civil War there were 34 states. 15 were slave states. Today, of those 34 states the 11 lowest in support of same-sex marriage are former slave states. The only outliers are two that didn't secede (Delaware and Maryland), Florida, and Virginia.
Now, back to the cause of the split: fear. In his fantastic book A Disease in the Public Mind, Thomas Fleming persuasively argues that the primary motivator of the Civil War was fear. He notes that even in the slave states there were many, many people who found slavery abhorrent. They knew it was wrong. They just didn't know how to end it. Some people thought slaves should be sent back to Africa (which is how Liberia was founded), some people thought they should be set free at once, but most thought they should be set free very gradually if at all because they feared what would happen when the slaves were set free. They had a reason for this - slave rebellions had taken place in other regions and, in some cases, the former slaves had killed their masters. In what is now Haiti former slaves killed every white person on the island. They were also fearful of the economic implications. Slaves were an asset to the economy that many didn't feel could be relinquished.
If the southern states knew that there was a way to free slaves without losing their lives or livelihood, the Civil War may never have happened. But fear got the best of them.
So what are the concerns about allowing same-sex marriage in the United States? Obviously there are theological concerns. But we have widely different theological beliefs in the United Methodist Church. We are not having church trials over those! We are having church trials only over this one issue! When was the last time that you heard of a pastor on trial for re-baptizing? Here's a great list of 25 things we could be having trials for. But we don't have trials for any of these. The concern over same-sex marriage (and I would argue ordination as well) has to be something else.
So what are the other reasons?
"We'll continue to decline as a denomination." (we're pretty good at that already. Besides, in the Episcopal Church less than 10% of churches left since approving of gay pastors.)
"We will no longer stand for anything" (yes, because allowing same-sex marriage will eliminate the entire Book of Discipline)
"I can't in good conscious marry two men or two women" (that's fear based too - pastors already can choose who to marry or not marry
"It is a threat to the institution of marriage" (can you say that with a straight face with the divorce rate as high as it is?)
"It imposes bad morals on society" (I assume this is because it forces you into same-sex marriage even if you're straight)
"We stop believing in the Bible" (this will come to a surprise to people like me who believe in the Bible and believe that it does not say what you think it says)
"We'll surrender to culture" (we already have...as evidenced by the fact that our conferences vote the same way as the states that they are in, by our rush to criticize and demonize each other, by our refusal to have real dialogue, and by giving in to fear instead of standing firm for love)
And some unspoken fears:
"I don't want a gay pastor" (switch to a different UMC - plenty of people are already doing that)
"I don't want gay people in my church" (too late. Also reminds me of an African American pastor friend at a predominantly white church where one member was concerned that it would be become a "black church." In all fairness the pastor and spouse did double the size of the African American population in that church.)
So we're having our own civil war. Because we're afraid. Because of fear, even though it is obvious to every thinking person that we are not of one mind, a fairly narrow majority will refuse to admit the obvious and not allow a statement acknowledging our division. Because of fear we are willing to split on this one issue alone.
So we can split. It might even be a good idea. But let's understand what the real reason is. We are afraid.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Accept the Mission: Reject the Rule
It's a big weekend for the United Methodist Church! Tomorrow Bishop Melvin Talbert will marry two men, completely violating the rules of the church. There will be another wedding tomorrow also.
I've been watching Facebook postings today as a couple who are members of the church I serve are sharing pictures of events the day before they are married. In Pennsylvania instead of Kansas. On a beach instead of a United Methodist church. By another pastor instead of by me. I can't marry them in their own church in their own state because they are both women. Even though they have been together longer than many heterosexual marriages. Even though they are committed Christians and among the most faithful participants of their local church. Am I missing something here?
Of course I am! "The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching." (2012 Book of Discipline, paragraph 161F)
Setting aside the question of how one would distinguish a "practicing" homosexual from a "non-practicing" homosexual (am I not a practicing heterosexual since I am typing right now and not engaged in coitus?), I'd like to suggest that those opposed to LGBT equality are missing something much more important than a paragraph in our Social Principles.
The mission of the United Methodist Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. I have participated in making more disciples of Jesus Christ at the church I have served for the last 3 1/2 years than my previous 10 years as a pastor. Almost every Sunday we have someone new walk into the church building who was ready to give up on God. Many of these people are ready to reject Jesus because they have been taught that Jesus has already rejected them or somebody they love because they are gay. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TAUGHT! To simultaneously say "the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching" and "God loves you" is like a parent who beats a child while saying "I love you." It is nonsensical. And it drives people away from faith in Jesus. If our mission is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world then we would be far better off casting the nets wide and truly welcoming all people into our congregations.
Imagine an alternative to what is happening this weekend in Pennsylvania. Imagine that instead of getting married in a private ceremony we were able to host a wedding with 150 people in attendance. Imagine half of those people were people without a church home. Imagine that those people without a church home were people, like some I know, who have felt betrayed by God because no matter how hard they try they can't "pray the gay away" (i.e. they can't make God turn them into sense that God did not make them to be!) Imagine that in the moment of marriage the gathered people experience the scriptural truth that we love because God first loved us. Imagine that, say, half of those who had previously rejected God choose to give Jesus and the Church a second chance. Do you know what would happen then? We would have taken another step in fulfilling our mission as a church. But we can't do that because 55% of delegates at the last General Conference say so. And we all know that the majority always gets it right.
It has been said, "If we don't stand for something then we stand for nothing!" I agree. Let's stand unequivocally for God's love as revealed through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
It has been said, "We can't sell out to culture!" I agree. Let's sell out to our God-given mission.
I've been watching Facebook postings today as a couple who are members of the church I serve are sharing pictures of events the day before they are married. In Pennsylvania instead of Kansas. On a beach instead of a United Methodist church. By another pastor instead of by me. I can't marry them in their own church in their own state because they are both women. Even though they have been together longer than many heterosexual marriages. Even though they are committed Christians and among the most faithful participants of their local church. Am I missing something here?
Of course I am! "The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching." (2012 Book of Discipline, paragraph 161F)
Setting aside the question of how one would distinguish a "practicing" homosexual from a "non-practicing" homosexual (am I not a practicing heterosexual since I am typing right now and not engaged in coitus?), I'd like to suggest that those opposed to LGBT equality are missing something much more important than a paragraph in our Social Principles.
The mission of the United Methodist Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. I have participated in making more disciples of Jesus Christ at the church I have served for the last 3 1/2 years than my previous 10 years as a pastor. Almost every Sunday we have someone new walk into the church building who was ready to give up on God. Many of these people are ready to reject Jesus because they have been taught that Jesus has already rejected them or somebody they love because they are gay. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TAUGHT! To simultaneously say "the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching" and "God loves you" is like a parent who beats a child while saying "I love you." It is nonsensical. And it drives people away from faith in Jesus. If our mission is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world then we would be far better off casting the nets wide and truly welcoming all people into our congregations.
Imagine an alternative to what is happening this weekend in Pennsylvania. Imagine that instead of getting married in a private ceremony we were able to host a wedding with 150 people in attendance. Imagine half of those people were people without a church home. Imagine that those people without a church home were people, like some I know, who have felt betrayed by God because no matter how hard they try they can't "pray the gay away" (i.e. they can't make God turn them into sense that God did not make them to be!) Imagine that in the moment of marriage the gathered people experience the scriptural truth that we love because God first loved us. Imagine that, say, half of those who had previously rejected God choose to give Jesus and the Church a second chance. Do you know what would happen then? We would have taken another step in fulfilling our mission as a church. But we can't do that because 55% of delegates at the last General Conference say so. And we all know that the majority always gets it right.
It has been said, "If we don't stand for something then we stand for nothing!" I agree. Let's stand unequivocally for God's love as revealed through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
It has been said, "We can't sell out to culture!" I agree. Let's sell out to our God-given mission.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Government Shutdown: We're All to Blame
The government shutdown is good for one thing. It shows us again how the Bible is relevant to real life.
In Genesis 3 immediately after Adam and Eve have eaten the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge God appears on the scene. You can read the story here or just reading the Livingston Version of the Bible here:
God: "Adam, do you want to tell me what you've done here?"
Adam: "Um...I don't really know what happened. I was just standing here and this woman gave me this fruit to eat. What was I supposed to do? I was trying to be polite. It's her fault1"
God: "And Eve, what about you?"
Eve: "Well, yeah, I gave Adam the apple but only because this snake made me eat it first."
Snake: "Hissssss"
You see how quickly we resort to blaming each other instead of taking responsibility for our own actions? So maybe we shouldn't expect Congress and President Obama to act any better. Regardless of our expectations, they are playing the blame game and playing it well. I watched helplessly last night while person after person came on TV pointing the finger at someone else. I never heard anyone say "I'm part of the problem." How can an intelligent human being say with a straight face that this problem is all because of one side of the aisle or the other? They are all obstinate! I put the blame 1/3 on President Obama for not being more assertive in talking with Republicans in Congress, 1/3 on Congressional Republicans for not proposing a serious compromise (they repeatedly say their first compromise was defunding Obamacare. How exactly is that a compromise?), and 1/3 on the Senate for not passing a true budget it I don't know how many years. Oh, and if we had responsible spending and taxing policies we might never have been in this mess to begin with.
But now, notice what I'm doing. Notice how quickly I began to place the blame. President Obama was elected not even one year ago. So was all of the House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate. I'm spreading the blame evenly across the field, but I'm leaving out the group that put these buffoons in office. Don't get me wrong, they are all acting like buffoons. But it was buffoons like you and me who gave them the power to shut down the government by putting them into office.
Reality check: Politicians want to get elected. They get elected by getting votes. They get votes by giving people what the people say they want. These politicians have heard that ideology is more important than governing. Polarizing policy is more important than getting along. Rhetoric is more important than reasoning. They have been told this by 1) the extremes in the population that contact politicians and 2) the silence of the non-extremist majority of Americans who are tired of this nonsense. If you are in the silent majority STOP BEING SILENT. DO SOMETHING!
Here's a place to start.
1. Find out who your representative is here
2. Contact your representative by following the links or go here.
3. Say something like this: "I'm interested in voting for politicians who are interested in making a positive difference in the world. You have a chance to be that kind of politician, but you're not doing it right now. Please get back to work fulfilling your responsibility to govern this country. I, and people like me across the country, are sending this message to Washington so that Democrats and Republicans alike know that we the people are far more interested in governing than one-upmanship. I understand that in elections politicians sometimes feel the need to cater to the extremes. You need to know that if you do so you may get their vote but you will not get mine."
I've just emailed my Senators and Representative. I hope you do the same.
In Genesis 3 immediately after Adam and Eve have eaten the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge God appears on the scene. You can read the story here or just reading the Livingston Version of the Bible here:
God: "Adam, do you want to tell me what you've done here?"
Adam: "Um...I don't really know what happened. I was just standing here and this woman gave me this fruit to eat. What was I supposed to do? I was trying to be polite. It's her fault1"
God: "And Eve, what about you?"
Eve: "Well, yeah, I gave Adam the apple but only because this snake made me eat it first."
Snake: "Hissssss"
You see how quickly we resort to blaming each other instead of taking responsibility for our own actions? So maybe we shouldn't expect Congress and President Obama to act any better. Regardless of our expectations, they are playing the blame game and playing it well. I watched helplessly last night while person after person came on TV pointing the finger at someone else. I never heard anyone say "I'm part of the problem." How can an intelligent human being say with a straight face that this problem is all because of one side of the aisle or the other? They are all obstinate! I put the blame 1/3 on President Obama for not being more assertive in talking with Republicans in Congress, 1/3 on Congressional Republicans for not proposing a serious compromise (they repeatedly say their first compromise was defunding Obamacare. How exactly is that a compromise?), and 1/3 on the Senate for not passing a true budget it I don't know how many years. Oh, and if we had responsible spending and taxing policies we might never have been in this mess to begin with.
But now, notice what I'm doing. Notice how quickly I began to place the blame. President Obama was elected not even one year ago. So was all of the House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate. I'm spreading the blame evenly across the field, but I'm leaving out the group that put these buffoons in office. Don't get me wrong, they are all acting like buffoons. But it was buffoons like you and me who gave them the power to shut down the government by putting them into office.
Reality check: Politicians want to get elected. They get elected by getting votes. They get votes by giving people what the people say they want. These politicians have heard that ideology is more important than governing. Polarizing policy is more important than getting along. Rhetoric is more important than reasoning. They have been told this by 1) the extremes in the population that contact politicians and 2) the silence of the non-extremist majority of Americans who are tired of this nonsense. If you are in the silent majority STOP BEING SILENT. DO SOMETHING!
Here's a place to start.
1. Find out who your representative is here
2. Contact your representative by following the links or go here.
3. Say something like this: "I'm interested in voting for politicians who are interested in making a positive difference in the world. You have a chance to be that kind of politician, but you're not doing it right now. Please get back to work fulfilling your responsibility to govern this country. I, and people like me across the country, are sending this message to Washington so that Democrats and Republicans alike know that we the people are far more interested in governing than one-upmanship. I understand that in elections politicians sometimes feel the need to cater to the extremes. You need to know that if you do so you may get their vote but you will not get mine."
I've just emailed my Senators and Representative. I hope you do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)