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

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

Then the legislation came. Then the disconnect.

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

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

Protocol

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

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

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

Scripture

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

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

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

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

Why I'll Still #BeUMC Part 2 - Connection

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

#2 - the UMC Connection really matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GC 2022 - Hard Truth

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

General Conference 2022 isn't going to happen. 

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

General Conference Can't Meet in Person

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

Covid-19 will continue to make that impossible. 

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

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

General Conference Can't Meet Online

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

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

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

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

So What Now?

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

Sentimentalism and Scripture

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

- Rev. Eric Huffman at the WCA Global Gathering

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

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

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

Now about that sentimentality...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Less than Zero

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Elusive Promise of the Global Methodist Church

 "I just want the fight to stop."

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

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

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

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

Women in Ministry

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

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

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

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

Baptism

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

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

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

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

The Myth of Doctrinal Purity

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

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

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