United Methodist Church & Global Methodist Church

 

Saying goodbye is not easy, so I feel the pain of those congregations and pastors who are leaving the United Methodist Church. My situation as a retired pastor of the United Methodist Church, one who has moved away from his home conference in Indiana, and one who has not immediately re-engaged after retirement, means an existential crisis does not face me in the split of the UMC. I choose to remain in a denomination that is changing into something different from that which I joined in 1982. I am not sure the forming Global United Methodist Church would accept me. However, I have been in favor of such a split for a decade or more, but now that it is on the immediate horizon, I offer a few words.

            For the United Methodist Church, I wish nothing but the best. I have agreed with your Wesleyan-Arminian theology. I have appreciated the spiritual roots of John Wesley in the protestant and catholic devotional tradition. I have appreciated the evangelical tradition of Wesley, Edwards, and Whitefield, and the rich heritage of the revivalist tradition. I have preached and taught the grace of God as prevenient, justifying, and sanctifying in its transforming power. I have preached and taught the priority of scripture, the value of tradition in guiding our reflections upon scripture, the use of our rationality to understand it all properly, and the application of what we believe to hearts and lives.  That tradition has had a keen sense of uniting the gospel with care for the social stresses of each generation. I appreciate the classical liberal tradition of openness to contemporary thought and to social involvement. I love the United Methodist Church. Nothing has changed my love for the UMC. If it remains true to its mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, then our hearts unite, and we are friends of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

            Having an honest conversation is difficult. Our post-modern differentiation into various groups creates an environment that looks suspiciously and condescendingly toward those with whom our group disagrees and embeds us further into the group with which we identify. Respect for our commonality in our creation as the image of God and in our goal of the Holy Spirit conforming us into the image of the Son seems lost amid our differentiation. The most heart-wrenching issue of all, however, is that the world needs Jesus, now more than ever. As the world dissolves into increasing differentiating into groups that justify anger and violence toward others, the responsibility of the church to point the way to Jesus becomes harder to fulfill. The external pressure would be difficult enough. The church has increased the pressure on itself as it experiences multiple cultures. 

            I do have concerns regarding the emerging expression of United Methodism. 

            One concern is the abuse of power by the bishops. The UMC has established a tradition that if bishops disagree with the decisions of General Conference, they have the right to view themselves as being prophetic and heeding the next progressive calling as a word from God. Their pledge to govern by the discipline no longer means what it used to mean. Gone are the days when one could say that they disagree with the Book of Discipline but will govern by what it says. I view this as a danger to the denomination.

            Two is the concern that while the denomination has made the embrace of a non-traditional approach to sexuality a dividing-line between the good and righteous position versus the bad and evil position of the traditional approach, the risk is a new form of fundamentalism and self-righteousness. Leaders of the denomination seem willing to sit in judgment of not only two millennia of Christian tradition, but well over three-fourths of the Christians in the world today. Leadership sits in judgment of those who hold to the traditional view of human sexuality within the UMC.

            Regarding sexuality, we can all agree that sexual desire is strong for most human beings. We can also agree that few Christians have adhered to the highest ideals of Christian teaching in this area. We can agree that we need to have much grace toward each other in this critical area of our lives. I hope we can agree that there are some forms of sexual expression that are beyond the approval of the church. I may disagree with the leadership of the UMC as to where that line might be but assume we can agree that there are proper lines to draw. I am sure you do not think that our love for our neighbors means we must embrace what they believe or what they do. In the area of human sexuality, you make it sound as if it is impossible for me to love people who do not embrace traditional Christian expressions of our sexuality. I strongly disagree.

            When I give myself time to reflect upon my four decades with the United Methodist Church, I question two oft-quoted but rarely practiced values today. One is that United Methodism is a big tent. Such a notion may be impossible in our post-modern age of differentiation. As one who has come to accept conservative political beliefs and as one who values the traditional beliefs of the church, the United Methodist Church does not feel like it has a large enough tent to include me. Thus, my concern is that as it gravitates toward beliefs and values embraced by the current expression of progressive thinking, it will subordinate any theological positions it takes to a progressive political ideology. The UMC claims it is a global church. Yet, the agenda of many American church leaders is to distance the American church from the African and Asian churches, which are in the process of becoming the home of more United Methodists than does American Methodism. 

            I think the United Methodist Church lost a fantastic opportunity. It could have separated itself from the narrow fundamentalism of some groups and invite people into thoughtful, biblical reflection. It could separate Itself from the narrow progressive ideology that pervades the academic, entertainment, and media worlds. It could have been an agent of healing during the divisive American political climate in the way it encouraged respectful conversation within the bounds of the covenant as represented in the Book of Discipline. It could refuse to march in lock step with neither the progressive movement nor with the political right. It did not have to continue the colonial spirit toward brothers and sisters in Christ in other lands. It could have had the opportunity of engaging fellow believers in thoughtful biblical and theological discussion. It could discuss matters of truth. It could discuss what constitutes good, holy, and sanctified lives. If it genuinely wanted a way forward, the possibility was present to do so. It could do so in way that unites with the concerns of Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions, recognizing that a conciliar approach to the practice of theology is the wisest course when considering major changes. John Wesley provides an example of drawing from the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions in forming his view of Christian perfection. It could engage the matter of human sexuality in a comparable way. It needed to exercise great care that theology does not follow the whims of the current cultural and intellectual climate. In other words, rather than alienating itself from so much of historic Christianity around the globe, the UMC could open the door to deeper conversation.  

            Most of the bishops as well as general boards and agencies long for acceptance within the progressive ideology in American politics. It embarrasses them that the UMC has stood firm on a traditional view of human sexuality. Its abortion stance is also too conservative for some. These leaders of the UMC look down upon the many persons who are conservative and/or evangelical. The positions of the UMC regarding sexuality are an embarrassment to these leaders, especially when they are in meetings with their progressive friends. Given the nature of post-modern differentiation, the progressive culture demands conformity, and the UMC is not yet in full compliance with the progressive agenda. The failure of American leadership to drag the denomination into the progressive orbit is notable. The responsibility for their failure is due to organizing efforts of conservatives, evangelicals, as well as the growth of the denomination in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. As a political conservative, I have been glad that at least a few provisions in the Book of Discipline reflected something from the conservative-traditional side of the spectrum, at least in its official documents. I knew the hierarchy devoted itself to the progressive cause, but at least its official statements it had moderate elements. They tried to find a middle way. The statements on human sexuality and abortion represent that middle way.

            Here is the difficulty the UMC faces. If it says the Bible is not the guide regarding the good life (holiness, sanctification), then it will not be long before it also starts setting aside the Bible regarding its witness to the revelation of truth. If I were to give an exposition of that truth, I would turn to John 1:1-18, Romans 1-11, Galatians 3-4, II Corinthians 5-6, and I Corinthians 15. I would also turn to the creeds of the church. For many Christian leaders today, the allure of following a different lord than the Lord Jesus Christ is strong. For many persons in the West, progressive political and economic ideology has become the god and the progressive elite in academia, media, and entertainment have become the community to which they want to belong.

            The UMC is on its way to adopt the full agenda of the LGBTQ caucus. I stress that we are to love our neighbors, regardless of lifestyle. In my view, this caucus promotes a culture of sexual confusion. In American and western European culture, due to the influence of the caucus, authorities are making decisions that affect female sports based upon the “T” part of the caucus. These decisions will make it increasingly difficult for women to compete successfully. Making gender a matter of personal decision is the ultimate in perspectivism in philosophy and the ultimate in the denial of biological fact. Beyond this specific caucus, I do have a concern that the logic will lead toward a demand to accept polyamorous relationships as well. 

            This leads me to say a word to the moderates and conservatives who choose to stay within the United Methodist Church. You will make peace with the idea that some United Methodist pastors and congregations will embrace teachings and behaviors that you cannot. If your Annual Conference forms a covenant with you that says it will respect your views and send you pastors to accepting congregations and send conservative congregations agreeable pastors, I wish you the best. I mean that sincerely. However, my concern is that with what I have seen from progressive bishops, the covenant cannot last long. You see, they view you as bigoted and unjust because of your position in upholding traditional Christian sexual ethics. If you are a conservative pastor, I predict your bishop will eventually compel you to endorse beliefs and behaviors you presently find objectionable. If your congregation is conservative, I predict your bishop will eventually force you to receive a pastor who does not respect your beliefs or values. I want to be wrong about this. 

            I have been part of the Confessing movement in Indiana. I have attended Wesleyan Covenant Association worship gatherings. The spirituality and fellowship I found in such gatherings have touched me. I have appreciated the love I have felt there for the United Methodist Church and for the desire to be faithful to the spirituality and theological stance of John Wesley. I appreciate the global sense of the faith, especially the growth of Methodism in Africa. It has reminded me that Christianity as Americans experience it is in the minority when we consider the two millennia of church history. 

            I am unclear what the Global Methodist Church will look like, but I trust those whom I know will be leaders to form the church well to fulfill its mission. I like the idea of term limits for Bishops. I first came across this in the Free Methodist Church and it feels right to me that bishops will have to live as pastors with their rulings. I get why the guaranteed appointment are set aside, given its potential for abuse. The smaller legislative overhead gives the new denomination flexibility to adjust to our rapidly changing environment.

            I do have a concern. 

            Legalism is not a good look for the Church that belongs to Jesus Christ. Jesus fought against it. Paul did as well. Faithfulness to what we understand to be classic Christianity is something we must maintain with humility. There are many schools of thought within the Christian tradition. Beyond that, we need to remember that the teaching itself points us to a mystery of the divine that is beyond our full comprehension. Further, the simple command to love God and our neighbor, the thought that love fulfills the law, the affirmation that faith, hope, and love abide, but the greatest of these is love, and the reminder that God is love, must always be before us. The effect of this is that no matter how weakly we do it, we welcome others and love them, regardless of how much we might differ from them in what we think or the values we hold. 

            I am thinking of specific colleagues and laity with whom I disagree. I continue to love them and hold them in esteem. I wish them the best. Obviously, I am not one who thinks that unity is something that we should seek at all costs. We live in a denominational age. It has its challenge at the point of respecting those who have differing theological traditions, systems of governance, and values. Christianity has lived with that challenge and thrived. If the United Methodist Church can divide in a respectful way, it will be a witness to the world that our oneness in Christ is far more important to us than any institutional brand we may possess.

            The biblical argument is clear. In the following brief discussion, I will be alluding to well-worn biblical material. I do so because opponents of the traditional plan have a polemical approach that seeks to lock those who hold traditional views on human sexuality into a wooden, literal approach to the Bible. One could make a compelling case that such an approach is impossible for anyone holding to orthodox positions, the doctrine of the Trinity being the supreme example. I will assume the reader has some familiarity with the biblical discussions. 

In the Old Testament, the prohibitions against sexual expression outside of marriage between a man and a woman are well known. The prophetic argument that the Lord and Israel have a marriage relationship based upon the relationship between bride and groom is an important one. The New Testament uses the image as well in the relationship between Christ and the Church. Mark 10:2-16 makes it clear that Jesus understood marriage between a man and a woman. Paul in Romans 1:24-27 makes it clear that human beings who do not have the Torah are still accountable for how they handle truth and goodness. As human beings turn away from truth, they also turn away from purity, engaging in acts degrading of the body and unnatural intercourse. Robert Mulholland has offered a good defense of the position that both Jesus and Paul knew of loving homosexual relationships. They rejected them as acceptable practice among the people of God. Their argument derived from a consideration of what God intended for human sexuality in Genesis 2. I might add the Song of Solomon as well. Now, if I heard a conversation within the Bible that some loving relationships outside that of committed and faithful male-female relationships were acceptable Christian behavior, then I would be more open to that conversation today. The only conversation within the biblical tradition in this matter is whether men can have more than one wife and can add concubines. The interpretation of the church has been on the side of a negative answer, limiting men to one wife. Now, the fact that we find no consideration of marriage relationships outside that of male and female suggests its difference with other practical matters that require thoughtful consideration. I mention just a few due to their influence on the discussion of human sexuality. These subjects have made their way into General Conference legislation to attack the traditional view of human sexuality. For example, some of the statements of Jesus suggest divorce is an absolute no, some suggest no except in case of adultery, and Paul (I Corinthians 7) even suggests other possibilities. Another example is women preachers. Paul has a conversation with himself about this, suggesting in I Corinthians 11 and 14 that women should be silent in church, but when they prophecy (!), they should respectfully wear a covering over their heads. Paul addresses females as heads of his house churches. Further, Luke makes it clear that the Holy Spirit fell upon sons and daughters to prophecy (Acts 2). All this opens the way for a conversation, when the time was right, for female clergy. For many evangelical movements, that time was in the 1800s, while many traditional denominations, including the UMC, took much longer. A third example is slavery, which both testaments assume as legal and a practice in which the people of God can engage. Yet, the humanitarian concerns in both testaments are clear. Further, the household rules of Paul make it clear that master and slave have the same Lord. The little letter of Philemon moves us in the direction of rejecting slavery. Famously, Paul can say that in Christ, we are neither slave nor free. When the time was right, thoughtful biblical and theological reflection led many faithful persons to oppose slavery. In these cases, the Bible has a conversation in process that we have a responsibility to continue, even when it means correcting the tradition. If I were to give a full account of the good life, I would go to the Ten Commandments, Matthew 5-7, Love of God and neighbor, the theological virtues (faith, hope, and love), the household rules in the New Testament, I Corinthians 13, and the list of virtues and vices (such as in Galatians 5-6) in the New Testament. We need a responsible and canonical approach to biblical material. Let us be clear. The good life is a matter of obedience because we are sinners. We struggle in different areas due to wrong desire. With sexuality, many people deal with the allure of another sexual partner. Many people struggle with a strong tendency toward deception and lying. Others struggle with coveting the possessions of others and giving in to envy. Many people wrestle with their pride and arrogance. Many people must fight against their slothful approach to life in general and to Christian discipleship. Many people succumb to the misuse of their speech, descending into empty and harmful chatter and gossip. Some people struggle with a tendency toward physical violence. Obedience is difficult for us all. It requires prayer and spiritual friendship to fight some of our deepest battles.

            I hope a reasonable person reading this would notice no hate. All persons are of sacred worth and dignity. The truth can be a hard truth to share with people you love and respect. I do have a love for truth and goodness, and I have fallen short in both. I am not sure the emerging Global Methodist Church would appreciate my approach to the Bible or the tradition that I expressed in the previous paragraph. I conclude abruptly in saying that I have some difficulty feeling like I belong anywhere in the differentiating, presently deconstructing UMC.

Pondering Wesleyan Covenant Assoc

           

            I had the honor of traveling to Chicago on October 7, 2016 to be part of the first gathering of the Wesleyan Covenant Association. I also “joined something any laity, congregation, or church can do. The particular concern is some of the issues that have divided the United Methodist Church.

            It has been a long time since I have been part of a United Methodist gathering where I actually wanted to be in the meeting. I do not mean to be negative, but the contrast was clear in my behavior. When I go to most gatherings of the Indiana Annual Conference, the best thing I receive is conversation with people whom I have not seen in a while. In Chicago, 1800 people met from around the globe and heard powerful preaching and music. It was good to be with people with whom you felt kinship and that you were looking in the same direction.

            We also heard presentations that clarified what the group was doing. As I understood it, the bishops have appointed a commission that will make a proposal to a specially called General Conference in 2018. The bishops did this as a charge from the previous General Conference. What struck me was that this group is primarily interested in the “next Methodism.” Their focus is the next thing. I was ready for that. United Methodism has been hurting for a long time over theological, organizational, and sexual matters. Over the past decade, progressives have gotten to the point where breaking covenant, represented by our Book of Discipline, is OK. In fact, breaking covenant has become a justice issue for them. I saw this when I attended General Conference in Tampa in 2012. The Western Jurisdiction put an exclamation mark on the sacred nature (as they see it) of breaking covenant in the election of a gay bishop.

            Rob Renfroe stressed that the themes of the WCA are the uniqueness of Christ, the Bible as our standard, the radical notion of believing what the UMC says it believes, and the Wesleyan way of head and heart, piety and social holiness. He stressed that change is coming. He stressed that this is “our” time to be bold. I heard much about “Jesus-loving and Spirit-filled,” and I received that description from a colleague, for which I felt honored.

            It may be my stage of life, but it made me reflect upon the decisions I made as youth. At 10, I asked Jesus into my heart. My pastor prayed with me. The church and Christian schools nurtured me in that relationship. Like most people, I have been tempted to go elsewhere, but I keep circling back to Jesus. The other decision I made was that at 15 I asked my parents to purchase a study Bible. They were not as plentiful and varied then as they are now. I started on a journey with the Bible. Of course, the temptation is always there to make a philosophy or a political ideology primary in my life, but I keep circling back to the Bible. Preaching and teaching from the Bible have been a steady source of spiritual food and drink. I have sought to live my life in accord with it. I keep trying to understand it and apply it as the sacred book of my life, but always with the awareness of its sacredness to people whom I hold in high regard and to the broader 2000 years of church history.

I concluded long ago that it was time for some dramatic action. I am not yet sure what that action will be. One surprise I received, however, was that some very good minds have put themselves to the task of focusing upon the next thing rather than continuing the old fights. United Methodism has spent far too much energy on fighting each other. Re-focusing energy upon mission in the world will be a breath of fresh air.

It was such a pleasure to see representatives from Africa, as well as their participation in music and preaching. The global nature of United Methodism has been an important element of the internal debate.

I appreciated the broadening of the theological perspective from the articles of religion, confession of faith, and the 52 Standard Sermons of Wesley to include reciting the Nicean Creed.

I think the group shows its respect of the process by working and waiting until the General Conference in 2018. Leaders on both sides in the UMC seem prepared to recognize that we are at a point where division needs to happen. No one knows what the commission will propose. WCA is already fashioning its publishing house and board of discipleship. It had the support of several bishops. 

Of course, in the meantime, I am ready to pray and do my small part.

I wish peace for the UMC, for the WCA, and for the next Methodism.

Church Merger, Division, and the UMC

I came across some reflections on mergers in business that made me think about some of the mergers of which I have been a part. Most importantly, while in Vincennes, IN, I was the first pastor of the merged congregation now known as Community UMC. It was the result of the merger of three congregations, one of which had been a former Evangelical United Brethren Church. Each congregation had their unique gift to offer to the merger. At least two of the three did not have to merge, in the sense that they could have continued onward for many more decades just as they were. Yet, a respected layperson in the community began to discuss the possibility of merging. Through several months of discussions, eventually they voted to merge. A fourth congregation voted not to join. The congregations knew each other well. They started doing more things together. They pondered what they could do together for the cause of Christ that they could not do separately. They received some very good encouragement from the District Superintendent and from the Annual Conference. They had good lay leadership and they kept open lines of communication. They faced the challenges with courage.

I do not follow such matters in corporate America closely. It can have the appearance of love-struck teenagers looking to date and acquire the objects of their affections. Sometimes, an older, powerful company lusts after the smaller but “sexier” one. Sometimes, it seems like the partnership of two desperate and lost souls. Of course, such adventures may cost billions rather than a dinner and a movie.

The Disney and Pixar merger was almost like a fairy tale as two creative entertainment companies became partners and generated more creativity and, of course, money. In contrast, the merger of Exxon and Mobil was a re-marriage of two companies that derive from Rockefeller in the 1800s and made the largest company in the world.

            Some mergers simply do not work.

            - The New York Central and Pennsylvania railroads merged in 1968 in the face of declining rail travel, but filed for bankruptcy just two years later, effectively killing large-scale passenger rail service in the United States.

- Time Warner and AOL merged, but quickly became a dial-up marriage in a DSL world.

A KPMG study said that the failure rate is 83%, which might lead us to ask the question of why it is so hard for people to get together, whether we are thinking of marriage or the merger of two corporate cultures. In that mix would be the difficulty of two or more denominations merging to form a new church.

Why are mergers so difficult?

Paul J. Siegenhaler, in an article in August 2010, points to a number of reasons why mergers fails. The lack of due diligence in researching one another (which amounts to ignorance of each other), poor communication and governance, lack of courage in making important decisions early, weak leadership, and a lack of a shared vision are just a few of the problems that can lead to an eventual divorce or Chapter 11.

Perhaps the biggest reason, however, is the inability to merge two different cultures into one new and cohesive culture. When employees get used to doing things one way, it is hard to do things another way. When one denominational culture and goals overshadow the other, it is little wonder that one of the ecclesial partners feels slighted. It is difficult to move forward when one side of a partnership undervalues the other, be it in a marriage, a company or a church.

What makes a merger work?

The best mergers, on the other hand, do the relational math differently. In a bad merger, 1+1 often equals a sum of two different cultures in conflict with one another, or, perhaps even worse, the sum of 1+1 equals 1.5, where one of the partners devalues and treats as unequal the other. The best merger math is 1+1=3, i.e., a brand new culture emerges that takes the value of both and adds to it. Both partners leave behind the things that divide them and invest in something completely different that adds value to everyone. In other words, be clear on what matters and why. If the merger or acquisition is not going to allow you to serve some customer better than the entities could do separately, walk away. You must create value before you can capture it.

The divisions of liberal and conservative, high church and low church, eastern and western, Protestant and Catholic, individual gospel and social gospel and even traditional and contemporary have done precisely the opposite of what Jesus intended and prayed for us.

If you study the history of the church, you discover that the church is far more about spin-offs and breakups than mergers. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to God, said Paul, but the churches find it hard reconcile to each other. The articles on the success and failure of mergers suggest the practical difficulty. The culture and values of a body of people are important and deserve respect. Differing aims, refusal to adapt, and differing values, will split apart an existing group and keep unification from occurring.

I am not sure if I dare to offer this, but the United Methodist Church is slowly allowing differing values to erode its life together. We seem to have developed two differing cultures. A strong statement of that for which we stand, in the midst of such differences, becomes difficult if not impossible. Of course, our mission is to make disciples for Jesus Christ to transform the world. How we do that when we confronted by the emerging two cultures is becoming increasingly difficult to determine. We get “nasty surprises” at meetings. We keep trying to resource congregations and pastors for the conversation, but it seems as if we glide along the surface. Having an honest conversation is difficult. How we resolve differences is unclear, given that bishops can enforce the Book of Discipline, or not, without consequence. Resolving such differences would mean courageous leadership. Instead, we have weakness. To use a boating metaphor, we are like a ship on a stormy sea. It needs strong leadership to move through the storm together. The most heart-wrenching issue of all, however, is that the world needs Jesus, now more than ever. As the world dissolves into increasing violence, the responsibility of the church to point the way to Jesus becomes harder to fulfill. The external pressure would be difficult enough. The church has increased the pressure on itself as it experiences the polarization of the two cultures.

            The United States developed two differing cultures in the 1800s. Yet, at a theoretical level, they had so much in common. Inaugural addresses affirmed the commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They happily contrasted America with the royalty still dominating in Europe. Yet, we had presidents who thought it was OK to buy and sell slaves. They owned slaves, and therefore, at some point, had to buy them. The South was so afraid to lose the way of life that depended upon slavery that it successfully made it illegal to discuss slavery in the Congress. They called it the gag rule. When John Quincy Adams finally got the rule rescinded, the floodgates opened. The South wanted to spread slavery to the West. When the Supreme Court entered the debate and said that a southerner could move anywhere in the country and keep his slave, division and war became just a matter of time. America had become a house divided. Most southern white persons would never see the incongruity of holding to the idea of liberty and the practice of slavery. Most northern white persons wanted America united in its affirmation of liberty. Most of Latin America and even the royalty of Europe had banned slavery and the slavery trade. Only the South lived in the contradiction of slavery in practice and liberty in theory. The only way to resolution was division, which was what the South sought, or forcing the abandonment of slavery, which was the path of the North.

            Some United Methodists want to affirm the LBGT agenda. They want to “affirm” in the sense of suggesting that one can express their Christian faith and life in these ways. They seem to view any opposition as bigoted and hateful.

            Some United Methodists want to affirm what we might call “traditional Christian values” in many areas of life. However, the focus of the discussion today is sexuality. The point is not some notion of legalism. The point is offering loving guidance in area full of the potential for pain. The morality we see in Jesus in the affirmation of marriage, the morality of Paul regarding vice and virtue, as well as the morality expressed in the household rules, have been the staple of Christian morality. It has been the basis of the church offering the guidance that the home, consisting of husband, wife, and children, is a place for the formation of Christian virtue, especially as we learn love, forgiveness, compassion, and faithfulness. The household rules, for example, assume the priority of the husband, doing so in a way that transforms the husband into a loving partner with his wife. It transforms the master of the slave into one who cares for and respects his or her slave. If followed, the household rules would end both “patriarchy” and “slavery.” For persons who hold such views of values, the agenda of the LBGT community represents and embodies the sexual confusion of our time. It opens the door to immense pain and hurt as people experiment outside the lines drawn by the affirmation of husband/wife/child. Fears that the agenda will undermine the family in general, and therefore the stability of society, may or may not materialize.

            How are we to treat our neighbors? Of course, we treat them with love and respect. Jesus did not say that we love our neighbors only if they behave a certain way. I can offer personal examples of people who are not living by what I have identified as “traditional Christian values.” I know Christians who have not. In fact, in the world today, it would be a rare person who has completely lived by “traditional Christian morality.” It has probably always been rare. Our sexual desires are strong.

Yet, and I offer this cautiously, is the ideal not worth holding forth? The point of such values is not legalism. The point is the kind of life that will shape character in a Christ-like way. I have heard the testimony of many persons who will discuss their sexual encounters with shame and pain. Is it best to hold forth the ideal of loving, faithful relationships between a man and a woman?

           

General Conference 2016 Plans

One of the issues confronting the United Methodist Church is how it deals with the matter of human sexuality. Among the many problems here is that these are matters best dealt with in the context of family and friends. The process of living a human life is not easy. People struggle with their identity, and for some that includes their sexual identity. One may have a sexual desire that most people find difficult to understand, and may be born with this desire. One may have difficult gender identity issues (man trapped in female body or the reverse) that may have their cause in biology. Such issues that are outside the norm of human behavior require love, understanding, and compassion on a personal level. Of course, within the norm of sexual desire, we have a wide range of practice, much of which reflects deceitfulness and unfaithfulness. In other words, such intimate matters require much courage, empathy, and love. They also require guidance. The church seeks to provide that guidance in its view that marriage is between a man and a woman. The advice goes back to Jesus, so the church that seeks to follow Jesus needs to take this seriously.

            Among the difficulties of transferring such an intimate matter into the political realm, whether within the church or in the society, is that people wrap up the matter into broader political agendas. The culture is at a point of becoming increasingly secular, and in the process, wants to liberate itself from the values and norms of the Christian heritage of the country. The churches wrestle with the extent to which it will resist or embrace the direction in which culture will go. Sadly, what gets lost is what the persons involved most need – compassion and understanding from those about whom they care.

          Most people who attend General Conference have made up their minds on the matter as a political issue before they attend. The issue is whether the denomination should change the statement in the social principles regarding the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. The divide in the denomination has led to conversations that reveal differences regarding the role of church law, the role of Scripture, and even the role of Jesus. The result has been several plans that clearly have the desire to deal relatively rationally with the differences. One plan wants to divide intentionally the denomination between a classic or traditional Christianity and a progressive Christianity. Another plan wants to keep the present UMC as is, but allow pastors who disagree with the church rule regarding homosexuality to leave with pension intact and allows congregations to leave peacefully with their buildings and endowments. A couple of other plans seek a new structure for the denomination that would allow pastors and congregations to differ on this matter, while bishops would simply factor in these explicit statements from pastors and churches into their appointment considerations. Yet another plan would change the discipline to embrace fully the practice of homosexuality for membership and clergy.

            I am in a book reading group that is presently working through Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology. I have read this theologian ever since the mid 1970s. I keep returning to him in a variety of ways, including preparations for sermons. In the opening segments of Chapter 1, he refers to a couple of things about “dogmatic statements” that I think apply to this discussion.

            First, even for those outside of the denomination, the assumption is that the formulation of a church teaching is binding on its members in some way. I was reminded of this when discussing the UMC with my sons. They have long since left the church behind them. At one time, they referred to how conservative the UMC was due to its position on homosexuality. The statement in the social principles, taken alone, simply invites us to pray and reflect on these matters. However, when combined with other parts of the discipline, it has the force of what historians would refer to as church law. It has a binding or covenantal element to it. Among the many difficulties with the UMC today is that bishops and pastors no longer feel bound. They can practice what they consider peaceful disobedience with the objective of changing the rule. What they do not consider seriously is that the church offers any church rule regarding human sexuality with love and concern for others as we seek to follow Jesus. I am not sure how, but it seems to me that we need to find a way back to respect for the authority of church law. I can hear my opponent offer the objection that I (probably) do not obey all the social principles. True, but I would also argue that the discipline has elevated this particular social principle to a unique status through its reiteration in other parts of the discipline.

            At this point, it seems like Panneberg comes down on the side of plan one. Settle upon a position regarding a controversial point, let it be binding to those who assent, and let others depart and bind themselves to another community with which they can live in agreement. Our denominational age allows for this freedom.

            Second, Pannenberg looks upon every confession of faith or article of religion, and especially its affirmations, as by no means final. In this, he is in agreement with Karl Barth (CD, 1.1 (7.1), who referred to all such statements as eschatological, meaning that only God can verify the extent to which any formulation of church teaching is true. He is arguing for continuing exposition and interpretation of scripture and dialogue within the church as we continue on the way toward the truth that God will make clear. Part of the point here is humility regarding any of our personal conclusions regarding church teaching. An extension of this humility is on the part of any official church teaching. The church must always be open to further clarification to which the Holy Spirit and the interpretation of scripture may give. To state it a slightly different way, any statements regarding church teaching are not final. If they were, we would be at the end of human history.

            At this point, Pannenberg seems to come down on the side of staying in conversation regarding our exposition of scripture and our understanding of its truth. Diversity in matters of Christian teaching is not a bad thing. It may stimulate all persons to closer examination of Scripture and lead to greater adherence to Scripture.

            All of this leads me to another statement of Pannenberg. He discusses the historical nature of any statement of church teaching. He stresses that consensus is not the foundation of either the content or truth of Christian teaching. One can imagine many occasions when the consensus was wrong. Yet, he also says that knowledge of the subject matter of scripture produces consensus. Now, this would be true if we were equally committed to understanding scripture and applying its insights into our lives. I have no doubt that some of my colleagues have made changes in their values due to study of scripture. However, most of the arguments that I hear derive from personal experience.

            If I read him right, by staying in binding and covenantal fellowship with each other, and at the same engaging in serious exposition of scripture, we will come to consensus regarding this matter of church teaching and law that so deeply divides us. My experience has been that this is incredibly optimistic statement. If I understand the argument of many of my colleagues, however, their claim is openness to new experiences that biblical authors did not have. I would refer to James F. McGrath, professor at Butler and the manager of the Progressive Christianity portion of www.patheos.com. He specifically notes that “progressive Christians” are open to the revision of beliefs and values based on new evidence, by which he clearly means new philosophy, science, or experience.

            The matter of consensus is an interesting one. It cannot be the basis of truth. Yet, when it comes to discussion of church teaching, confessional statements, affirmations of faith, articles of religion, and social principles, an element of consensus and rational discussion is present. To respect the role of consensus would require humility on the part of all parties. For example, would consensus include an ecumenical look, rather than simply a UMC look? True, some small denominations have gone the direction of including homosexual practice as a Christian practice rather than contrary to Christian teaching. Yet, most of global Christianity is not at that point biblically, theologically, or culturally. From the perspective of humility, it might be the better part of wisdom to be in patient conversation on these matters. It would require those who are on the side of changes in the Book of Discipline not to accuse their opponents of being evil people, that is, haters and deniers of social justice. It would require looking at your opponent with love and recognizing that your opponent may well adopt their position out of love.

            In 1952, Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann had engaged in much writing of letters. They had been friends. However, as Barth continued down the path of his Church Dogmatics, Bultmann continued the path of the early Heidegger, existentialism, and demythologizing. The result was the use of an image by Karl Barth. He said they were like the whale and the elephant meeting on the shore. They shouted sounds at each other, but neither understood the other.

            I feel a bit like that when I hear a colleague or friend say that they have taken Jesus and the Bible seriously, and have concluded that the historic position of the UMC, of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, and many of the churches of Africa, Latin America, and Asia, have gotten such an important matter so wrong. We are making sounds toward each other, but not truly hearing. I am not sure it will improve.

            Out of a conversation with a colleague, I would share one more thing. The UMC is not dealing with any of this in a way that will attract people to Jesus. If the UMC could discuss these matters in a way that would be a model to others, if it had found a way to elevate Jesus through this discussion, it would make sense to find a middle way. However, we have not found that way. I often suggest to people that if they are struggling with discerning whether something is in the will of God, we ought to ask if we are growing in faith, hope, and love. We ought to ask of we are nurturing the fruit of the Spirit or the works of the flesh. It seems obvious to me that discussion has led to lack of faith, lessening of love, and diminishing of hope. It does not take long to see the works of the flesh in the way the UMC is handling this issue, such as hatred, dissension, selfish ambition, faction, and envy. If we appeal to the seven deadly sins, we might think of pride, greed, wrath, and maybe sloth (in the sense of not fulfilling the mission of the church). Groups are fighting each other, but for what reason? I assume everyone thinks they are fighting for something “true.” Yet, it looks like we fight to gain the upper hand so that we can impose (coerce) obedience. My problem here is that coercion is never a good way to gain unity of the fellowship or the engage in the quest for truth.

            Therefore, I still find myself on the side of division. Why not do it now? If we did, we should be able to get the people on both sides who say that they are following Jesus and Scripture to lead us in a faithful division of this denomination and the creation of at least two new denominations. These new denominations could pursue their mission free of this debate. We might be able to do so in a way that actually elevates Jesus Christ in our minds and hearts as well as in the culture. In a statement that would lead to another article, I want to be clear that the culture is getting beyond simply ignoring the church. The culture is quickly moving to a place where it will be acceptable to declare classic Christianity as hate speech. In other words, even though most of the citizens view themselves as Christian, the challenge will be on from those who shape the culture and the political life to conform to the culture. The church has large “fish to fry,” no matter which side one comes down in this matter. Our time is now to focus on the big issues, whether traditional or classic Christian. Rather than unravel wither, why not divide and grow?

General Conference of UMC 2012

            I had the privilege of attending General Conference 2012 of the United Methodist Church. This meeting, which happens only every four years, represents United Methodists from around the globe. It met in Tampa, FL this year. There were around 1000 delegates sitting at a series of round tables. Most of the Indiana delegation was in the same area. I was a “guest,” largely because a member of my local church staff was a lay delegate. I could see how much she read and agonized over decisions they would need to make. I would like to think that I was able to offer some support for other members of the delegation as well.

            On the personal side, I either walked to the Tampa Convention Center, about three miles from my hotel, or rode the bus.

            Other sources can relate the facts of the decisions. You can read one such summary here: http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=8057055&ct=11742349I want to share a little of what I experienced.

            Did I like Tampa? Of course, it is in Florida. I had only one free afternoon, when Bishop Coyner announced guests would not be allowed in the room due to a demonstration. I wondered aloud what I would do. Someone said, “Well, you are in Florida.” I rented a car for the day and went to the beach. When I arrived again the next day, I discovered that the directions had changed, and I could have attended. In any case, it was nice to have some clam strips and a walk on the beach. However, I also discovered that enjoying the beach is a social event. I wanted Suzanne there.

            Had it not been for that, my response would have been something like, “I guess Tampa is OK, but I did not see much. My hotel and the Convention Center.” I say this because I want to say clearly that the delegates and the alternates work. The sessions started at 8 am and they did not sign off until around 9:30 or 10 PM. There were mid-morning and mid-afternoon breaks and two hour lunch and dinner breaks, but it is grueling. The alternates are used in order to give the delegates a well-deserved break. Indiana UM’s can be quite proud of their delegation. They all worked hard. I think that if I ever went as a delegate, I would make sure I had some days before or after to see the territory and relax.

            Worship on Monday night was impressive as an African Bishop David Kekumba Yemba preached.

            I had the privilege of meeting Mark Tooley, the head of IRD. His primary concern is the capture by the politically Left of mainline denominations, including the UMC. Yet, his book, Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century, is a quite factual account of the branches of the present United Methodist Church in politics. I found it quite interesting. If you like either the history of the UM Church or politics, I would recommend it.

            I attended the Confessing Movement breakfast once. I passed out literature one morning for them. Most people were gracious. Only one was not. Given all the people I saw, I did not think that was too bad.

As I understood it, guaranteed appointment for pastors is gone, based on "ineffectiveness", but there are protections built in concerning abuse of power by bishops. The effort is to offer some financial incentive and career counseling for pastors who no longer are effective. I stress that I have not read the final document. There was much discussion of how getting rid of lifetime tenure for bishops required a two thirds vote, while this rule that apparently goes back to Wesley could be overturned with a majority vote. However, much discussion by laity was that they must face a work environment that could lead to their unemployment. Removing guaranteed appointment does not go as far as what laity must face in private enterprise. I think one of the difficulties here is that clergy do not have obviously transferable skills to other occupations, unlike most of the skills laity have.

            Quite quickly, I was impressed with the African presence in the room. This made me aware in a quite graphic way of the global nature of this denomination of around 12 million members. Except in one notable case in a debate regarding homosexuality, they offered questions and motions that I thought helpful. I did not always agree with them, of course, but I appreciated their perspective. Maybe what I sensed was freshness and aliveness to their faith that I may find lacking in me and in many other American congregations.

            Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter also made their presence known. They did so through their proposal to change the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church regarding homosexuality. Presently, the statement says that while persons of sacred dignity, the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. They supported a change that would acknowledge that United Methodists differed on this matter. It was defeated with a 53-47 percent spread, I think. Taken on its own, the statement is quite harmless. Yet, for many opponents, it represented just the first step in a process of full inclusion and acceptance of what they believe to be sinful behavior. What I do not know is the heart or intent of Adam Hamilton or Mike Slaughter. Do they simply want the denomination to find a way to move past the issue? Do they want the denomination to adopt a stance similar to that of the Episcopal Church, which would mean complete affirmation? Another proposed change was defeated by a larger margin. There was then debate about divestment from businesses that work with Israel. After its defeat, and as the session closed, a group burst onto the floor of the Conference, something that was illegal, but the bishop had a prayer and dismissed for break. For all I knew at the time, they were upset about rejecting divestment. I learned from others that it concerned the sexuality vote. Reconvening, Bishop Michael Coyner, my own Bishop, presided. The group now met in the center of the floor, sang something I could not understand (I learned it was “What Does the Lord Require?”). They were disruptive enough that Bishop Coyner dismissed the conference to an early lunch and said that no guests would be allowed in the hall. What I could not see was if Adam Hamilton or Mike Slaughter were part of these disruptions. I must say that United Methodists in Indiana should be quite proud of the way Bishop Coyner conducted himself. He was respectful to people who clearly disrespected him. At one point, he noted that they had made their point. Later, he said they were hurting their point. He was quite right on both counts. In contrast, Bishop Ough sided with the group that lost the votes by wearing a rainbow type tie as he presided the next day. In doing so, I think he demonstrated his smallness and pettiness. Although the following video does not show how much the noise disrupted the proceedings, you can view the dignified way Bishop Coyner presided here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOFzvuxZr2A&list=PL8CA4B32B8E69649B&index=26&feature=plpp_video

            I must say that the group agitating for a change in the statement on homosexuality, in general, was irritating. They marched around the floor of the Conference throughout. They wore rainbow stoles. I suppose some would be sympathetic and feel sorry for them in some way. However, for me, their actions suggested moral superiority and arrogance. From where I sat, literally, I saw anger and disgust toward those who disagreed with them. Some of my friends on the conservative side on this matter said they saw their pain and tears. I did not. I hope I was not blind. By barging onto the floor of the general conference, they became bullies. They know the process by which to make changes in this denomination. If they did not get their way this time, they need to work harder next time. Although I know many colleagues who would agree with their stance, I hope they would not agree with the method the group used.  

            Another matter about which I found myself concerned was divestment from Israel. The committee shared a narrow map of the Palestine area, claiming that Israel has illegally occupied and taken land. What I find disturbing about this type of map is the fact that it obscures the real atrocity committed against the Palestinians is not from Israel, but from Arab countries. The Arab nations that surround Israel have the money to start a new life for the Palestinians in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, but none of these nations do this. The reason, in my opinion, is simple. They need to hate Jews. In addition, the language used on the floor by one delegate was to compare the behavior of Israel to that of Nazi Germany. It reminded me of how far away I am politically from many in my denomination. Fortunately, the motion was defeated. 

            Plan UMC was a motion to make some structural changes in the denomination designed to streamline and make Boards and Agencies more accountable. The impression I had was that many delegates did not want to leave without making a change here. The feeling was that something needed to change at the denominational level. My own thought, for what it is worth, is that since the denomination is asking local churches to make significant changes for the sake of mission, the national church should do the same. The delegates passed a plan that late Friday afternoon the Judicial Council determined was unconstitutional. I am confident that many delegates left feeling as if they had just wasted the time and money of the church. The delegates reduced the budget for the general church by six percent from the previous four years. Board of Church and Society would accept no cuts.

            There are around 12 million United Methodists in the world. Around 7 million are in the USA, but a number in decline. Within the United States, the South Central and Southeast are by far the largest, the North Central and the New England jurisdictions about the same, and the West the smallest. There are around 4 million in Africa, but a number on the increase. Europe and Southeast Asia are small numbers at present, but Asia is growing. What is interesting is that the American church contributes about 99% of the budget for the general church. One can almost hear the rise of opposition to the African church on this basis, as their numbers at General Conference grows. I would urge you to read what Bob Walters posted on http://www.friendlyplanetnews.blogspot.com/2012/05/no-free-ride-for-central-conferences.html. It is an excellent piece. If it can be well placed, I wonder if “we” should not invest more of the money where the growth is. Just a thought. In addition, the United Methodist Church seems to have trouble where secularity is gaining in strength, namely, in America and Europe. The denomination is not alone in this. However, the denomination is growing in areas closer to tribal and colonial roots. These are quite different mission fields. The principles of growth in one area will not easily translate to the other. At this point, I simply highlight the challenge for the denomination.

            Tim McClendon, a District Superintendent from South Carolina and an episcopal nominee, posted what I thought were some interesting reflections: http://wtmcclendon.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/general-conference-2012-observations/

            Ben Boruff, a member of the team that proposed restructure, offers his reflections on General Conference here: http://www.unitedmethodistreporter.com/2012/05/our-stubborn-system-a-reflection-on-gc2012/

            Some people asked me about whether the UMC will divide. My own thought is no. We will keep having this power struggle within the denomination, one pulling toward what they view as progressive theology, and the other pulling toward faithfulness to the Scripture, the traditions of the church, and to the global church. I would argue that a “conciliar” approach is far better, working with the global church and with other denominations on such matters, but I think those days are gone. People want to be “prophetic,” which generally means the most recent progressive, politically Left agenda. I have stated that I think a basis for a friendly divorce is present. The south central, southeast, evangelical churches, Africa, and Asia, could easily form a denomination of around 9 million. The West, New England, progressive churches everywhere, and Europe, could form a denomination of around three million. To do so would require a division of property, just as in a divorce. In any case, such a friendly divorce would be a far better witness for Christ than what I saw around the homosexuality debate.

I am glad I made the time to attend. I enjoyed my interactions with others. My own hope is simple. The general conference delegates made it clear they have an interest in making some significant changes. Maybe the bishops can figure out a way forward to make some needed changes in the direction the delegates wanted. Since they are the head of the respective agencies of the church, they may have the power to do so, if they so desire.