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.

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

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

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

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

Now back to 2021. 

What I said two years ago is still true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regionalization and Self-Determination

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

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

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

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

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

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

It gets better.

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

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

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

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

Traditionalists: Lay Down Your Swords

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

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

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

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

Lay. Down. Your. Swords. 

We are not fighting you. While you attack us,

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

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

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