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

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

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

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

Now back to 2021. 

What I said two years ago is still true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regionalization and Self-Determination

Do you ever read something and say to yourself, "Did they really say that?"

I'm talking about Tom Lambrecht of Good News and the soon to form new traditionalist Methodist denomination in response to a statement by a group of African bishops titled Let's Make Our Own Choices.

Lambrecht and friends are very proficient at speaking on behalf of other people. Remember that an important part of our colonial history is telling other people what is best for them. In fact, I would argue that there is a long history of U.S. traditionalists in the UMC telling Africans specifically what is best for them. It happens at every General Conference at breakfasts, it happens on trips to Africa billed as relationship building, and Lambrecht does it again here.

Lambrecht: "[T]he bishops lamented a situation in the church where they feel they are helpless observers, rather than participants in choosing their own future..."

Bishop Nhiwatiwa of Zimbabwe: “We have a choice of merely folding our hands and wait for events to unfold and then react to them. The other option which we have been espousing from the beginning of these deliberations is one of protecting the heritage of the United Methodist Church in Africa,”

Literally, Bishop Nhiwatiwa said that Africans are not "helpless observers." And he is right. It reminds me of a statement by the Institute for Religion and Democracy on the future of Methodism which tells Africans what they should believe about a post-separation UMC. To the contrary, I have found that the Africans I have spoken with, regardless of whether their theology and mine perfectly align, are quite capable of making their own decisions. Dr. David Scott makes a similar point in this must read. It is well past time for us in the U.S. to stop pretending like we can tell an entire continent what they should do.

It gets better.

Four days earlier Lambrecht criticized the Christmas Covenant as "essentially balkanize[ing]" the denomination. Lambrecht says, "It is highly ironic that, now that delegates from outside the U.S. are moving toward becoming a majority of our worldwide denomination, there is a move to weaken or even eliminate their voices from determining policies and standards for the church in the U.S." The real irony is that Lambrecht accuses U.S. progressives and centrists of this when the Christmas Covenant was written exclusively by people outside of the U.S. - one European and the others all African or Filipino. 

Lambrecht then makes one more false equivalency - he compares the Christmas Covenant to the 2008 Global Nature of the Church proposals that passed at General Conference and failed to be ratified as Constitutional amendments, largely because of unanimous or near-unanimous votes by central conferences. Interestingly, the chair of the task force that made the 2008 proposals was traditionalist leader Bishop Scott Jones. Lambrecht contends that progressives and centrists now want central conferences to stay out of U.S. decisions because they have an increasing number of votes and thus power at General Conference. In reality, we largely supported the 2008 proposal as well - even though that proposal very clearly would not have had a direct impact on LGBT inclusion. 

Today, centrists and progressives in the U.S. continue to support the anti-colonial position that groups across the globe should have a degree of self-determination while staying in the same denomination. Even the emerging traditionalist denomination agrees with this in theory, as their current draft of a new Book of Discipline includes regions. The honest truth is simple: We disagree on the amount of discretion each region should have. 

Bishop Nhiwatiwa is right. The people in Africa (and every central conference) have a choice. I'm confident that centrists and progressives in the U.S. will respect that choice. We will not continue a sad legacy of of Americans telling others what to do.

Traditionalists: Lay Down Your Swords

During the spring and summer the debates within the United Methodist Church went silent. Energy was rightly focused elsewhere. Now that's changed. I've been in five different national or international meetings in addition to several phone calls and email exchanges during the month of October as our conversations about the future of the denomination pick up again. 

I'd like you to know what hasn't happened. 

In my meetings with U.S. progressives, U.S. centrists, and people from other countries, I don't recall one time when U.S. traditionalists were insulted, disparaged, or attacked. I don't remember any speculation about future policies or positions a new traditionalist denomination would take. I don't remember any sensationalism. In fact, the only conversations I remember at all about traditionalists are when a friend from another country asked me (my paraphrase), "Did they really just say what I think they just said" and when we talked about what traditionalists may or may not do politically at a 2021 General Conference. 

Our focus has been us. The fight needs to be over. Which is why I am so dismayed in seeing recent attacks from U.S. traditionalists, specifically leadership of The IRD who are part of the leadership team for the formation of a new denomination. 

Lay. Down. Your. Swords. 

We are not fighting you. While you attack us,

• 225,000+ Americans have died from covid-19
• 1.1 million+ around the world have died
• People of Color in the U.S. are facing blatant discrimination
• Our brothers and sisters in Nigeria are facing intense civil unrest
• Our U.S. election is impending with undoubtedly some level of unrest to follow

In 2019 you pushed through a plan that has rightly been called mean-spirited. U.S. Annual Conferences responded by overwhelmingly rejecting your approach. They will still reject your approach, which appears to be much more closely aligned with secular politics than Christian charity.

We have too much work to do to fight. The world is too broken and the Gospel needs to be shared. 

Marx in America

 [Disclaimer: I'm a pastor, not a politician, but I've studied politics for decades because it is both fascinating and important. This piece should not be interpreted as an endorsement of any person or position. It is a theoretical observation.]

Socialism is coming to America.

That's what Karl Marx believed over 100 years ago.* He was wrong. Now we are hearing that if Joe Biden wins the White House Marx will be right after all. 

Clearly, I can't do this justice in a blog post (plus I'm not smart enough) but if socialism really was going to come to the U.S. in 2021 we should know a little of the history. So...here's a little.

• The idea of socialism goes way, way back but Marx approached it as more than an economic theory. He saw it as an evolutionary, historical process. 
• Marx came along just after the Industrial Revolution. Titans of industry began to emerge and economic classes began to stratify.
• Marx' thesis was this arrangement couldn't last. Eventually the "proletariat" (working class) would rebel against the bourgeoise (wealthy class) and take over. The end result would be a utopian state where all people give their full effort and all people receive from the community all that they need.

Our Socialist Past

• Despite the rhetoric, the United States has been far closer to socialism than it is today. In 1892 self-avowed socialist Francis Bellamy published the first version of our Pledge of Allegiance. 
• The Socialist Party of America ran a candidate for president in every election from 1900-1956. They peaked in 1912 with 6% of the vote, one of only 12 times a third party has garnered more than 5% of the vote and more than today's most popular minor party, the Libertarian party, has ever received.

Socialism was a big fad in the late 19th and early 20th century. Why? I have a theory. That era of American history is also known as the Gilded Age. It was a time, not long after his death, when it appeared Marx might be right. The rich were getting superrich. The poor were getting very poor. It had the appearances of a very wealthy time for the country, but in reality it was a very wealthy time only for the upper crust. It was also a time when there was a lot of resentment towards immigrants among the working class. Ring any bells?

If Marx were right, socialism and then communism should have been around the corner. So why was he wrong? An earlier teacher of mine, who was on the record as a left-wing Democrat, put it this way. "Marx's fallacy was that capitalism is capable of self-correction." 

One corrective measure was the creation of the income tax. Income tax was not allowed in the constitution, but became legal with the adoption of the 16th amendment in 1913. Note that this came right after the Socialists best shot at the White House. The top marginal rate (the tax rate for the highest of earners) began at 7%. Five years later it was 77%. It has varied since, but in its first 70 years of existence, the top right was at least 50% for all but 13 years. It spent15 years, under both Democrat and Republican presidents, over 90%. Income tax rate is obviously just one of many factors. We had the New Deal, Social Security, and Medicare to name just a few factors. 

One can certainly argue whether the social programs and higher taxes that pay for them are a good idea. It is not my purpose to take a position on that. I only want to point out this - one can easily see a different history where Marx was right. If the United States had not self-corrected from an extreme free-market maybe there would have been a revolt from the people. Or maybe there was a kind of revolt, just a peaceful one instead of a violent one, where voters helped us to self-correct. So socialism was avoided.**

Socialism Today

But since 1986 the top rate has never been even 40%. It may not be a coincidence that some say we have entered a Second Gilded Age. The working class is, again, fearful of immigrants taking jobs. The gap between the rich and poor is expanding. Academia debates whether the disparity has reached the highs of the Gilded Age or not but nobody denies that both income (think annual salary) and wealth (think savings, investments, housing, etc.) are rising much faster for the well-off than for the average Joe or Jill (not to mention the race-based gaps). 

So, while there is no socialist running for President this year***, there is definitely a rise in the number of people who claim socialism as an ideology or at least want some socialistic reforms. So does Marx have another chance? Could the U.S. actually move in a significantly socialist direction in 2020 and beyond?

Sure. It's 2020. Anything can happen. Seriously, though, the Democrats will almost certainly win the House, maybe 50/50 at winning the Senate, and barring a very significant change in the economy and pandemic are most likely going to win the presidency****. So, taking a stab at it, I'll say there's maybe a 40% chance they control both chambers and the presidency. The Supreme Court is not as conservative as we thought it would be thanks to Justice Roberts. So maybe some more socialistic policies could get through.

For some of you, that would be a dream come true. For others it would be a nightmare. So, if you are one who believes that socialism would be a horrible fate for the country, what can you do? I think there's actually a really simple answer. Give a little. 

We are approaching a time that is as ripe for massive social change as the Progressive Era, which followed the Gilded Age. I would contend that what protected the country from socialism at that moment in time was what my former teacher said - capitalists were able to self-correct. We didn't have to become a socialist country because we were able to make more moderate changes to pull us away from the extremes of the Gilded Age without full-blown socialism.

We are on an economic and social pendulum. Under Trump, we are swinging wildly toward one end of the pendulum. That's right where some people want us to be. But in a democracy, the extreme end of the pendulum is never sustainable. There will be an equal and opposite reaction. Which means swinging wildly to the left. Unless we self-correct to a more moderate swing to the left. If you are one who is opposed to, even scared of, socialism the answer isn't to run away from it. The answer is to make it a less desirable outcome by voluntarily moving some towards the center. Is it all that you want? Maybe not. But it may keep Marx out of America.

*Socialism and Communism are not exactly the same thing but, as best as I can tell, different people define both terms in different ways. One way to think of it is that communism is the fullest expression of socialism. Here's a pretty good short read on the subject.

**We've actually been sorta kinda socialist for a very long time. We have always had socialism in sectors. For example, we don't have a free-market system of deploying fire protection. We pay taxes so that the fire department protects all homes from fire regardless of ability to pay. To a lesser degree, energy companies and other infrastructure works the same way. Most of us will actually find ourselves agreeing that a pure, unadulterated free-market would not be good. Even the father of capitalism, Adam Smith, would say so. But that's for another time.

***Right wing media calls the Biden/Harris ticket the most liberal candidate in history. They have forgotten about George McGovern's run in 1972 and it's hard to argue that even he was as liberal/socialist as FDR. 

****OK, too many asterisks. No more. But I had to add this note. The idea that the polls are going to be wrong again this year like they were in 2016 is a misunderstanding of polls. The best polls gave Clinton around a 75% chance of winning. They didn't say 100%. The reality is national polls of her popularity were pretty darn close and with only a couple exceptions the state polls were within the margin of error. The truth is that 75% is not 100%. The swing states...swung. They all swung the same way. That could happen again this year, but it's not likely. If I were a betting man I'd put a lot on Biden right now. Again, not an endorsement just a prediction.

AND.

I hear pediatricians, psychologists, parents, and politicians say that children absolutely must return to school. And I agree.

I hear pediatricians, psychologists, parents, and politicians say that children absolutely must be safe, even if it means not returning to school. And I agree.

I hear experts and historians say that statues must come down. And I agree.

I hear experts and historians say that we must preserve our history. And I agree.

I hear civil libertarians argue that we must be vigilant about the government infringes on individual rights. And I agree.

I hear health advocates argue that we must be aware that our actions may infringe on someone's right to life. And I agree.

I hear social activists say Black Lives Matter. And I agree.

I hear police advocates say Blue Lives Matter. And I agree.

I hear reactionaries say All Lives Matter. And I agree. 

I saw a meme recently with a "Republican" column and a "Democrat" column and a list of polar opposites for each. And I don't agree.

In logic it's called a false dichotomy.

In Christianity it is the union of the Now and Not Yet of God's Kingdom.

In our lived experience it's called real life.

Two things can be true at the same time.

Two things are true at the same time. AND. Not OR.

OR divides us in the face of ambiguity.

AND unites us in solving wicked problems.

OR creates winners and losers.

AND recognizes that we win or lose together.

I choose AND. 

Why Our Church Didn't Close

The church I serve chose not to close because of COVID-19. 

The reason is very simple - the Church as the Body of Christ is essential to the wellbeing of the country and the world. Closing would be an abdication of our responsibility. What has happened since the decision not to close has been remarkable. 

• Our worship attendance has consistently been higher, with some weeks topping 25% more people than the same Sunday one year ago. People who used to call our church home and people who are brand new are all finding their way to us.
•  Financial support of the church's ministries has remained strong, with some people picking up where others have had to reduce giving. 
•  Additionally, the people of the church have given generously to special funds for the support of fellow members who have been adversely effected. 
• Beyond our doors, we have partnered with a nearby congregation and school to ensure that kids who are out of school have access to good nutrition. We have also continued to support other mission work in the community that we were involved with.
• Our creative staff has excelled in finding ways to involve people in worship, education, and soon in our kids summer camp who otherwise would not be as connected and our musicians have stepped up to the moment with the sharing of their gifts.
• The congregation has stepped up to the challenge of the moment with flexibility and understanding that goes beyond what I would have envisioned. I am deeply grateful to them.
• Members have also increased their usual number of "random acts of kindness," making a difference in the community on those occasions when they get out and lifting people's spirits with calls, emails, and notes.
  

There have certainly been challenges for us. The biggest one is that we have had to remain open without one of our greatest assets - our building. The government, rightfully, told churches to close their buildings so that we won't accidentally spread a harmful and sometimes deadly disease. This is no different than in 1918 except that today we have infinitely more options for connecting with each other and the world than we did 100 years ago.

The government can close a building, temporarily, for the wellbeing of the community. The government can't close the Church. Nobody can do that any more than they can stop children and teens from silently praying in schools. The Church can't be closed because, like the old song says, the Church is not the building. The Church is the Body of Christ. The only way that the Church can be shut down is if the Body decides to shut itself down. Even then, something tells me that Christ's name would still be praised. 

So about 10 weeks ago we closed our building. The same day, we opened the door to a new way of being the Body and living our faith. We're still figuring it out and we still look forward to getting back into the sanctuary, hopefully someday soon. But, building or not, we're still open for the essential work that we are called to fulfill.