Far-right traditionalists have long maintained that General Conference in February 2019 will not really be about human sexuality. It will be about something deeper. They are right.
A sample of what I mean:
- "This is not a new battle in the church. Every generation has had to confront the false gospel that would deny the Lordship of Jesus." - WCA President, Keith Boyette
- "The Fallacy of the Big Tent" - title of column by Good News Vice-President, Tom Lambrecht
- "The Judicial Council has defined connectionalism in a new way which will change the United Methodist Church. As now defined by the Judicial Council, connectionalism allows 'room for diversity of theological perspectives and opinions.'" - Boyette, after the October 2018 Judicial Council decision
These are the primary spokespeople of the far right in the UMC. Just look at what each of these quotes means:
- If you disagree with us on human sexuality then you are preaching a false gospel and deny the Lordship of Jesus. I've pointed previously to Lambrecht saying the same thing. He denied saying what he said because it's not politically correct. But just listen to the words. I hope we can all agree that denying the Lordship of Jesus is a pretty high offense. I don't want to be in the same denomination as one who denies the Lordship of Jesus or preaches a false gospel. That person is pretty much by definition not a Christian. This is why many people with traditional views on human sexuality will ultimately not want to be part of a WCA denomination. We are capable of recognizing that significant differences in theological opinion does not mean some are dismembered from the Body of Christ.
- "The Fallacy of the Big Tent" makes for a good title but poor theology. First, every tent has stakes in the ground that mark the boundaries. I, for one, appreciate those who remind us of the boundaries. But in his column Lambrecht criticizes "a 'big tent' enclosing many varied perspectives, opinions, and practices within one over-arching church." This should be contrasted with "if your heart is as my heart take my hand" and "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." The choice before us is whether we will live in a big tent or a pup tent. The One Church Plan envisions a big tent that is bound together by our doctrinal standards. The Traditionalist Plan envisions a pup tent where we achieve unity by group-think.
- And as further proof of that statement, see Boyette's rebuttal to the Judicial Council. He criticizes their judgement that connectionalism "allows room for diversity of theological perspectives and opinions." I am not familiar with a Methodist church that does not allow room for diversity of theological perspectives. Which of our local churches does not allow room for diversity of theological perspectives? Which of our annual conferences? In which era of Methodism did everybody agree?
The areas where we do have, or at least should have, agreement are our doctrinal standards. Those standards are silent on LGBT inclusion. A trumped up case was made to the Judicial Council that our doctrinal standards do speak to this because Wesley's Notes on the New Testament (which are officially part of our doctrine) refer once to marriage as between one man and one woman. I can't recall any other time in my ministry that someone has appealed to Wesley's notes, which are out of print by the way, as the sole basis for a doctrinal position. Wesley's notes also identify the Pope as the beast in Revelation (chapter 13, verse 1). So if those notes really are doctrinal standards that we all need to adhere to then we all need to be clear in our teaching on Revelation.
I believe the vast majority of United Methodists - even the vast majority who have signed on to be WCA members - do not envision pup tent Methodism. We envision a big tent with lots of room. A Methodism that holds fast to essentials and allows diversity in non-essentials. That's what we're voting on in February. I'll be voting to keep you and me in the same tent.
Thursday, November 15, 2018
Thursday, November 8, 2018
What a Real "Gracious Exit" Might Look Like
Delegates to General Conference from the Great Plains are getting plenty of emails sharing opinions about the best path for the United Methodist Church. Those opinions are very diverse. I had a brief dialogue with one person whose email can be summarized as "please vote for the traditional plan, but if you can't do that at least give us the gracious exit." If only it were so simple.
Before sharing why I don't think it is so simple you should know that I told that person I would support that church's decision to leave the denomination if that's what they felt they needed to do. The starting point for any conversation about leaving a denomination should be the same as the starting point for an individual leaving a local church - nobody should be held hostage. That doesn't do anyone any good. It is completely conceivable and appropriate for churches (and individuals) to have the ability to leave. The question is how that is best done. What principles should be applied to a plan for a "gracious exit?" I suggest there are at least two.
1) A gracious exit may look different for one church than it does for another church. The church I serve is 35 years old. We are on the verge of paying off debt that was accumulated over those years. We are fairly well off financially and we have a good piece of land. We have always paid our apportionments and we have also received a number of grants and good leadership from the conference. My email dialogue partner didn't feel the same. Their church was over 100 years old. It is small and rural and the conference investment in more recent times has been minimal. It seems to me that if a 100+ year old small church with a part-time pastor wants to leave the denomination the financial cost should be minimal. The local church has undoubtedly given greatly to the connectional church. Perhaps an apt metaphor is the way we might care for an elderly parent - they have given of themselves already and we owe them a debt, not the other way around. Frankly, though, the church I serve is in a different position. We are more like the caregiver. Financially, we are now giving far more to the Conference than the Conference is giving to us. But we're only 35. We still owe our very existence to the greater United Methodist Church. I can't put a number on it, but I will say unequivocally that if we choose to leave the denomination we should be required to pay something in return for all the denomination has done for us. A real "gracious exit" must allow for conferences to treat local churches as individual churches instead of treating every church the same.
2) A gracious exit must happen at a time when both the local church and the conference can treat each other with grace. True story. I was talking with a husband who was considering divorce. Without question the marriage had been in trouble for a number of years. In this moment it was particularly fragile. They were about to become empty-nesters and an unexpected and unwelcome job change was coming that would require at least one spouse to relocate. My pastoral word to him: "I know that I don't make my best decisions when I'm in a time of really high anxiety. Maybe this isn't the right time for a life-altering decision. What would happen if you stick together for another year while you work through some of these changes?" The year hasn't elapsed yet - I don't know what the outcome will be. But I do know that if this couple divorces it will be less messy if they are able to do it at a time with less stress than they were experiencing in that moment. A real gracious exit must not be forced. It must allow space for the right action at the right time.
Is such a gracious exit possible? Yes. In fact we already have this kind of gracious exit. Our Book of Discipline already allows churches to leave the denomination. It allows conferences to treat these churches individually and it doesn't impose a time limit. If we can treat one another with grace then we can allow churches that need to leave our connection to exercise that option without any changes to the Book of Discipline.
What about the Traditional Plan's Exit?
The "gracious exit in the Traditional Plan (TP) violates both of the prerequisites above.1) The TP's exit treats all churches the same. We have learned that one-size-fits-all just doesn't work anymore. It doesn't work for church growth, it doesn't work for pastoral leadership, it doesn't work for local church or annual conference organization. It won't work for an exit plan either.
2) The TP forces churches and annual conferences to make an exit decision at exactly the wrong time. The decision on leaving the denomination must be made in roughly 12 months. For annual conferences, it would almost certainly require a special conference session. We would actually make our best decisions if the clock were reversed - if we had to stick together for another 12 months before being able to leave the denomination. Many states have a mandatory waiting period for a divorce. Should we not have the same kind of standard for splitting the Body of Christ?
A More Gracious Plan
A more gracious exit plan might look like this:First, have a process that is followed by every conference that allows for the possibility of different outcomes. For example, every church that is considering leaving should have a church conference rather than having only officers of the church make a decision. That's a process that every church can follow. A common process can ensure that all members who wish to remain United Methodist have a place to go.
Second, every conference (through district superintendents and boards of trustees) should work in partnership with the local church to determine equitable terms for closure. My guess is that in most cases payment from the local congregation to the conference will be minimal (outside of what has become a unanimous agreement that churches should contribute to future pension obligations).
Third, churches are not bound by time constraints. If a church determines two years from now that it needs to leave then that option is open. If a church decides one year from now that they need to leave that option is also open.
How Would We Implement a Gracious Plan
If this seems like a reasonable plan then I have good news. This is pretty much what the current Book of Discipline does. We know that this process works because there are churches today that are leaving the denomination instead of waiting until after General Conference. They are doing that now because the process actually works now.In fact, ironically, the Traditional Plan incorporates an exit path allegedly for progressive churches to leave that progressive churches have said they don't want. I don't believe I've heard from any pastor or lay member of a progressive congregation that they need an exit plan other than what we currently have. The only call I've heard for an exit plan is from traditionalists.
We should be fair. We need to be fair. We need to allow those who need to leave to do so. We don't need a new way of doing what we have already proven we can do right now. I appreciate that the One Church Plan focuses on how to help us stay together rather than forging new and unnecessary ways for us to separate.
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
The Power of And
A few years ago a member of the church I serve taught me about the importance of choosing the correct conjunction. One example: If my child gets upset after I correct her misbehavior I could say, "I love you but I want you to do the right thing." All she will hear is "I want you to do the right thing." The word "but" negates the first half of the sentence even if that is not what the speaker intends. If, instead, I say "I love you and I want you to do the right thing" then she will hear two equal statements. I love her. I want her to do the right thing. The word choice is subtle. The difference is huge.
I think some people are not able to support the One Church Plan because of a missing And. They hear "I may disagree with you but we can stay in the same church."
What I hope everyone can hear is "I may disagree with you and we can stay in the same church."
"I may disagree with you but..." sounds like a negation of your opinion. I'm right, you're wrong, but you can still stay in the church with me. It reminds me of my first seminary class. After a sentence that used "God" 6 times instead of any pronouns was lifted up as an example of good inclusive language I revolted - it may have been good inclusive language but it was poor writing. That evening a well-meaning student said to me, "That's OK, you just aren't there yet. But you'll get there." I didn't want to "get there!" I wanted to stay right where I was! Who was he to tell me that I needed to change?
The alternative, and as a "progressive compatibilist" what I would argue for, is "I may disagree with you AND..." I believe in full LGBTQ inclusion. And I can live in a church with people who disagree with me. And I can live in a church where those who disagree with me may never change their minds.
The question before us as United Methodists is not whether or not we agree or disagree on "the practice of homosexuality." We already know the answer to that. Using General Conference votes as a guide, about 40% of us believe homosexuality is compatible with Christian teaching and about 60% of us don't. In the United States the percentages are probably flipped - 60% approve and 40% disapprove. That's not what we will be voting on in February. We'll be voting on which conjunction we choose to use.
Choosing to live with an AND means choosing to live with some tension. We need to be OK with that. We live in a world of tension. AND tension is part of our faith tradition. At the much discussed Council of Jerusalem we were given an AND. James' word to Paul was "You do your thing AND we will do ours." We don't see the Jerusalem Church suddenly stopping the practice of circumcision. They continued their practice AND they allowed Paul to continue his. I'm quite confident some tension remained.
Here in Kansas most of our churches are AND churches. We disagree about all kinds of stuff. Politically we are labeled a red state but we're really more of a deep purple. There is a clear Republican majority but I would guess 95% of United Methodist churches have at least a few Democrats. Kansas has had one President - Republican Dwight Eisenhower - under whom the highest tax bracket was 90%. That's purple. Spiritually, most of the churches I have served have been, on the whole, conservative. But I can name conversations in each of those places with people who have said "I know what our official teaching is on human sexuality but I don't know if I agree with it."
What I most appreciate about the One Church Plan is that it sounds like it came from Kansas. In fact it is similar to legislation the Great Plains Conference sent to General Conference in 2016. We disagree with each other AND we know how to live with each other in the midst of disagreements. We do it every day. Maybe that's why a reported 100 people attended a WCA organizational meeting advertised throughout Kansas and Nebraska not to long ago while at a church in the same town just a few weeks later about 80 people gathered, mostly from that church alone, to hear about the One Church Plan. Do we all agree? Absolutely not. AND that's OK. We're still going to do church together. We're still going to do life together. We're still going to do faith together. That's what we do. We're the Body of Christ. We don't let disagreements stop us.
You may agree with me, you may disagree with me, either way I hope you AND I can stay united.
I think some people are not able to support the One Church Plan because of a missing And. They hear "I may disagree with you but we can stay in the same church."
What I hope everyone can hear is "I may disagree with you and we can stay in the same church."
"I may disagree with you but..." sounds like a negation of your opinion. I'm right, you're wrong, but you can still stay in the church with me. It reminds me of my first seminary class. After a sentence that used "God" 6 times instead of any pronouns was lifted up as an example of good inclusive language I revolted - it may have been good inclusive language but it was poor writing. That evening a well-meaning student said to me, "That's OK, you just aren't there yet. But you'll get there." I didn't want to "get there!" I wanted to stay right where I was! Who was he to tell me that I needed to change?
The alternative, and as a "progressive compatibilist" what I would argue for, is "I may disagree with you AND..." I believe in full LGBTQ inclusion. And I can live in a church with people who disagree with me. And I can live in a church where those who disagree with me may never change their minds.
The question before us as United Methodists is not whether or not we agree or disagree on "the practice of homosexuality." We already know the answer to that. Using General Conference votes as a guide, about 40% of us believe homosexuality is compatible with Christian teaching and about 60% of us don't. In the United States the percentages are probably flipped - 60% approve and 40% disapprove. That's not what we will be voting on in February. We'll be voting on which conjunction we choose to use.
Choosing to live with an AND means choosing to live with some tension. We need to be OK with that. We live in a world of tension. AND tension is part of our faith tradition. At the much discussed Council of Jerusalem we were given an AND. James' word to Paul was "You do your thing AND we will do ours." We don't see the Jerusalem Church suddenly stopping the practice of circumcision. They continued their practice AND they allowed Paul to continue his. I'm quite confident some tension remained.
Here in Kansas most of our churches are AND churches. We disagree about all kinds of stuff. Politically we are labeled a red state but we're really more of a deep purple. There is a clear Republican majority but I would guess 95% of United Methodist churches have at least a few Democrats. Kansas has had one President - Republican Dwight Eisenhower - under whom the highest tax bracket was 90%. That's purple. Spiritually, most of the churches I have served have been, on the whole, conservative. But I can name conversations in each of those places with people who have said "I know what our official teaching is on human sexuality but I don't know if I agree with it."
What I most appreciate about the One Church Plan is that it sounds like it came from Kansas. In fact it is similar to legislation the Great Plains Conference sent to General Conference in 2016. We disagree with each other AND we know how to live with each other in the midst of disagreements. We do it every day. Maybe that's why a reported 100 people attended a WCA organizational meeting advertised throughout Kansas and Nebraska not to long ago while at a church in the same town just a few weeks later about 80 people gathered, mostly from that church alone, to hear about the One Church Plan. Do we all agree? Absolutely not. AND that's OK. We're still going to do church together. We're still going to do life together. We're still going to do faith together. That's what we do. We're the Body of Christ. We don't let disagreements stop us.
You may agree with me, you may disagree with me, either way I hope you AND I can stay united.
Monday, October 1, 2018
A Plea from a Pastor
Dear friends in the pews,
Yesterday, in a church that is widely considered one of the most "liberal" United Methodist churches in the state, we did an exercise intended to point out the discrepancy between what men and women think about regarding sexual assault. By a show of hands, we saw that this is something the majority of women think about regularly while very few men do. It was just a one question survey - "Have you ever felt the need to prepare for the possibility of being sexually assaulted?" After one worship service a person, it happened to be a woman, said something like "Your bias showed through. You should have also asked if anyone has ever been scared that they would be falsely accused of sexual assault."
One state south of me, another United Methodist preacher used a story in worship that (full disclosure) I would never have used and probably wasn't fully thought out. Another person, also happened to be a woman, walked out five minutes into the sermon and missed that the message was not intended to be about politics, but about reconciliation.
I don't blame the pastors; I don't blame the people. Words that a distant two years ago would have been seen as docile now cause people to leave churches - I know, because two years ago that happened to me as well. Pastors are told to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted." We are in a time when everybody feels afflicted. The pastor now must choose between afflicting some of the afflicted more or just ignoring what lies outside the stained glass.
I share with new pastors that there are three sermons every Sunday. One is the sermon that you write. The second is the words you say (hopefully you aren't reading word for word from the manuscript!). The third is the sermon that people hear. The listener brings all their stuff to the sermon process. If the congregation I serve is a typical gathering of people, yesterday my message was heard by someone who is recovering from abuse, someone who is currently being abused, someone who has been an abuser, someone who is an abuser, someone who has been and/or is being abused and is in denial, someone who has a relative living in danger...the list goes on. Every one of these people heard what I said in a different way. It is not possible for the same sermon that I wrote or that I spoke to be heard in the same way by that variety of people. It's not that one person hear it "right" and another heard it "wrong." They simply heard it "different," and at least in some cases differently than I intended. It's nobody's fault - not mine, not the woman who spoke to me yesterday, not the pastor in Oklahoma or the person who spoke to him.
I've been preaching pretty much every Sunday for 19 years. Never in that time have I chosen my words more carefully and never in that time have I regularly felt like I ended up choosing the wrong words.
So, as a pastor, on behalf of your pastor, please understand the bind that we are in right now. When we say something that hurts please let us know. Say something afterwards like "I don't think this is what you intended, but when you said X I heard Y". Please don't ignore what hurt you - we need to know when our words aren't helpful - and at the same time please know we really truly are doing our best.
1 Corinthians 13 reminds us that love is patient and kind and rejoices in the truth. May we be patient and kind with one another while also speaking the truth to and with one another in love.
Peace,
David
Yesterday, in a church that is widely considered one of the most "liberal" United Methodist churches in the state, we did an exercise intended to point out the discrepancy between what men and women think about regarding sexual assault. By a show of hands, we saw that this is something the majority of women think about regularly while very few men do. It was just a one question survey - "Have you ever felt the need to prepare for the possibility of being sexually assaulted?" After one worship service a person, it happened to be a woman, said something like "Your bias showed through. You should have also asked if anyone has ever been scared that they would be falsely accused of sexual assault."
One state south of me, another United Methodist preacher used a story in worship that (full disclosure) I would never have used and probably wasn't fully thought out. Another person, also happened to be a woman, walked out five minutes into the sermon and missed that the message was not intended to be about politics, but about reconciliation.
I don't blame the pastors; I don't blame the people. Words that a distant two years ago would have been seen as docile now cause people to leave churches - I know, because two years ago that happened to me as well. Pastors are told to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted." We are in a time when everybody feels afflicted. The pastor now must choose between afflicting some of the afflicted more or just ignoring what lies outside the stained glass.
I share with new pastors that there are three sermons every Sunday. One is the sermon that you write. The second is the words you say (hopefully you aren't reading word for word from the manuscript!). The third is the sermon that people hear. The listener brings all their stuff to the sermon process. If the congregation I serve is a typical gathering of people, yesterday my message was heard by someone who is recovering from abuse, someone who is currently being abused, someone who has been an abuser, someone who is an abuser, someone who has been and/or is being abused and is in denial, someone who has a relative living in danger...the list goes on. Every one of these people heard what I said in a different way. It is not possible for the same sermon that I wrote or that I spoke to be heard in the same way by that variety of people. It's not that one person hear it "right" and another heard it "wrong." They simply heard it "different," and at least in some cases differently than I intended. It's nobody's fault - not mine, not the woman who spoke to me yesterday, not the pastor in Oklahoma or the person who spoke to him.
I've been preaching pretty much every Sunday for 19 years. Never in that time have I chosen my words more carefully and never in that time have I regularly felt like I ended up choosing the wrong words.
So, as a pastor, on behalf of your pastor, please understand the bind that we are in right now. When we say something that hurts please let us know. Say something afterwards like "I don't think this is what you intended, but when you said X I heard Y". Please don't ignore what hurt you - we need to know when our words aren't helpful - and at the same time please know we really truly are doing our best.
1 Corinthians 13 reminds us that love is patient and kind and rejoices in the truth. May we be patient and kind with one another while also speaking the truth to and with one another in love.
Peace,
David
Thursday, September 13, 2018
I'm a Christian, Too
Tom Lambrecht from Good News believes I'm not a Christian. He may not think you are one, too.
But don't take my word for it. Read his commentary on unity and the United Methodist Church. That's right, in a commentary about unity he said I'm not a Christian.
But don't take my word for it. Read his commentary on unity and the United Methodist Church. That's right, in a commentary about unity he said I'm not a Christian.
You should read it, but if you don't here's a brief summary: Citing Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17, Lambrecht points out that true unity comes not primarily from our desires but from Jesus Christ. Further, he notes that sometimes organic union in a denomination is not possible because of differences in teaching. Those like me who advocate the One Church Plan compare it to the diversity of belief adopted in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) but Lambrecht rightly notes that in other cases believers are counseled to separate. He cites 2 John 9-10 and 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1. Make note of this. We'll come back to them. Lambrecht then asks if our current situation is the former or the latter and ultimately asserts that we would best be a witness by dividing to avoid "pain and turmoil." He closes by asking, "If we must take the road of adversarial choices, can we not do it with love and grace toward one another, giving the world a witness of how we believe Christ followers should treat one another?"
It is a good question. But it is based on a false premise. What Lambrecht has actually done is set up an artful strawman. And, if I am wrong about that - if Lambrecht's characterization is correct - then he has no choice but to forcibly remove me and so many others from the denomination as worshippers of a false god. Further, the entire Traditionalist argument against the One Church Plan is built on this precise argument.
The Strawman
I've planned for a while to write a blog arguing that John 17 should be a basis for our denominational unity and the One Church Plan. That whole post can be summed up in two sentences: "Jesus says that our unity will be our witness to the world. What better witness could there be today for the transcendent power of God's love than the counter-cultural message that people with very different beliefs can still be united under the banner of Christ?"
But Lambrecht says we can't do that because "we have in the church two groups that believe the other group is bringing erroneous or false teaching into the church. " He argues that Traditionalists believe that progressive teaching on LGBT rights is wrong and progressives believe that traditionalists teaching is discrimination. This dichotomy is precisely what the One Church Plan rejects. I believe that there will be a time when the large majority of Christians look back and say "Wow. We were wrong to treat our gay sisters and brothers differently" the same way that many people who are white now think of our history with people of color. But this is not that time. Those who support The Simple Plan, the only plan that is truly a progressive plan, may believe that this is that time but, along with many other supporters of the One Church Plan, I disagree. Let me say it clearly:
Tom Lambrecht is NOT a false teacher. He is a brother in Christ who happens to be wrong, in my opinion, on a matter of great significance.
The One Church Plan is based on the premise that we do not have to all be exactly alike in order to be in the same denomination. As a pastor of a reconciling congregation, there have been occasions when a church member or participant has shared that they are no longer comfortable worshiping here because of our stance. I always direct that person to another United Methodist Church, just like other pastors in the community have directed people to me. Why? Because while we disagree about this there is so much more that we agree on! We are not arguing about our doctrinal statements, sacraments, women's ordination, infant baptism, prevenient grace, predestination, the list goes on. We aren't arguing about any of the things that make all of us Methodists.
I profoundly disagree with Lambrecht on the proper role for LGBT people in the church. And also, he is a brother in Christ and not a false teacher. But that's not what he thinks about me. Because if he believes the strawman he created then the only faithful response is to refuse amicable separation.
I profoundly disagree with Lambrecht on the proper role for LGBT people in the church. And also, he is a brother in Christ and not a false teacher. But that's not what he thinks about me. Because if he believes the strawman he created then the only faithful response is to refuse amicable separation.
False Teachings and the Teachers that Teach Them
Remember those two passages that Lambrecht cited when noting that the Bible tells us sometimes we need to separate? 2 John 9-10: "Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching..." and 2 Corinthians beginning at 6:14: "Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness?" To this, let me add Lambrecht's own words in describing what people like me believe and teach: "Such teaching would be false and not true to the Gospel and therefore unacceptable in the church." And he says that I believe that traditionalists teach "false teaching that must be change and repudiated by the church."
I trust that Lambrecht has chosen his words and as a firm Bible believer he has chosen his citations carefully. This means that while I call Lambrecht and those who believe like him brothers and sisters in Christ, he calls me a false teacher. And the passages that require a separation of him from me (or us from them) separate the true Church from the false Church. Do not pass over this lightly. This is very serious. This is as serious as anything that has been raised in this 40 plus year debate. This is beyond the 3-5% of the population that identifies as LGBTQ. This is beyond the claim that we reject Wesley's ideas. This is beyond the argument that we defy Christian tradition. Lambrecht is fundamentally saying that those who believe like me are not Christians. I'm not exaggerating - look at those scripture passages again if you think I am. He could have quoted the oft used story of Paul and Barnabas parting separating in order to share the Gospel in different ways. Or even Abraham and Lot staying family but leaving each other for different fields. But he chose to use relatively obscure passages to escalate our differences to the point of worshipping other gods.
If I really am a false teacher, if the people of the church I serve are really not Christians, then why in the name of God would Lambrecht suggest that there should be amicable separation? Could there be any better example of giving to Caesar what belongs to God? If those of us who support the One Church Plan are really false teachers then there can be no compromise - no compromise on the language of the Book of Discipline and no compromise on keeping all the assets of the denomination.
Different Opinions and the Reasonable People Who Disagree About Them
But I don't think that's what 90% of the people who call themselves "traditionalists" really believe. I think back to other churches I've served, including pretty traditional places in rural Kansas. If I was still serving those churches do you know what we would do? We would respectfully disagree. We would not call each other's salvation into question. We would not call each other names. And we would still stay in the same church. Because they would understand that I still believe Jesus Saves and I would understand that they still believe God Is Love.
One of the reasons that I believe we need the One Church Plan is because as a united body we are able to guard one another against our worst impulses. None of us want a church that sounds like the comments on a Facebook post. We need each other to remind us that we are united more by God's love than by our rightness of doctrine AND to remind us that doctrine does matter. We need to be reminded that the tent must be a big tent with room for many, not a pup tent with room only for a few AND to remind us that every tent must still have stakes in the ground that help mark boundaries that can't be crossed.
Tom Lambrecht is my brother in Christ, regardless of what he believes about me and regardless of what happens at General Conference 2019. Because he is right about this - our unity is in Jesus Christ, whom both of us strive to serve. I believe that 90% of United Methodists agree on this and that we will pass a plan at General Conference that affirms our common faith.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
The Best Reasons to Oppose the One Church Plan Aren't Good Enough
My support for the One Church Plan (OCP) is unequivocal. This has disappointed some of my friends on both the theological left and right. There are good reasons for this. For me, they just aren't good enough reasons.
In this post I share what, for me, are the single best arguments against it from the left and right. This is subjective, of course. For example, I'm persuaded that one can make a scriptural argument for either position. I've made those arguments and held both positions at different times in my life. So I'm not arguing scripture in this post. To me the best arguments against the OCP relate to inclusion and tradition.
The Argument from the Left
As soon as I voiced support for the OCP some of my friends called me a traitor. For many years I fell into the camp of a traditional compatibilist. Now I suppose I'm a progressive compatibilist. I fully understand, though, those who see the OCP as a compromise on a basic God-given right. The argument is that we would not be "compatibilists" on racism or sexism so why would we be compatibilists on heterosexism? It's a good argument. I hope that we can all reject racism and sexism today.
The answer, for me, is that progress is important. Let me use a different analogy. I'm opposed to the death penalty, which is legal in Kansas where I live. If I was a legislator and had the opportunity to vote to abolish the death penalty I would. But what if that wasn't a politically viable option? What if a bill came up that did not abolish the death penalty but did eliminate it as an option for 60% of the crimes that it is currently an option for? I would vote for that bill, too. 60% is not enough, but it is better than the status quo. In the same way, the OCP is not enough. My hope is that the day will come when we are as clear on this as we are on racism and sexism (which, note, doesn't mean neither racism nor sexism have been eliminated.) That's not where we are right now. I will take the possibility of significant progress over the status quo any day.
The Argument from the Right
So I'm not a "traditionalist" when it comes to LGBTQ inclusion. I am pretty traditional, or even conservative, in a number of other areas. I value history and believe it can be a guide for our future. For me, the best argument to maintain our current position as a denomination is the clear Christian witness for the last 2,000 years. As best as I can tell ordaining and marrying "self avowed practicing homosexuals" is a departure from the large majority of Christianity over the entire course of Christian history. We should take that very seriously. In fact, if it wasn't for the clear harm that we are doing to LGBTQ people this might be a strong enough argument to persuade me to stay with the status quo even though I personally disagree with it. But the weakness of the argument actually comes from its own strength.
I have argued elsewhere and continue to maintain that if the United Methodist Church splits into progressive and traditional denominations it will not be long before the traditional group has to deal with the question of women's ordination. To be clear, I believe the leadership of conservative caucuses who say that they don't intend for this to be questioned. But I also believe the individuals who have told me that they already do question it, including high-ranking conference officials who have shared that many churches refuse to accept women as pastors. But the best argument to end women's ordination is the exact same argument used to reject LGBTQ ordination.
The largest branch of Christianity in the world is the Catholic Church. A full 50% of Christians are Catholic. The Catholic church does not allow women to be priests.
Roughly 12% of Christians are some form of Eastern Orthodox. Again, by and large women are not ordained.
That leaves about 37% of Christianity as Protestant, the only grouping that allows women's ordination. Except in the United States the largest Protestant body is the Southern Baptist Convention - which does not ordain women. In fact, the United Methodist Church is the largest denomination that does ordain women. It is also the only mainline denomination that ordains women and does not ordain people who are LGBTQ. In fact, by my count only about 11% of people in the U.S. are members of a denomination that allows for women's ordination.
When you account for today's statistics along with the whole scope of Christian history, the hard reality for traditionalists is that women's ordination is only slightly more popular than LGBTQ ordination. If we want to be in harmony with Christian tradition and with our sister denominations around the world then we have already moved too far beyond the norm.
Helenor Davison was ordained in the Methodist Protestant Church, one of our ancestor denominations, in 1866. She was the fourth woman ordained in a denomination in the United States (the second was a woman in the Wesleyan Church, which also has Methodist ties). I'm glad that we chose to buck such a solid Christian norm so that Rev. Davison's calling and the calling of so many of her descendants-in-faith including many of my colleagues could be fulfilled.We are richer because of it. So it is for my colleagues and could-be colleagues who happen to be gay.
Bottom Line
There are certainly other arguments as well as these two. It is clear to me that the OCP is not an unambiguous final answer to a deep question. It is a compromise. Compromises by their very nature leave people on both sides unsettled. But I've found that much of life, including my faith life, is often unsettled. We often must wrestle with the next right decision. God journeys with us but does not always make all the answers clear. I believe the OCP is the best way for us to continue journeying together for this season.
Friday, August 10, 2018
What's Wrong with the "Traditionalist" Plan - Part 3
The last two posts have hit on ten different issues with the seventeen petitions that make up the traditionalist plan. None of those are tied to where a person may stand on LGBT inclusion. They are all about the language the petitions use and larger implications for the denomination. They are all also specific to individual or groups of petitions. In this post I address additional concerns that come from the overall plan. Quotes are from Appendix 3 of the document released by the Judicial Council titled "A Conversation within the Council of Bishops: A Traditional Plan." Numbering picks up where we left off:
11. The section of this document titled "Theological and Biblical Foundations" lets the cat out of the bag. The purpose of the plan is to divide. The first paragraph finishes with, "it is appropriate for there to be two different Wesleyan bodies who teach differently on the question of Christian marriage between same gender persons" and goes on to say, "We should see the formation of a new Wesleyan denomination as an opportunity for a different type of unity..." We have repeatedly been told that this is the plan that will hold the denomination together. Let's be clear - the Traditionalist Plan is the ONLY plan (other than a plan to dissolve the denomination entirely) that specifically says one of its purpose is to divide. It's no secret that no matter what happens at General Conference in 2019 some United Methodists will leave the denomination. Heck, that's old news by this point. We've been declining in size for decades. But there is a difference, both theologically and practically, when a group actually announces that this is part of their purpose.
There is an important second piece here, too. Recall that the traditionalists say it would be good to have two denominations so that "different Wesleyan bodies" will teach differently on same-sex marriage. OK. Let's do that. Adopt the One Church Plan or the Simple Plan. While the traditionalist authors appear to be thinking broadly about a Wesleyan witness they are forgetting all of our sister denominations. Among the denominations in the Wesleyan family tree are the Free Methodist, Wesleyan, Church of the Nazarene, AME, CME, AMEZ, Salvation Army, and Assemblies of God. To the best of my knowledge none of these denominations allow gay clergy or marriage. As a person who supports inclusion, I've been asked why I haven't already left the United Methodist Church for another denomination before now. The simplest answer is this: I'm a Wesleyan Christian. I would need to give up so much more of my theology to leave for a different denomination. When the church I serve was discussing becoming a Reconciling Congregation someone asked me about whether taking that designation would exclude someone who is not reconciling from attending. My answer was something like this: "My understanding is that to be reconciling means everyone is truly welcome. I wouldn't want anyone to leave. I also know that if someone needs to be in a church where LGBT people are not fully included there are many to choose from. So if I have to make a choice between being a pastor for someone who is gay or someone who does not welcome full inclusion it's an easy choice. There aren't other options for our LGBT members." That's true for us as denominations, also. The simplest way to allow for the stated goal of having "different Wesleyan bodies who teach differently" is to vote for change in the UMC.
12. This is a related point. Regarding the effects of adopting the Traditionalist Plan, the group states "All general boards and agencies remain the same..." Officially this is true. In reality it won't be. We know this because some of our boards and agencies have been regularly attacked by Good News and other right-leaning caucuses. There is no question that a theological shift to the right that would happen in this plan would result in changes to the support in general boards and agencies. Indeed, some would welcome this.
13. The plan also states that there would be no change for clergy. "Clergy would continue to be subject to the Discipline of the church as they agreed in their ordination vows." Not exactly. The Discipline changes every four years. Our statements on inclusion and practice have changed significantly in the twenty years that I've been ordained and we have active pastors who were ordained forty years ago. In fact, this plan has the most change in the Discipline of any viable plan proposed.
14. The traditionalist plan is supposedly the only plan that "provides assurances that traditional UM can continue to make disciples among people who value traditional teaching on marriage and sexual behavior." This ignores repeated guarantees in the One Church Plan that provide the same assurances to traditionalists. This is the only plan that forces the denominations will on all pastors, conferences, and local churches.
15. Finally, particularly for those who are more conservative, this plan does not end the debate. Let me give you one very clear example. The biggest "scandal" that has arisen recently in the denomination is over the commissioning of M. Barclay as a Deacon. M is transgender. Transgender is not the same thing as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. The traditionalist plan does not directly impact M's commissioning or ordination at all. So when will that plan hit the floor?
It would be so nice to have this all over. It would be so nice if we could just be a big happy church family like in Acts 2. That's the kind of purity and simplicity that the Traditionalist Plan aspires to. But the reality is that only four chapters later in Acts 6 the church has a big fight. Church is messy. Family is messy. Church family is messy. I hope that we can resolve this debate sometime soon. But ending one debate is also just prelude to another debate. We will never have the church that each of us believes is the perfect church. It just won't happen. Instead, God asks us to live with our mutual imperfections, including our imperfect theologies, and work together for the common good. I hope we can do that together in the UMC.
11. The section of this document titled "Theological and Biblical Foundations" lets the cat out of the bag. The purpose of the plan is to divide. The first paragraph finishes with, "it is appropriate for there to be two different Wesleyan bodies who teach differently on the question of Christian marriage between same gender persons" and goes on to say, "We should see the formation of a new Wesleyan denomination as an opportunity for a different type of unity..." We have repeatedly been told that this is the plan that will hold the denomination together. Let's be clear - the Traditionalist Plan is the ONLY plan (other than a plan to dissolve the denomination entirely) that specifically says one of its purpose is to divide. It's no secret that no matter what happens at General Conference in 2019 some United Methodists will leave the denomination. Heck, that's old news by this point. We've been declining in size for decades. But there is a difference, both theologically and practically, when a group actually announces that this is part of their purpose.
There is an important second piece here, too. Recall that the traditionalists say it would be good to have two denominations so that "different Wesleyan bodies" will teach differently on same-sex marriage. OK. Let's do that. Adopt the One Church Plan or the Simple Plan. While the traditionalist authors appear to be thinking broadly about a Wesleyan witness they are forgetting all of our sister denominations. Among the denominations in the Wesleyan family tree are the Free Methodist, Wesleyan, Church of the Nazarene, AME, CME, AMEZ, Salvation Army, and Assemblies of God. To the best of my knowledge none of these denominations allow gay clergy or marriage. As a person who supports inclusion, I've been asked why I haven't already left the United Methodist Church for another denomination before now. The simplest answer is this: I'm a Wesleyan Christian. I would need to give up so much more of my theology to leave for a different denomination. When the church I serve was discussing becoming a Reconciling Congregation someone asked me about whether taking that designation would exclude someone who is not reconciling from attending. My answer was something like this: "My understanding is that to be reconciling means everyone is truly welcome. I wouldn't want anyone to leave. I also know that if someone needs to be in a church where LGBT people are not fully included there are many to choose from. So if I have to make a choice between being a pastor for someone who is gay or someone who does not welcome full inclusion it's an easy choice. There aren't other options for our LGBT members." That's true for us as denominations, also. The simplest way to allow for the stated goal of having "different Wesleyan bodies who teach differently" is to vote for change in the UMC.
12. This is a related point. Regarding the effects of adopting the Traditionalist Plan, the group states "All general boards and agencies remain the same..." Officially this is true. In reality it won't be. We know this because some of our boards and agencies have been regularly attacked by Good News and other right-leaning caucuses. There is no question that a theological shift to the right that would happen in this plan would result in changes to the support in general boards and agencies. Indeed, some would welcome this.
13. The plan also states that there would be no change for clergy. "Clergy would continue to be subject to the Discipline of the church as they agreed in their ordination vows." Not exactly. The Discipline changes every four years. Our statements on inclusion and practice have changed significantly in the twenty years that I've been ordained and we have active pastors who were ordained forty years ago. In fact, this plan has the most change in the Discipline of any viable plan proposed.
14. The traditionalist plan is supposedly the only plan that "provides assurances that traditional UM can continue to make disciples among people who value traditional teaching on marriage and sexual behavior." This ignores repeated guarantees in the One Church Plan that provide the same assurances to traditionalists. This is the only plan that forces the denominations will on all pastors, conferences, and local churches.
15. Finally, particularly for those who are more conservative, this plan does not end the debate. Let me give you one very clear example. The biggest "scandal" that has arisen recently in the denomination is over the commissioning of M. Barclay as a Deacon. M is transgender. Transgender is not the same thing as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. The traditionalist plan does not directly impact M's commissioning or ordination at all. So when will that plan hit the floor?
It would be so nice to have this all over. It would be so nice if we could just be a big happy church family like in Acts 2. That's the kind of purity and simplicity that the Traditionalist Plan aspires to. But the reality is that only four chapters later in Acts 6 the church has a big fight. Church is messy. Family is messy. Church family is messy. I hope that we can resolve this debate sometime soon. But ending one debate is also just prelude to another debate. We will never have the church that each of us believes is the perfect church. It just won't happen. Instead, God asks us to live with our mutual imperfections, including our imperfect theologies, and work together for the common good. I hope we can do that together in the UMC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)