Civility in a New Day

It was, I think, 2011. I had been at least at a portion of every annual session of the Kansas East Annual Conference of the UMC except for the year my second daughter was born all the way back to 1988. More than 20 years altogether. We had argued about a handful of issues over the course of those years, agreed on many more, and through it all we always (publicly) stayed civil. Then we talked about...civility.

Two pastors brought the issue up. The idea was that we should have a simple set of guidelines to encourage us to engage in debate and discussion with a loving and respectful attitude. I was opposed to it. My opposition was not to civility. My opposition was to the idea that we needed to legislate civility. We're a church! An older (to me) gentleman spoke my thoughts in opposition in a way that helped me hear them from an entirely different perspective. Paraphrased, he said

"I don't understand why we need this. I don't understand why we would have trouble talking to each other civilly today. When I was younger people just knew how to talk with each other respectfully. Why can't we just do that today without having to pass a petition about it?"

I thought about when he was younger. What would Annual Conference have been like? Who would have been there? Who would be speaking? For starters, as white as we are today our demographics were even whiter when he was young. People of color did not have a voice. While we certainly have at least vestiges of patriarchy left, when he was young women's participation was seriously minimized. Clergy still have a powerful voice at Annual Conference today. It was much stronger years ago. A variety of sexual orientations and gender identities have always been a reality, but when this gentleman was younger certainly nobody would admit to it in a Kansas church conference. 

That's when I realized that we actually did need a civility covenant of some kind. Because people like the speaker, people like me, had always been heard. When he was younger people knew how to talk to each other because they were talking to other people just like them. That's easy. But in the 2000s our culture, our church, was changing. White, male pastors like me were realizing that we didn't always get to set the terms of the debate. In the past, even though there were "always" "other people" the "others" had to speak "our" language. The way that we thought, spoke, and wrote was the norm that everybody had to live by. Now "we" had to learn "their" language. We had to learn that complimenting a female colleague on her looks was more likely to be heard as an invalidation of her ministry than a compliment (no matter what the speaker meant!). We had to learn that asking about a woman's husband or a man's wife made assumptions about a person's sexual orientation that we shouldn't make no matter how awkward the word "spouse" was (at least for me. Is the plural spice?) We had to learn that asking an African-American to share what the "Black Experience" was like was as ridiculous as asking a white American to describe the white experience. There's only one way of experiencing life? In short, we had to learn that the words we speak are not always heard the way that we intend for them to be heard. And, both so that we can be heard more clearly and so that we can hear others more clearly, we need to be conscious of the words we use and the way we speak.

Today, in our churches and in our broader culture, we need to think about civility again. We need to be aware that when a white man talks about the importance of law and order in our inner cities a parent of African-American children may well hear an endorsement of police brutality - no matter what the speaker intended to communicate. AND we need to understand that when the word "racism" is used to describe a person a segment of society will discount the argument because they perceive the word is overused - regardless of whether or not it really is overused. We need to understand that there are some people who voted for Donald Trump because they genuinely believe that he will be a good president for ALL people. AND we need to understand that there are some who did not vote for Trump because they genuinely believe that he is a threat to ALL people. We need to understand that when some people hear the word "Christian" they don't hear "lover of God and humanity," they hear "anti-gay bigot." AND we need to understand that some who have been called "anti-gay bigots" are acting in ways that they truly believe are loving.

The words we use may sound the same, but we are not all speaking the same language.

It's not right or wrong, it just is. But it makes it so easy to misunderstand each other. Really, that's what I discovered in 2011. I heard this man's hurt at hearing that what had always seemed to work before wasn't going to work anymore. I shared his hurt. I am that man. If I'm honest, there's a part of me that still wants to believe that. I want communication to be that simple. I want our work to be more straightforward. But I realized that if I really want to be part of a church where there is no male or female I must listen carefully to those who are female. If I want to be part of a church where there is no slave or free I must listen carefully to those who have been or still are enslaved. If I want to be part of a church that is not defined by nationality I must listen carefully to all nationalities. And I can't do that unless I'm willing to hear some things I may not want to hear. I'm still working on it. Some of the relationships that I value most are those that help me continue to work on it.

Civility in this new day starts with reminding ourselves of an old idea - self responsibility. You are responsible for your own words. Let me say it differently - I am responsible for MY own words. I, WE, must speak them carefully, particularly when communicating with someone who may hear them differently. We are also responsible for working on understanding those we communicate with. Be prepared to say "That's not what I meant. Let me try saying it a different way" when someone doesn't seem to understand. Deescalate arguments by being the person to say "let's try again" when someone else says "you don't get it." If both parties engage in conversation taking responsibility for what is said and heard then at the end of the conversation even if they don't agree they can at least know in confidence what they disagree about. I must be that kind of person. You must be that kind of person. We must be part of the solution. Because we're not going back to when we were younger. We're all older now. We need to act like it.

An Open Letter to the Bishops' Commission: You Don't Represent Me

Dear Commissioners,

Thank you for agreeing to the task in front of you. I don't think anybody who is not among your number will ever be able to fully appreciate what you will experience over the next several months. You will all be in my prayers throughout this process. It sounds like there will be opportunities for ordinary pastors and lay people like myself to share opinions on possible ways forward. I'm really glad for that. But I have one thought that I want to share with you separately from other opinions.

You do not represent me. Nor do you represent anybody else. Please do not forget this. If you don't remember this then there really isn't much point in even meeting. If, for example, you have joined the Wesleyan Covenant Association you may feel compelled to stand by their declaration that a so-called local option should not be on the table. But if you're open to the movement of the Spirit then your mind may be changed. If you represent the WCA then you have to vote with their wishes as their representative instead of voting where the Spirit moves you. If, on the other hand, you are a member or Reconciling Ministries you may be compelled to reject a so-called jurisdictional solution outright because it leaves many LGBT pastors and laity unprotected. But if you're open to the movement of the Spirit then you might find that as part of a wholistic solution. If you represent RMN then you won't be able to be open to a solution such as that even if it is God's will.

You don't represent RMN, or WCA, or IRD, or Good News, or Love Prevails, or the conference you are a member of, or the local church you serve, or the country that you live in. You can't approach this as a representative of any person or group and be faithful to your work. You represent only Christ and Christ's Church. And so for the sake of Christ's Church please do not take sides. Do not decide now what the outcome must be or cannot be. Do not base your decisions on what others tell you. Instead seek diligently Christ's truth, that we might all be set free.

Blessings to you in your work,

Rev. David Livingston

Self-avowed, Practicing Nonsense

No attempts at a clever introduction today. Just straight to the point. The United Methodist Church's notion of a "self-avowed, practicing homosexual" is nonsense. I use the word nonsense in its philosophical definition. The phrase that is in our Book of Discipline which many seek to enforce ultimately has no meaning. It is a phrase that cannot be adequately defined. Specifically, it is not possible to label one person a "practicing homosexual" and another person a "nonpracticing homosexual."

1) The current definition of the phrase

We actually have a definition of what "practicing" means. It comes from the Judicial Council fifteen years ago in Decision 920. In that decision "living in a a partnered, covenanted homosexual relationship with another woman" was deemed sufficient evidence for a review, but only if that person "affirms that she is engaged in genital sexual activity with a person of the same gender" would the person actually be "self avowed, practicing." In other words, the relationship itself is smoke but "genital sexual activity" is the fire.


Warning - the next section will necessarily be somewhat crass and explicit.

2) The definition applied

Case #1: Decision 920 referred to a real woman who had admitted to a relationship with another woman but had not spoken about their sexual activity. She was ultimately allowed to continue as a pastor because a covenanted relationship is not, by our definition, the same thing as "practicing" homosexuality.

Case #2: This is a hypothetical but possible situation designed to show the absurdity of our current definition. A heterosexual boy is repeatedly sexually abused by his brother. As an adult, the boy becomes a pastor but the sexual abuse continues even after sharing it with his District Superintendent. That clergyman is - please understand that what I am about to say is completely absurd - by our definition a self-avowed practicing homosexual. I know it sounds disgusting. It should. But it meets the criteria. He is self avowed - the clergyman shared the abuse with his District Superintendent. He is practicing - the definition of practicing only requires that the person "is engaged in genital sexual activity with a person of the same gender."

Clearly in case #1 we are talking about somebody who is gay and in case #2 we are not. We know this already because we know what homosexuality is. But that's not what our definition says. This doesn't necessarily mean that our Book of Discipline is wrong; it does mean our definition is wrong. It does not say what we intend.

3) Another definition

One solution to the problem is to further refine the definition. We could add "consensual" to the genital contact. But, of course there are "consensual" abusive relationships. And adding that word does nothing about case #1. Clearly, what we really intend is to say something about the relationship itself - thus efforts from some like John Lomperis of the Institute for Religion and Democracy to deprive due process to those in such a relationship (I cannot locate the resolution at this moment and will edit with a link when I do locate it.) What would such a definition look like? Here's a stab at it - "Practicing homosexual - a person in a consensual, committed relationship with a person of the same gender." That could do it. It would certainly apply to Case #1 and not Case #2. But what about Case #3?

Case #3: Two women are in seminary together and become incredibly close. They fully live life together. Both identify as heterosexual. For the sake of committing themselves fully to their work as pastors they choose not to marry. Instead, they list each other as beneficiaries, they socialize with each other regularly, and whenever possible to save money they live in the same house. When their appointments are a greater distance apart they maintain a long distance relationship not unlike some married clergy couples. Two heterosexuals who fit our new definition of practicing homosexual.

Or Case #4: Two men who identify as homosexual are married in a civil ceremony. After being married for some time, one hears the call to ministry in the United Methodist Church. But he does not intend to leave his marriage. Not wanting to hold anything back, he openly acknowledges his marriage. He also shares that like an estimated 15-20% of marriages, he and his spouse are completely celibate. By our current definition this would not count but with the new definition I think it would qualify as practicing. But then so would Case #4a.

Case #4a: The same two men as in case #4 choose not to marry but are sexual active. The same person hears the call to ordained ministry and at the same time is convicted that being sexual active with another man is sinful. At the same time, after spending years as an unmarried couple, he remains committed to his longtime partner - in a celibate, unmarried, but committed relationship. This would also qualify as practicing, even though many evangelicals would affirm the man for choosing to remain celibate. Then there's the very awkward case #4b:

Case #4b: The same scenario as #4a except that the new pastor wants to push the boundaries some and so asks his District Superintendent "how far is too far?" Does kissing count as genital contact? You can imagine a whole series of additional questions to make the full point.

4) What It All Means

The point of this exercise in cases and definitions is to show that there is no definition of "self avowed practicing homosexual" that adequately allows ordination for some and not for others. Perhaps this is why we have been changing our language every four years since 1972. We will never find the right language. It doesn't exist. Because there is only one sufficient way to define a "practicing homosexual."

Practicing homosexual - a person who is currently [i.e. practicing] sexually attracted to people of the same sex[i.e. homosexual]

The fact is the only gay person that we want as a pastor is the gay person who doesn't act gay. Whatever that means...

Oops. He Did it Again

John Lomperis of the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD) just wrote a piece on legislation passed in July by the South Central Jurisdiction of the UMC. The first several paragraphs are largely an accurate and fair representation of what happened. Then Lomperis inexplicably went on to attack me and an alternative resolution that I proposed along with Andrew Ponder Williams. Since Lomperis recently called me out for asserting that IRD and other right wing leaders intentionally distort the truth without my citing of specific examples of the practice, I am pleased that I've been given the perfect opportunity to demonstrate exactly how they do it.

Let's go line by line in his attack.

"I have never met the Rev. Livingston, but know of him primarily through his expressing his commitment to “unity in diversity” and “improving relationships” in such ways as defending a clergywoman recklessly breaking the covenant that serves as our basis of unity..."  When I was asked by Rev. Meyer to serve in the role of advocate as defined by the Book of Discipline I did so. She has that right, as guaranteed by our Constitution. As someone who seeks to uphold the Book of Discipline, I'm not sure why this would bother Lomperis.

"...(even to the point of snark-tweeting his own bishop)..." He may be right. I'm not on twitter enough to know what qualifies as snark-tweeting. But what I can tell you is that I have had many conversations with Bishop Jones and I'm confident that he would not be surprised at the content of any of my tweets or other social media. I follow the protocol of assuming anyone could see anything I put out there.

"...and for offering such pastoral love and grace as broadly accusing folk in the evangelical renewal movement of “constant lies and intentional deception.”  and this is where he really does it. Please follow the link he gives. Lomperis apparently intends to make this my own "bucket of deplorables" kind of comment by going back to this twitter conversation from three years ago. Please note that I am specifically making reference to Lomperis himself. In fact, in all my writing about the right wing of the UMC, my concern is not with the "rank and file," it's with the leadership of the renewal groups like IRD. I have many relationships and ongoing conversations with those who are theologically much more conservative than I am. In private conversations some of them have expressed the same frustration. In fact, my first experience with this was in 1999 when I serve on GBCS and first proposed a resolution to General Conference seeking a middle ground on homosexuality. Mark Tooley, who at that time held the position Lomperis holds today, promptly found the one line in everything I said that could be construed as controversial and published that comment alone. Here's what Tooley doesn't know: I was with him at the time - I only wanted space for others in the denomination who disagreed with us. As a seminary student I was even branded by some as "ultra-conservative." While that was never a label I would claim for myself, I don't think any of my seminary classmates would dispute that I was among the most conservative in our class. It was Tooley's casual relationship with the truth that started my movement towards the middle. Lomperis is simply continuing that tradition. It is a demonstration of the worst of church politics. It is wrong. And, to be clear, it has nothing to do with 99% of theological conservatives. It has to do with some of the mouthpieces for that view.

To Continue, "On his blog, Livingston explicitly described this second motion as “an alternative resolution” that he and others submitted in intentional response to Gilt’s, since “upholding the Book of Discipline has become code language for what those on the left see as prosecuting (persecuting?) LGBT pastors...” Lomperis says all of this as if it's not really true. Of course it was an alternative resolution, and of course "upholding the Book of Discipline" is code language. Look no further than...Lomperis for that. It is, in fact, the language of upholding the Book of Discipline that Lomperis appreciates about the resolution that passed. He says this multiple times in the very same post, just three paragraphs before taking me on. Lomperis criticizes me for saying precisely the same thing as him.

"...and according to Livingston, the simple fact that the first resolution’s author was from Texas, which has a “well known conservative bent,” is “[p]articularly” sufficient basis to judge the resolution as “seem[ing] divisive rather than uniting.”  This is a significant mischaracterization. What I said is that the first resolution came from the Texas Conference. If you're not familiar with UMC polity, that is one of five conferences in Texas. It is widely known that the Texas Conference delegation is almost entirely traditionalist. Saying that is no more controversial than Lomperis saying the Western Jurisdiction is liberal - which he does and I do not dispute. It is almost indisputable that multiple resolutions have come out of the Texas Conference that seem divisive. I can't speak to their intent, but I can speak to the perception.  And this is not a perception that Lomperis is unfamiliar with.

The final irony

Lomperis' post finishes by affirming the compromise resolution that we reached and which I celebrated as a victory for the centrists in the denomination. But he claims it was a win for the traditionalists. Here's what really happened. The author of the Texas petition, Rev. Kip Gilts, met with Andrew Ponders Williams (I was unavailable to meet with them due to a committee responsibility). They shared their concerns with each other. They came to a mutual agreement about a good path forward that alleviated our concerns without compromising the integrity of Rev. Gilts original petition. I spoke with Rev. Gilts later (but before the vote) and we both expressed gratitude that we could actually agree on a petition even though we have very different views on human sexuality. Andrew and I got what we wanted. Rev. Gilts got what he wanted. That's called a win-win. That actually is a kind of unity in diversity, that many of us on the left and right hope for. Lomperis can't make it otherwise no matter how he tries to re-frame the truth.

Watch Out for the WCA Pt.3

As I start this final post on the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA), I want to remind the reader that there should be no animosity towards a group like this simply because they are preparing for the possibility of schism in the United Methodist Church. That is a smart and reasonable thing to do. The problem with the WCA is the apparent theology including, as we've seen so far, a disregard for LGBT individuals and a poor treatment of the Bible. Today we're going to do a little conjecture about what a WCA church may look like. As a way of introducing that topic...

Where Are the Women!?!?

If you've seen the recent articles and videos advertising the WCA's upcoming gathering in Chicago you may have noticed the prominence of women  in the movement. Don't believe it. Instead, go back to the founding document. The original June 30 "Open Letter to the People of The United Methodist Church" has 55 signatories. Of those, only seven are women. Two of those women are married to men who also signed the document. You should know I have a bias in this area. I don't like quotas. Quotas too often result in somebody being labeled the "token ________" instead of being acknowledged as the right person for the right job. So even though the majority of United Methodists are women I could tolerate having fewer than 27 of the signers as women. As the signers are probably leaders in the denomination, a better reflection could be the demographics of General Conference (36% female). So it would be OK if only one third, 19 of the signers were women. Since most of the signers are clergy and only 27% of our clergy are women, maybe it would even be OK if 15 signers were women. But it wasn't 27, or 19, or even 15. It was 7. Less than 13%. This will become even more significant in a moment.

The Sky Is Falling!

One of the most prominent predictions that I hear for our church is that we will become like the Episcopal Church. The story goes like this: The Episcopal Church's acceptance of homosexuality progressed until finally the conservatives couldn't take it any more. The election of Gene Robinson as bishop (see Karen Oliveto) was the final straw. The Church could not take the strain any longer and broke apart. Since then, the liberal Episcopal Church has continued to slide into irrelevancy and reduced participation while the breakaway conservative churches have begun to prosper. If the UMC accepts homosexuality we will follow the same pattern, with a conservative group breaking away and prospering while the denomination itself declines into nothingness.

For the sake of argument, let's say the comparison holds. Let's say that the Episocopal and United Methodist churches are similar enough that this comparison is accurate. Let's say that the Bishops' Commission reports back to a special General Conference in 2018 with a plan that would largely hold the denomination together through a plan that a large majority can agree to but that a remnant on the right cannot agree to. The group on the right splits off and forms a new church. We already know who that group would be in the UMC - it's the group we're talking about in these posts. Who is that group in the Episcopal Church?

I'm glad you asked! In 2009, after several Episcopal churches had already left the denomination, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) formed. It now consists of nearly 1,000 churches. At least a handful of disgruntled United Methodists have already found their way to the ACNA. To their credit, the WCA has jumped ahead of the ACNA in their planning. Why wait for churches to leave the denomination in mass before forming a group that they can join instead? If the Episcopal Church and the UMC are similar enough that the comparison used by the conservatives holds then the WCA must be the UMC equivalence of the ACNA. So let's look briefly at some of that denomination's beliefs.

Who Is the ACNA?*

1. Some of us have asked why conservatives are not consistent with banning divorced pastors as well as LGBT pastors since the Bible seems clear about that. The ACNA would agree. A pastor who divorces and then wants to remarry must receive approval from the archbishop. For comparison, if we had a president of the Council of Bishops in the UMC, that would be similar to the ACNA's archbishop. Please note that the Liberia Annual Conference of the UMC has decided that a divorced pastor is not eligible to be elected bishop. The social norms and standards are different in the US and much of Africa. It may also be significant to note that the WCA's statements of belief are silent on divorce.

2. It's not just about pastors, though. If an ACNA member who is divorced wants to remarry, the pastor must get permission from the bishop (not archbishop) to perform that wedding. Some of us would like the discretion to marry a same sex couple. in the ACNA a pastor doesn't even have sole discretion to marry a divorced couple.

3. Now back to the women. The ACNA has the same issue with women as pastors that I WISH we had with people who are LGBT. Namely, every diocese (read Annual Conference) can choose whether or not to ordain women. Some will say that the WCA/ACNA comparison breaks down right here. After all, the WCA has a statement on equality that includes women. I would say actions speak louder. Having only seven women sign the original document speaks loudly. The failure of the South Central Jurisdiciton to elect a woman not only in 2016 but in three of the last four quadrenia (yes, that's one female bishop elected in the 21st century) speaks loudly. In the Central Conferences, only 15% of clergy elected to the 2016 General Conference were women and only 10% of active bishops are women (one in African and one in Europe.) Representation speaks loudly. Finally, there's a conversation I had with a prominent lay person in one of our South Central Jurisdiction Conferences at General Conference. Almost in passing, this lay person told me "90% of our church won't take a woman as a pastor." Are you serious? I assume that this was an exaggeration, but even if it was the fact that a statement like this could be made at all in 2016 is absolutely absurd. One does not need to be much of a skeptic to doubt the words of an equality statement when the evidence is so clear that there will not be equal treatment.

4. Finally, and perhaps most disturbing, in the ACNA the bishop has the authority to determine which versions of the Bible can be used in a local church. I usually read from the CEB in worship. Over the course of any given year one will probably also hear the NRSV, NIV, and Message used. In the ACNA you may have a bishop who just doesn't like one or more of those versions and won't let you use it. It seems unlikely that even the WCA would go this far, but I will note that their original statement on the Bible (which you can find in my second post) is more conservative than the ACNA's statement. I will also remind you that the real argument about Scripture that we are having in the UMC is not whether Scripture is authoritative but how Scripture is authoritative. There is no better way to win that debate than to control which Bible is used on Sunday mornings.

*all statements about ANCA practice and belief come from their website, mostly from documents in their governance section

Putting It All Together

I believe that as United Methodists we are better together. I believe we serve God more faithfully be staying together. I will be one of those who works towards a solution that holds us together. But if we cannot stay together, I will not be with the WCA. And it really has very little to do with whether or not my LGBT colleagues can be pastors or my LGBT parishioners can be married. Yes, those are concerns. But there are deeper issues. The original statement from the WCA on the Bible undoubtedly points closer to their beliefs than the almost meaningless statement that has been written since then. The refusal to note the equality even of celibate LGBT members, reflected both in the WCA statement and in my experience at General Conference, is repugnant. Finally, using the same analogy that so often is used to cast doubt on the "liberal" side of the UMC, the "conservative" WCA becomes a potentially dangerous group that could directly hinder any pastor who is divorced or who is female.

This is not the United Methodist Church, and it must be rejected.

Watch Out for the WCA Pt. 2

This is Part 2 of a short series on the new Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA). In the first part we examined what the WCA's Statement of Moral Principles says and doesn't say about equality for LGBT individuals regardless of their "practice." This time we look closer at what they say about Scripture.

The Original Statement on Biblical Authority

Before I mention the current WCA statement on Scripture, it's important to note that it is not their first statement. On August 2 the WCA revised and expanded their Purpose, Goals, and Beliefs page. The fact that this needed to be done less than one month after going public calls into question how firm their beliefs really are. But what did they say initially? The statement on Scripture was very succinct.

“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.” 

As a bumper sticker, this is a great statement. As a theological position it is seriously lacking. Most importantly,
- Stating that the Bible is the sole and final source for all that we believe completely discounts every other source of human knowledge. It means that science, archaeology, etc. can shed no new additional light on our beliefs. It goes leaps and bounds further than the Bible itself does in the often misused 2 Timothy 3:16.
- The United Methodist, and Biblical, view is not that the Bible is the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1). This is not a superficial difference. Scripture points to the Word of God, which is our true final authority.

The Revised Statement

To the authors' credit, the revised statement that now appears is far superior to the original statement. It now reads:

"Given the current challenges directed to the unique place of the Bible in the church, we affirm that the core of the Christian faith is revealed in Scripture as "the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3; NRSV). We look to the Bible therefore as our authority and trustworthy guide, which "is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16; NRSV). Illuminated by tradition, reason, and experience, the revelation of Scripture is the church's primary and final authority on all matters of faith and practice."

We can affirm much that is contained here.
- I do not know a United Methodist who would question the Bible as "our authority and trustworthy guide" or that it reveals "the core of the Christian faith." Indeed, the Love Your Neighbor Coalition, the group of thirteen organizations working towards inclusiveness, finds their identity in Scripture and the often maligned MFSA states that their effort toward inclusion "is grounded in Scripture."
- As a centrist, I appreciate the phrasing of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Scripture is illuminated by tradition, reason, and experience. They are not four equal but different kinds of authority. This is what I teach at the church I serve.

What is most interesting about the revised Statement on Biblical Authority is that it exists at all. Why is there a need to improve upon the statements on the Bible that are already part of our doctrinal standards? In particular, Article V of the Confession of Faith (page 71, 2012 Book of Discipline) is a beautiful 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."

This statement recognizes both the unique place and the limitation of Scripture. It recognizes that Scripture is God's word because it points to the Word of God. It reminds us that we rely on the Holy Spirit for discernment. It reminds us that we must remain humble in our views, stating that we are not to hold a belief as essential to salvation that is not articulated in Scripture. It reserves Scripture as speaking to faith and practice and not to history or science.

So why a new statement at all?

Reason for Concern

The stated reason for a paragraph on Scripture comes in the first clause of the first sentence: "Given the current challenges directed to the unique place of the Bible in the church..." In other words, the WCA asserts that the place of the Bible in our faith is being challenged by folks like Love Prevails and MFSA. But, as shown above, there is no serious challenge to "the unique place of the Bible in the church!" Across the theological spectrum what we are finding today is not a question of whether Scripture is authoritative, but how Scripture is authoritative. One way it could be  authoritative is that we submit to every word precisely as written in today's translations. Another way it could be authoritative is that we interpret all of Scripture and our very lives through the Great Commandment and the Great Commission. The often cited 2 Timothy 3:16 which is used to state that all Scripture is "God-breathed" can be understood to refer to what we know today as the Bible or, as undoubtedly it originally was intended, restricted to the Old Testament.

So let me say this another way. If the WCA believes the issue is simply that we need to believe that Scripture is authoritative they will not solve anything. First, we could all sign off on that statement. Second, a growing number of otherwise traditional evangelicals are changing their mind about this particular understanding of how Scripture is authoritative. N.T. Wright (who is a traditionalist on human sexuality) says in his fantastic book The Last Word,

"When we take the phrase 'the authority of scripture' out of its suitcase, then, we recognize that it can have Christian meaning only if we are referring to scripture's authority in a delegated or mediated sense from that which God himself possesses...The question then becomes: What might we mean by the authority of God, or of Jesus? What role does scripture have within that? Where does the Spirit come into the picture? And, not least, how does this 'authority' actually work? How does it relate, if at all, to the 'authority' of leaders or office-bearers within the church?"

Wright's questions are good ones. They are different questions than the simplistic "do you believe Scripture is authoritative?" Those on the theological left will not be of one mind on the answers to Wright's questions. Neither will those on the theological right. But they are the kinds of questions that we really ought to be asking.

The issue is clearly not whether Scripture is authoritative. The question is, perhaps, how Scripture is authoritative. The only reason for the WCA to give a new statement on the Bible is if, instead of wanting us to view Scripture as the our final authority, they want a particular interpretation of Scripture to be our final authority. In the next and final part you will see an example of how this may be lived out.

Watch Out for the WCA Pt. 1

Roughly two months ago a group of 55 United Methodists released a statement announcing the formation of the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA), a group that "will give orthodox United Methodists hope for the future and serve as a source of encouragement as the church works through a critical period of discernment." It would be naive to think that this group is not also designed to prepare for a future after the United Methodist Church. I do not say that to be critical. Our future is uncertain. It makes sense for like-minded United Methodists to prepare contingencies for what comes next. The purpose of this series of posts is not to critique whether the WCA should work on contingencies, but rather IF there is a split in the UMC to think through what a WCA dominated faction would be like. I would contend that it is likely to be not as generous an orthodoxy as is implied. I anticipate doing this in four posts, though it could be 3-5 when completed.

Issue 1 - LGBT RIGHTS

If you have any history with the UMC (and if you're reading this you probably do!) you know that the 44 year debate over LGBT rights is the presenting issue that has brought us to this point. It goes without saying that a self-proclaimed orthodox group will continue to be opposed to same sex marriage and the ordination of "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" (which is absurd language that I'll tackle at another time.  In the section of WCA beliefs on Moral Principles there is statement on equality that reads as follows:

"We believe that all persons are of sacred worth. Therefore, we gladly welcome all who seek to grow in their relationship with God to attend worship services and participate in the church's ministries. No person shall be disqualified from becoming a member of a local congregation, holding a leadership position in the church, or becoming an ordained or licensed clergy based on race, color, nationality, national origin, marital status, or economic condition. The WCA specifically renounces all racial and ethnic discrimination and commits itself to work toward full racial and ethnic equality in the church and in society."

On the surface this seems perfectly in line with what we might expect and with the current official position of the UMC. But there's a critically important difference - it's missing any mention of sexual orientation. Our stance as a denomination has been clear - our language on LGBT individuals always includes "self avowed, practicing." The WCA chose to write a statement on equality that ignores LGBT people regardless of whether or not they are celibate.

This is very significant. In a landmark case in 2005 Rev. Ed Johnson of Virginia did not allow a gay man to join the church he served because the man was practicing and unrepentant. Rev. Johnson was suspended but the Judicial Council overturned the suspension. Please note - Rev. Johnson was very clearly that the issue was not the man's sexual orientation, but "...homosexual practice, which we think is an important distinction." The party line since 2005 has been consistent - the issue is not whether someone is gay. The issue is whether a person "practices."

This was most clearly stated by Rev. Rob Renfroe, the President of Good News and a co-founder of the WCA in 2013:

"A very effective pastor in our Annual Conference whom I respect immensely and consider a close friend is attracted to persons of the same sex. That pastor has chosen a celibate life. No evangelical United Methodist I know would think such a person should be denied ordination. But if you listen to progressives, you would think that people like you and me are so homophobic that we reject people because of who they are. I’m afraid it seems too much to ask that even if they disagree with us, they at least present our views fairly."

It is striking that at at a time when our denomination needs clarity above all else, the WCA has excluded from their statement on equality even the people that they say are most in need of recognition - LGBT individuals who have chosen to remain celibate. This is consistent with my experience at General Conference in May on the subcommittee that dealt with Paragraph 4 of the Book of Discipline. A resolution calling for inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected status failed even though it said nothing about practice. (To be fair, the resolution initially passed by one vote but the following day two more delegates somehow changed subcommittees and when we were finalizing our work on the resolution it failed by 1 vote. I'm still not sure how this was allowed.)

I trust that the writers of the WCA, which include some of the brightest minds in Methodism, said what they meant. If they did I suggest that you be very cautious before joining the cause.

Next: Many traditionalists say that all the issues around human sexuality are really questions of Biblical authority. We'll take a look at what the WCA has to say about that.