The Big News out of SCJ

Last week I had the privilege of serving as a delegate for the Great Plains Conference at the South Central Jurisdictional Conference. You may have already heard some of what happened, particularly bishop elections and asking Judicial Council for a declaratory decision on newly elected bishop Karen Oliveto. I want to share a different perspective on these and other matters that I think gives us some hope for the future of the denomination.

Bishop Elections

There were eight endorsed candidates for bishop (and a late ninth entry). We were to elect three. It took a record 35 ballots to complete our elections. In conversation with some other delegates. The way the politics work (and please remember that politics is truly a neutral term), since a bishop must receive 60% of the votes to be elected a very strong minority can block an election without being able to elect their candidate. After Bishop Ruben Saenz was elected on the third ballot this is exactly what happened. David Wilson and Lynn Dyke were both strong candidates that eventually gave way to Jimmy Nunn. Then after being way behind for most of the process, Bob Farr surpassed David Wilson for the final spot. Rev. Wilson in particular had very committed support. I believe he is a strong leader, but coming from a Native American background leadership looks different. It is more collaborative and less top-down - precisely the kind of leadership we need in tense times. Unquestionably we need more diversity than we have in the ranks of our South Central bishops. Personally, Because they were both also perceived as theologically left of center there was strong progressive and centrist support for David and Lynn. And the progressives just. didn't. give. up.

In past conferences, each Annual Conference (like the Great Plains) would vote mostly together. That didn't happen here. People throughout the conferences were voting their conscience even if that didn't line up with their own best interest. That's a good thing! And it's OK that it took us a long time to get to our final results.

The Centrist win
The bad news of the elections, and it is bad news, is that we were not able to increase our diversity as much as we could have. Here's the good news.  If you line up all eight candidates from left to right (theologically speaking), the three bishops elected were largely perceived as numbers 3-5. In other words, the two most liberal and three most conservative candidates were not elected. The centrists won. In the second most conservative jurisdiction in the United States, the centrists won!

Resolutions

Typically, election of bishops is the only significant action that happens at Jurisdictional Conference. But this year there were three other potentially significant issues. In the order that they came up,

1) Resolution related to the action of General Conference. A week or so prior to the conference we became aware that a delegate from the Texas Conference had submitted a petition that called on United Methodists to uphold the Book of Discipline while the Council of Bishops and their soon to be named Commission work on a plan for the denomination to move forward. If you don't know all the background this seems like a completely reasonable proposition. But upholding the Book of Discipline has become code language for what those on the left see as prosecuting (persecuting?) LGBT pastors. Particularly given the well known conservative bent of the Texas Conference, this resolution seemed divisive rather than uniting. So a couple of us proposed an alternative resolution that used the language of the Council of Bishops - uphold the Book of Discipline while also working to reduce trials and minimize harm. In a moment of intercession by the Spirit, the author of the Texas petition and the cosigner of our alternative petition met outside of the Committee on Petitions and Resolutions and reached a compromise - the Texas petition moved forward but with language incorporated from our petition. Was it perfect? No. But it was done together, across the theological divide. On Friday the Jursidictional Conference passed the petition almost unanimously. That's a centrist win!

2) A second proposal came from a task force called Mission 21. Long story short, anticipating that we will need to reduce the number of bishops by one in four years, the group was assigned the task of proposing the best path forward. They gave us two options. The preferred option would redivided counties in Texas to create four instead of five conferences. The alternative would pair conferences to reduce the number of bishops without changing the boundaries of annual conferences. Every Texas conference is affected by the preferred option, but all the conferences stay mostly intact...except for the Texas Conference. In the new alignment about 15% of the Texas Conference moves into the other three conferences. It is clear the task force did not have political motives. I voted for the proposal without political motives. It is the right thing to do. But one conference, the Texas Conference, was clearly opposed and also happens to be the largest conference and arguably most conservative conference in the jurisdiction. The Texas Conference didn't get what they wanted and one could make a strong case that a theoretical 2024 Jurisdictional Conference would be more centrist as as result.

3) Finally, at the last minute we had the request for a declaratory decision by the Judicial Council regarding the election of Karen Oliveto, who is an openly gay pastor, as a bishop in the Western Jurisdiction. You will all have an opinion on this. But I just want you to hear what the decision we made actually means: In the second most conservative jurisdiction in the United States only 56% of the delegates were willing to ask the Judicial Council to rule on Bishop Oliveto's election. I am convinced that when it comes to LGBT rights a motion similar to the "third way" proposal of the Connectional Table would stand a good chance of passing in our jurisdiction. I would have preferred it if the motion had been defeated, but the most important outcome is that it demonstrates again that while we are divided the extremes are, well, extreme.

What I want you to hear is that the South Central Jurisdiction should give hope to the Methodist Middle. You are a large group. Perhaps even a majority group in the United States. Don't give up on the UMC holding together, or at least mostly holding together. If the centrists are willing to stand up and be heard our united future is still bright!

Conversation Matters

In moments of tension and high conflict every opportunity for helpful discourse is crucial. It is most unfortunate that Bishop Scott Jones has missed one of these rare opportunities in the case of Rev. Cynthia Meyer.

                On the last day of the Great Plains Annual Conference, Rev. Russell Brown proposed a well-crafted motion asking Bishop Jones and both the Counsel for the Church and the Counsel for Rev. Meyer to follow a provision currently in the Book of Discipline (¶2706.c3) that would move Rev. Meyer’s case away from the courtroom and back into conversation between Rev. Meyer, Bishop Jones, and potentially a third party mediator. This provision helps the Church closely follow the guidelines for handling discipline that Jesus gives us in Matthew 18. The only catch is that The Committee on Investigation can only implement ¶2706.c3 at the request of both the Counsel for the Respondent (Rev. Meyer) and the Counsel for the Church.

                Please hear me clearly: Rev. Brown’s motion was not to find Rev. Meyer innocent. Indeed, ¶2706.c3 explicitly says “Such referral will not constitute a dismissal…”. In making the motion, Rev. Brown articulated clearly that he was not siding with Rev. Meyer or Bishop Jones.

Unlike some other conferences in our connection, the Great Plains is a body that is not of one mind on matters of human sexuality. One year ago we adopted a motion asking for a third way by roughly a 60-40 margin. We are civil, we are respectful, but we are divided. And yet this year Rev. Brown's motion passed by an overwhelming margin, estimated at 75-25. The will of the body was abundantly clear. This was not a progressive vs. traditionalist vote. This was a vote that was mindful of how destructive church trials can be. The pain of Jimmy Creech’s 1999 trial in the former Nebraska Conference came up repeatedly during the debate.

                Thus many of us were encouraged by Bishop Jones’ statement in the days following Annual Conference that he would engage again in conversation working towards just resolution. Acting in good faith, Rev. Meyer has engaged in those conversations. Yet Bishop Jones has still missed an opportunity. Bishop Jones and Council for the Church declined the clear request of three-fourths of the Annual Conference by refusing to hit the pause button on Rev. Meyer’s trial. It is important to say this again – the request of the Annual Conference was not to dismiss the charges. This was a movement of the middle in the spirit of the statement from The Council of Bishops at General Conference that we avoid trials while upholding the Book of Discipline. There was one and only one option available to do precisely that. It was recommended by an overwhelming majority, and it was turned down. I’m confident Rev. Meyer will still work earnestly at just resolution. But working towards just resolution with a trial looming seems much more like negotiating a plea bargain than engaging in Christian conferencing.

Bishop Jones has consistently claimed that his hands are tied by the Book of Discipline, but even within our Book of Discipline we have provisions for common sense and conversation to win the day. It is unfortunate that one week before Bishop Jones' tenure in the Great Plains comes to an end, a time during which so much good was done including the very creation of this new conference, his time will be remembered primarily for a trial that didn’t need to happen.

Last post for now

I'm trying - I really am - but there is so much happening right now that I am having a hard time doing what I need to do for General Conference and for myself. So please check back but don't anticipate a post each day. Instead, consider following Wil Cantrell's posts. I don't know Wil so I can't promise they will continue to be good, but I've appreciated his writing so far. (It's a lot easier to find a moment to read than to write.

I will say one more word because I know that most of you are concerned specifically about LGBT legislation. If you've been following along in other venues like twitter you're probably discouraged. I understand that, but I also hope that you'll wait until next week to get too discouraged. At the moment we are divided not only into 12 committees, but then into at least 25 subcommittees. The makeup of those subcommittees is somewhat fluid and is often not representative of the full committee or the body as a whole. For example, in my subcommittee I've been working to include "sexual orientation" as a protected status (like race, economic condition, etc.) On Thursday we lost a vote to add it by one, then passed it by two, then yesterday and today lost again by two or three votes. In a subcommittee of 17 that is part of a committee of 75 it will be interesting to see what happens this afternoon in front of the whole committee. And then it will need to come before the whole General Conference. So there are still many possibilities of any of the many discriminatory passages to come out. Do not be optimistic,but do not lose hope.

General Conference Day 2

Actually it's morning of day 3. General Conference is always slow to gt moving, but particuarly this year. We have completed two of ten days of work - 20% - and have still not finished passing our rules. We are now hearing nominations for a variety of offices. The process is painfully slow.

Worship is very inspiring at the start of the day, and then we immediately shift gears and get bogged down. I'm reminded that the first general conferences were for clergy only, but much more for the purpose of worship and renewal than for the setting of rules. I wouldn't suggest we go back to clergy only, but it would be nice if our emphasis could shift back.

The final rule that we still need to address is rule 44, a proposed rule to help us address contentious issues. Because it is not currently in our rules, we would have to both approve adding it to the rules and then vote to make use of it. Probably won't add it to the rules and we will almost certainly not actually use it.

Nominations have closed and we're about to argue about rules again - gotta go!

General Conference Day 1.5

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

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

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

Pax Methodos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Conversation on the Interpretation of Scripture - Pt.2

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

Lambrecht accuses Haynes of:

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

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

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

4. Arguing from silence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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