General Conference Day 1.5

Lunch break at GC on day 2. It's a little embarrasing to be at this point in the conference and still be debating the rules that will be governing the conference. I'm concerned that the more time we spend on minor details the less time we will have to deal with major issues. For the most part, though, everyone has been civil and trying to work together.

One of the unique aspects to General Conference is the need for translation. When I first put on headphones to hear a French speaker I felt like I was at the UN. It's not a bad analogy, really. The Great Comission to to go into all the world has been (partially) fulfilled and the UMC is representative of that. Those of us in the U.S. forget that we are in part of the world that needed to hear the Gospl the longest. Those in Northern Africa were among the first. But the translation issue really points out the tension of living in a global denomiation. It is not just translation of language that is hard, it's translation of  culture. Not everybody uses Roberts' Rules for conducting business. Our differet cultures have different rules of etiquette. It truly is a deep challenge for us to face.

I'll try to post again tonight, but it may not happen until tomorrow. We all appreciate prayers while we go about this work.

Pax Methodos

Pax Methodos. It means something like "Methodical Peace" but it's the closest I could come to a Latin phrase for "Methodist Peace." It's supposed to remind you of Pax Romana, the roughly 200 year period of relative peace in the Roman Empire from roughly 27 BC to 180 AD. The peace came with a catch. The Roman Peace only existed because in the rare case when there was an uprising, all offending parties were wiped out. Like Jesus, for example. 

This is the kind of peace in the United Methodist Church that Good News and their allies are advocating for. In the latest issue of the magazine Thomas Lambrecht writes, "Our only hope to stay united as a church is to restore the integrity and accountability of our covenant. That is why our coalition will be advocating for proposals like the following:..." Nine proposals follow that make Good News' plan very clear. There will be peace. There will be unity. Because if you won't fall in line you will be removed.

Good News is advocating for such a centralization of power that for the first time ever, and only in the case of performing same sex weddings, there would be a Church-wide mandatory sentencing policy including defrocking after a second offense. We don't even have language like that for child abuse.

Good News is advocating for a litmus test for any counsel for the church in a trial. 

They are advocating for even stricter language on what it means to be a "self-avowed practicing homosexual" (because 40 years of tightening their grip isn't enough?)

They are encouraging pastors who disagree to leave the church by proposing language that simply reiterates what is already true - that a pastor can leave the denomination with their pension intact.

Just listen to the litany of the first word used to describe each of the nine proposals "Requiring...Requiring...Revise...Impose...Requiring...Allowing...Broadening...Adding...Requiring..." Don't we have enough requirements and impositions in our Book of Discipline already?

A Movement, as Good News often reminds us that our church is supposed to be, does not require enforcement of precise rules from a centralized authority who know better than us. Isn't that the same thing that in the secular world we have discovered about Washington D.C.? Good News is attempting to replace the institutionalism of our General Boards and Agencies with a theological institutionalism that dictates to Annual Conferences and pastors rights that have always belonged to them.

As General Conference approaches I encourage my fellow delegates to reject this new institutionalism. Reject the idea that a 60-40 vote of 846 people can speak God's definitive word for the entire connection. Instead, accept the long-standing principle that the annual conference is the best place to make decisions on matters of ordination and property and that pastors have the authority to choose who to marry and not marry.

The first Christians rejected Pax Romana because the cost of that kind of peace was too high. So it is today for Pax Methodo. There cannot be true peace or true unity when it is forced from one group onto another.

Further Conversation on the Interpretation of Scripture - Pt.2

Finishing the post begun two days ago, I'm looking at the response of Thomas Lambrecht to Donald Haynes. In the first post, Lambrecht gave two rebuttals. In this post we'll look at three more.

Lambrecht accuses Haynes of:

3. Using the results of scientific inquiry to overturn the teachings of Scripture.

Haynes states that homosexuality is "a genetic sexual orientation." Lambrecht cites the American Psychological Association as disagreeing, saying that there is no consensus about the cause of homosexuality. Lambrecht is correct in saying, "Scientists have identified no 'gay gene.'" Of course there are countless traits that have not been identified by a specific gene that nevertheless are likely genetic. Although the research is disputed, this article gives a quick primer on the possible link between homosexuality and epigenetics (changes to our DNA after conception.)

Lambrecht's science vs. scripture setup is unfair. There are hints even as far back as Augustine that our understanding of Scripture can be altered based on what we glean from science and the world. In the Methodist tradition, One of our foremost Wesleyan scholars, Randy Maddox, says, "And when Wesley confronted an apparent conflict between current science and Scripture, he sought an understanding that did justice to both." In this case, if there is science that suggests that homosexuality is not a choice the door is open to the possibility is reconciling it with Scripture. I would add to Lambrecht's conclusion, "We ground our understanding about morality, right and wrong, in the timeless truths of Scripture" the words, "that have continued to be clarified and refined over the last 2,000 years." We have greater understanding now, and we can embrace that along with Scripture.

4. Arguing from silence.

Haynes rightfully points out, "Holy Scripture never refers to homosexuality in the context of a loving relationship between two consenting adults whose sexual orientation might be naturally homosexual, and who have a committed, monogamous relationship or marriage." Lambrecht's reply is wholly unsatisfactory.

First, he claims that "historical research has demonstrated that such relationships did exist in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds" and cites Plato and Philo as examples. But Philo merely quotes Plato and Plato wrote roughly 400 years before Paul. Is the best evidence for same-sex relationships really the writings of a person who lived 400 years earlier than the period we are focusing on? Actually, yes. That is the best evidence. And it's lousy evidence. Plato appears to be writing not about real relationships but idealized relationships, so it's unlikely that even he knew about actual loving relationships. Further, in her masterful work Paul Among the People, Sarah Ruden demonstrates that there is absolutely no evidence contemporaneous to Paul of loving same-sex relationships. 

Second, he points out that "Given that every reference in Scripture to homosexual behavior is negative, one would think that the authors would mention the exception that merited acceptance, in order to clarify what the Bible really teaches." But this misses the most basic point - the Biblical authors didn't write about an exception because they did not know there was an exception! They had not witnessed an exception! It would sound as foreign to the culture at the time as a conversation about condoms and birth control pills. How would they even talk about it?

Finally, Lambrecht says, "Arguments from silence are always fraught with uncertainty and not something one can build one's theology on." This is true in and of itself, but it is not reflective of the theology of those of us in favor of LGBT people. We build our theology on the most basic of Christian beliefs, the Love of God. For one example of a positive theology you're welcome to watch a recent sermon I gave on the topic of same-sex marriage.

5. Ignoring Scriptures that don’t support your viewpoint.

In summary, Lambrecht states, 'Haynes does not explain how the constant thread of heterosexual marriage from Genesis to Revelation supports the affirmation of same-sex relationships." My simple reply is that the Biblical passages Lambrecht supplies support marriage, period. None of them argue against same-sex marriage. They are silent. 

Lambrecht posted part 3 of his blog yesterday. I'll tackle it next week.

Further Conversation on the Interpretation of Scripture - Pt.1

Last month Rev. Dr. Donald Haynes wrote an article suggesting that Scripture does not categorically classify homosexuality as sinful. Rev. Thomas Lambrecht of Good News wrote a two part rebuttal. I encourage you to read both as they are good primers on some of the basic arguments for and against full inclusion for LGBTQ individuals, particularly in the United Methodist Church. I don't think either necessarily advances the case for or against beyond more basic understandings. Dr. Haynes suggestions are standard and Rev. Lambrecht's replies are predictable. In hope to stimulate further conversation, I'd like to reply specifically to Rev. Lambrecht's critique point by point. Lambrecht says Haynes is guilty of:

1. Misclassifying certain verses and/or lumping unlike verses together into a category that can be disregarded.

Lambrecht reminds us that Haynes classifies the Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality as cultural instead of universal (comparing them to laws against eating pork instead of laws like loving others as we love ourselves.) He correctly points out that our United Methodist tradition, and indeed most of Western Christianity, categorizes those ancient laws as ritual, civil, and moral. Ritual and civil laws are intended for a time but moral laws are intended to be universal. He then says, "It is plain that laws related to sexuality are not ceremonial or governmental in nature, but moral." 

It is important to note that the distinction that we (and John Wesley before us) make regarding which laws fall into which categories is not entirely clear. One would be wise to proceed with caution at the "It is obvious that..." argument. What is "obvious" to one group or person may not be so obvious to another. For example, Levirate marriage is proscribed in Deuteronomy 25. Today we understand it as a civil law that ensured continuity of the family line and mechanisms for inheritance. But at the time, Levirate marriage would have been seen as a moral imperative. A brother must accept responsibility for his deceased brother's family! Similarly, at the time Leviticus was written one could argue that common sense said that it is a man's moral duty to marry a woman and reproduce so that we can fill the country with people for defense and prosperity. Today the land is pretty well filled with people and common sense (or at least a majority of people in the U.S.) would say that what happens in a person's bedroom stays in the bedroom.

Could the Levitical texts against homosexuality be moral laws that apply still today? Yes, they could. But there is nothing in Leviticus or elsewhere that demands that the answer is yes. 

2. Misinterpreting and misapplying the biblical and cultural context to nullify the teaching in question.

Here Lambrecht is specifically concerned with how Haynes treats Romans 1. Haynes argues that Romans 1 is likely referring to temple prostitution and Lambrecht disagrees. I disagree with Haynes, too. Lambrecht correctly points out that the entire list of sins in Romans 1 is "a result of idolatry, rather than an expression of idolatry." Homosexuality is listed alongside "envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, [gossips], slanderers, etc." I know a number of "practicing homosexuals." They are not perfect people. But they are also not people to whom I would attribute these characteristics. Matthew Vines and others argue that the entire list of sins depends on our understanding of the word translated as "lust" in v. 24 and 26. Because there was no concept of sexual orientation, a person who desired same-sex relations had excessive (lustful) desire. Thus Paul's teaching is not about homosexuality as a sin; it is about idolatry as a sin - desiring anything (or lusting for anything) above God.

I'll end this post here as Lambrecht did with his and continue with additional points later. But first, one more important note on Romans. Too often we end our reading with Romans 1 instead of continuing as Paul does with Romans 2:1. "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." If we look carefully, we can all find ourselves in the list of sins that Paul lays out in Romans 1. At the very least may we speak and judge carefully, knowing that we are all doing our best and falling short at the same time.

Donald Trump: The Leader We Deserve

There is a leadership maxim, "You don't get the leader you need, you get the leader you deserve." We deserve Donald Trump.

Trump's basic political strategy is to out-insult his opposition. As soon as someone disagrees with him they go from being a "nice guy" or a "good person" to being an idiot. Has any other poltical candidate in history promised to ban one-third of the world's population (Muslims), promised a sovergin nation will pay for a wall to be built (Mexico), called for a national ban of a company (Apple), used profanity on national TV (multiple times), made fun of a person with a disability (a news reporter), been a no show for a debate (Fox), or said he wanted to hit someone at his rally (last week)? I don't know of a candidate who has done one of those things, much less all of them. Trump has been so over the top that we have all seemingly forgotten that he first made his named in politics as a birther!

But that's what we deserve. Because we live in a country where Barak Obama is still sometimes called a Muslim, where some Christians are called proponents of hate-speech while others are told they aren't real Christians because they're pro-gay, liberals socialists or communists and conservatives are called fascists, Facebook arguments are intense enough that if they were in person people may come to blows, and otherwise reasonable people can't even agree on basic facts (are gun deaths higher or lower in states with strong gun control? I don't know, but it can't be both!) The Church has been called the most segregated place on a Sunday morning - and it probably is - but we have become even more ideologically segregated. Those who agree with me must be right and those who disagree with me must be wrong. Fox has nothing but conservatives and CNN has nothing but liberals. I"m not even sure how I'm supposed to label the personalities on MSNBC now, but I do know there is a label. There's a label for everyone.

We deserve Donald Trump. We created Donald Trump. Whether you believe he would be a great president or a lousy president (and I know you believe he would be one or the other becasue nobody can just be average or ok or mediocre any more), we have all allowed a culture of division and discord to dominate.

Donald Trump has mastered the art of divide and conquer politics. And that's why we deserve him. He has mastered in a short time what the rest of us have been practicing for years.

The Good Samaritan and the Syrian

The Good Samaritan...

It is one of the most beloved and misunderstood parables in the Bible. "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho..." and you probably know the rest of the story. But you probably don't know the whole story.

The assumption that Jesus' audience would make is that the man in the story is Jewish like they were - remember that Jesus was teaching and preaching among Jewish people. There were no Christians yet! The man is mugged and left for dead. Two people pass by. For our purposes, you could think of those two as a pastor of a nearby church and a member of the church's leadership team. If you were mugged and needed someone to help you these are the people that you would want to have walk by. But, surprisingly, they don't help. Then the Samaritan stops by and is the one who helps.

That much you are most likely familiar with. But what we often do when we teach this story is to say, "Just like the Good Samaritan, we should help a stranger in need." That's NOT what the story is about.

There is a reason why Jesus made the hero a Samaritan. Hundreds of years earlier, the United Kingdom split into a northern and southern kingdom as a result of a power struggle. Those two kingdoms remained at odds for 200 years until the northern kingdom, whose capital was Samaria, was defeated by Assyria. 150 years later, the southern kingdom (there capital was Jerusalem) was defeated by the Babylonians. But the defeat of both kingdoms didn't end the rivalry between people. All the way to Jesus' time Samaritans were at odds with Jews. In other words, this Samaritan was the opposite of the two people who did not stop to help.

I explained the parable to my daughters by having them imagining themselves hurt at recess and their best friends walked by them without a second thought while the person they like least in class stopped to help them. If you are a child of the Cold War, it would be like a Russian stopping to help an American. The point is not that the Samaritan helped a stranger; the point is that the Samaritan helped a potential enemy. The Samaritan helped someone who by societal norms he would not be expected to help.

...and the Syrian

Should we be expected to help Syrian refugees? No. It is possible (but highly unlikely) that ISIS will try to sneak fighters into the refugees that are fleeing. We have plenty of other people already in the United States that need help. It will be hard for a Syrian refugee to make a new life in a culture so different from there own. There are countries in Syria's backyard that are not helping like they should. In short, We are the Samaritan to the Syrian refugee left for dead at the side of the road. We should not be expected to help. The world should assume that we will walk on by. But that's not how the story Jesus told ends.

I Corinthians 12:27 "Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it."

What Is the Tie that Binds

In a post on another blog several years ago I asked the question "What if the United Methodist Church (or any denomination for that matter) saw itself as a massive multi-site church?" What if we could see ourselves not as separate local churches, but truly as one Church. I still think it's a good question. I still think that's what we really are, even though if this is the case we are a church mired in dysfunction. So a related but distinct question: "If we are a massive multi-site church, what is it that binds us together?"

This question comes from one of the lessons we have learned from large churches. Small churches tend to be homogeneous. The pianist of the first church I served after finishing seminary introduced herself to me as "the only person in the church not related to every other person in the church." Another church I served was in a town with several other denominational churches, all of which were part of the "conservative" wing of the family tree - the Baptist church was Sourthern, the Lutheran church was Missouri Synod. In that town, if you were protestant and moderate to liberal theologically then you were probably United Methodist. There was a degree of theological homogeneity. But in the larger church there is more that potentially divides people than unites people. The large church is not held together by its sameness, but by a common cause.

The church I serve now (St. Paul's in Lenexa) would be classified as a smaller large church - a professional sized church to use Susan Beaumont's helpful language. It is considered by most in the Great Plains Conference, indeed by many church members, as a very "progressive" church. I was told when I arrived in 2010 that this was a church where one would find far more Obama than McCain bumper stickers, which makes for an unusual parking lot in this part of Kansas City. Over the last five years I have discovered what probably most of the church members already knew - we are not all the same. We are old and young, extraverts and introverts, gay and straight, Democrats and Republicans (and even some Libertarians!), fiscal conservatives and liberals, wealthy and not as wealthy, and while we have a long ways to go we have a slowly increasing racial diversity. But, and this is important, when we did a congregational survey three years ago we found that 98% of respondents agreed with our Welcome Statement. A year later when we adopted a new mission statement it was approved unanimously by the Church Conference (there are some churches where everything is approved unanimously - this is most definitely not one of those churches!). These statements, and our commitment to take action on the basis of these statements, define St. Paul's. We are bound together by the belief that our welcome and mission statements faithfully represents the Great Commandment to fully love God and one another.

So, as a denomination, what binds us together? We know what separates us, but what unites us? What defines us? Is it our mission statement "To make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world?" Is it our doctrinal standards (defined by the Book of Discipline as the Articles of Faith, the Standard Sermons of John Wesley, the General Rules of the Methodist Church, and Wesley's Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament - which, interestingly - are out of print)? I don't see our current debate on same-sex marriage as necessarily contradicting either of these. Are we bound together by a particular mode of interpreting Scripture or by a particular understanding of what we mean by Scripture being authoritative? Then, whether it is a more traditional or more progressive approach, perhaps we have an unequal yoke and need to be separated from each other.

The bottom line is I agree with Jesus in Mark 3:25: a house divided against itself cannot stand. We are certainly not bound by our sameness. Are we bound by our division or by a common cause? The answer to that question tells us the direction we need to move.