The District Superintendent of the Gulf Central District of
the United Methodist Church wrote in her July Newsletter a brief article that
has stimulated me to write a brief article in response. I hope what I share is
a faithful, respectful, and loving response. I started seeing connections that
she either did not see or did not want to see. To put it simply and directly, she
does not connect her observations regarding lack of institutional health, her
hope for full inclusion of the LBGTQ community, and her perspective on the
cultural context in which congregations serve their communities.
The District Superintendent expressed
her desire to help the United Methodist team in the district to move forward in
the new conference year. She admits it will not be easy. She identifies the
following reasons.
Struggling congregations
Buildings needing maintenance
Reduction in financial giving
Shrinking and unmet budgets
Pastors and leaders pushing against the
inertia drawing the church inward
This sounds much like a list most of the District
Superintendents in Indiana, my home Annual Conference of the UMC, could offer
as well. I am not sure how true this list would be throughout the United
States.
She
expresses her hope that the denomination at its called General Conference will
debate and decide its position on human sexuality and full inclusion of the
LBGTQ brothers and sisters.
She
then identifies the climate and culture in which the church in the United
States carries out its ministry.
Families surrounded by polarizing
politics
Growing nationalism
Immigration crisis
Global instability
A healthy economy
Digital technology enabling us to stay
connected to everything and everyone
I think
it worth a few moments of my time, and I hope you time, to unpack the issues
she identifies.
Part of the climate and culture in
which Christianity works is one that longs to have free expression of its
sexual desires. It wants unrestricted affirmation in this area. This is not
new. Since Freud, many people have viewed traditional morality as oppressive.
Few seem willing to admit that sexual desire can become a form of oppression. Sexual
desire is beautiful and part of our natural condition. Yet, finding proper ways
of expressing such desires is part of a healthy approach to adult
relationships. Churches need to find a faithful and loving way to offer their
guidance in this important area of human life. The guidance Jesus (Mark 10:6-9,
basing himself in Genesis 1-2) and Paul (I Corinthians 5-7, and rules for the
Christian household n Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3) offer a sufficient basis for
faithful guidance that the church ought to offer today. I am aware of the
challenges in interpreting such texts. At the same time, we are clearly dealing
with marriage between a man and a woman. I realize that this position now
receives the criticism that it is takes the Bible in an overly literal and
simplistic (fundamentalist) way and arises out of bigotry. Many of my friends in
the United Methodist Church would view it in this way. In this brief
discussion, I can only assure that I do not have a fundamentalist view of the
Bible. I can also assure you that I love respect the many heterosexual persons
I know who have not followed the guidance provided by Jesus and Paul. The same
is true for any other persons who express their sexual desire in ways not
consistent with Jesus and Paul. Jesus and Paul invited us to love our
neighbors. As created in the image of God and having the potential of allowing
God to conform them into the image of the Son (Romans 8:29), each person
deserves my respect and love. Each person is of sacred worth. They also deserve
the truth of the change God desires to bring into our hearts and lives.
In
identifying polarizing politics, growing nationalism, and immigration crisis as
part of the climate and culture in which the churches must face the challenges
of ministry, I invite you to ponder. How we identify the issues with which
culture challenges the church will provide insight into what one thinks the
church must do. I have already suggested that her failure to identify sexual
expression as a cultural issue to which the church needs to respond is
important.
Further,
polarizing politics is obvious, and has been a staple of American life in the
course of my baby-boomer life. The 1960s were polarizing. Nixon and Watergate
were as well. Opponents of Ronald Reagan called him racist, uncaring for the
homeless, uncaring of those who contracted AIDS, and one who might start a
nuclear war. The House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton. George W.
Bush was fascist and had people who made movies about assassinating him. Barack
Obama faced strong opposition to his attempts to nationalize the health care
industry. We know Donald Trump has managed to unite the radical Left with the
never-Trump conservatives. Yes, politics is polarizing and this concern is not
new.
The DS has a concern for nationalism. Here is
another place where I part company. I hope the churches throughout the world
love the country in which the minister. I am not sure how any local church
conducts its ministry if it hates its country. A genuine love of country is
part of our love for the people to whom we minister. The cultural, economic,
and political life of the nation is of concern to God and ought to be of
concern to the church. Every nation has its imperfections. The church needs to
be part of improving the values by which people conduct themselves in the
public square and strengthening the institutions of society. The church is one
of those institutions. It relies upon the health of the cultural, economic, and
political order. I say this in a practical way, for it receives its funding
from people participating in those institutions.
I find
myself far more concerned, then, with the growing anti-Americanism in the
culture and among political leaders. I see it in academia as well. The rejection
of the western cultural heritage (Plato, Aristotle, Christianity, Reformation,
and Enlightenment) is of concern to me. The unrelenting attacks upon the
founders of this nation remain of concern to me. Yes, I am well acquainted with
these attacks. Yes, I am well aware of the birth defect of this nation
regarding slavery and race. However, the founders of this nation began a
journey of liberty. Among many academics and theologians, lifting up the
Marxist critique of the West is another form of anti-American expression. The
desire of many to move toward a form of politicizing every aspect of American
life through government agencies regulating as much of American life as
possible is about as anti-American as one can get. We forget the oppression
that government can impose upon its citizens.
The
immigration crisis is a matter of caring for our neighbors. The concern is for
people who enter the country illegally. The concern is that people with bad
intent may be part of that number. Another concern is that too many want to
enter the nation to receive the free education and welfare. My point is only
that such concerns are not nationalist in a bad way. They are not racist. They
arise out of genuine concern for the health of the neighborhood.
The way
we identify the cultural challenges may well affect the result that we find in
the local churches. What bothers me is that the DS sees no connection between
the result of declining budgets and so on with the way she has expressed her
hope for full inclusion and the way she identified the cultural challenges.
That failure to offer respect for the concerns that many Americans have
regarding what is happening in the culture and churches regarding sexuality, as
well as genuine expressions of love for country, may well be part of the reason
for the institutional decline she also notes. To put a finer point on my
concern, if the United Methodist Church is not able to find a way to affirm the
Bible on matters related to sexual expression and to affirm its love for this
country in its founding principles and desires for liberty, then I do not see a
way forward toward healing its institutional decline.
I
invite reactions and I would value thoughtful response.