If I Was Preaching Today

If I was preaching today, I would proclaim the Gospel, for there is a Gospel to proclaim, and I am called to proclaim it.

If I was preaching today, I would use Psalm 98:1 and entreat the church to "Sing to the Lord a new song, for God has done marvelous things." I would talk in particular about the marvelous things God has been doing in our denomination for the past five years, since the United Methodist Church woke up in February of 2019. Marvelous things that came to fruition in Charlotte over these past two weeks.

If I was preaching today, I would do all I could to convey the vibrant diversity present in the United Methodist Church, diversity that was on full display in Charlotte at General Conference. I would celebrate the Methodist ethos that unites us across the globe, even as we navigate the contextual particularities that make us unique in our various regions. 

If I was preaching today, I would have a renewal of baptism as part of the service, leaning into Acts 10:47, in which Peter asks, "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing those who have received the Holy Spirit" and I would invite as many deacons as I could find there to celebrate. I would ask people to start fresh from today, knowing that the Holy Spirit has set our denomination free from decades of bitter animosity.

If I was preaching today, I would read 1 John 5:3: "For the love of God is this, that we obey God's commandments. And God's commandments are not burdensome." And then I would talk about the many "burdensome" things that the United Methodist Church has just removed from our Book of Discipline, eliminating restrictive and harmful rules that prevented LGBT+ people from seeking ordination and getting married in their own church. 

If I was preaching today, I would have people stand for the reading of John 15:9-17 and center in on what it means to love one another as Jesus loves us. And point out that Jesus loves us like the Father loves him, that is, so intimately and unconditionally that the two are all but indistinguishable from one another. Which means that we are to love one another the same way, intimately and unconditionally, as friends of Christ, who unites us in spite of our attempts to disaffiliate from one another.

If I was preaching today, I would celebrate the hope and joy of a new day for United Methodism, and encourage the church to follow the Holy Spirit as she leads us into freedom in community together. There is still so much work to be done, and by God's grace this church is doing it. This is a pivotal moment for this denomination, and congregations all over the world are gathering to celebrate. 

Truly, this is the day the Lord has made! And we are called to rejoice, and be glad in it! Alleluia, Amen!

A Season to Shine - My Initial "Protocol" Thoughts

On Friday, January 4, news broke of a new proposal to be presented to the United Methodist General Conference. The proposal came from a task force of sixteen United Methodists from a diverse array of groups within the denomination. The people were not necessarily leaders of the groups, or even representing the groups per se, but they were certainly members. The groups in question reflect the theological diversity of our denomination, from conservative to progressive and everything in between.

The proposal, known as the “Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation,” will be presented to the United Methodist Judicial Council for a declaratory ruling as to its constitutionality. Then it will be presented to the General Conference for consideration, potential amendment, and a vote. And so, while the content of the Protocol sounds quite dramatic, as of now it is a vision, not a plan of action.

The vision is a way for the United Methodist Church to remove our prohibitions on marriage and ordination for our sisters and brothers who are LGBTQ+. In doing so, the Protocol creates a way to leave the United Methodist Church and start a new denomination that would neither allow same-sex weddings nor ordain people of the LGBTQ+ community.

Following this separation, the United Methodist Church would convene another General Conference for the purpose of removing the prohibitions on same-sex weddings and ordination of people in the LGBTQ+ community. Everything else that the United Methodist Church does will remain the same at this point, though all acknowledge that further reform is required in order for the denomination to flourish as God intends.

Importantly, everyone would remain in the UMC unless choosing to leave, and the Protocol calls for the Annual Conference to decide first. In other words, if an Annual Conference wants to stay in the UMC, no vote will be required. At an Annual Conference session, if 20% of the delegates want to vote, we will. Then, if 57% of the delegates want to separate (obviously a number reached by compromise) we would do so. Annual Conferences would have until July 1, 2021 to make this decision.

After the action of the Annual Conference, congregations would respond. If the congregation aligns with the decision of the Annual Conference, no vote is needed. (For example, if Missouri decides to remain United Methodist, then all of our congregations remain United Methodist.) However, if a congregation wants to affiliate with a denomination other than the one chosen by their Annual Conference, the church council would determine the vote threshold required, and a church conference would be convened to hold the vote. Congregations would have until December 31, 2024 to make this decision.

At this point, we are all asking questions about the implications of this proposal. It is good to prayerfully and faithfully speculate about the future, as long as doing so does not make us fearful or anxious. The Holy Spirit is on the move within us, around us, among us. God is truly doing a new thing. Seasons of uncertainty are also seasons of great promise and possibility. The words of Jesus give assurance: “Remember I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Manchester UMC is in a position to be a leader in the denomination for such a time as this. Again I hear Jesus saying to us, “You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.”

This is not a time to dim our light, Manchester. This is a time to shine even more brightly. To shine with the God-given light of the Holy Spirit reflected in our lives. To shine with the light of our vision, to be an inclusive community of people who love deeply, worship passionately, and serve boldly. To shine through our mission to make a difference for Christ by transforming church and community.

Church, this is a season to shine!

Pathways, Too

Or is it Pathways 2? Or maybe Pathways II? Oh I know! Pathways Next!

Ok, so it doesn't really matter. It is a team of 20 people from the Missouri Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church meeting together for a common purpose. And when Missouri convenes a team to help discern a direction for the Conference, we call it a "Pathways" team. It's what we do.

At our first meeting on Wednesday, October 30, we began our work by clarifying that purpose. Our Bishop, Bishop Bob Farr, has called this group together to discern a way for the Missouri Conference to be in ministry together pending the outcome of General Conference 2020.

The group present last Wednesday agreed on a lot of things. We began with Scripture and prayer. Each one gave permission to share our names as participants in this process. We took some time getting to know one another. We started talking about some common ideas of covenant to guide our work. And we heard the Bishop lay out one possible idea for how we might proceed after June 2020 (the Annual Conference session).

There are people from every district in the conference. There are elder, deacon, licensed local pastor, and laity. There is racial diversity. There is one person who is gay and out. (There may be others, but I don't know everyone at the table personally and we didn't really take a poll.)

And there are people at the table who believe being LGBT+ should disqualify a person from getting married and/or being ordained, alongside people who believe sexual orientation and gender identity should be celebrated as an important part of what makes a person unique and gifted. And I'm sure there are people somewhere in between, too. So it goes.

One of the helpful filters that Bishop Farr added to our work was this: we are not going to try to change one another's minds about what we believe. Our conversations are to be focused on how we can, in the bishop's words, "multiply our witness for the sake of Jesus Christ." In my own words, the question is, "What can we do together that would sow the seeds of the Reign of God in our varied contexts of ministry and service?"

Bishop Farr has a way of speaking pretty powerful truths in pretty accessible ways. Sometimes you don't really catch it until it's past. Recently he said that it seems like there's an earthquake happening in the United Methodist Church; but maybe the church "needs to be shaken up."

At our meeting on the 30th, he uttered a doozie, a real "Farrism." He said, "Whoever wound up the United Methodist Church did not want it to be unwound." What he meant by that was that our system is a giant hairball of overly complicated processes and procedures that nobody really even understands, much less follows completely. So the work of this Pathways team is not around "unwiding" the church, but orbiting that hairball as best we can.

So here's the process - we are meeting at least four more times (December 17, January 18, February 27, and April 21). Our work will be presented to the Mission Council, who would, pending their approval, present it to the Annual Conference in June.

One of the unresolved questions as I see it is, "What would trigger consideration of the Pathways plan?" Meaning, what outcome of General Conference would cause us to say, "Okay let's do our thing instead of that?" Would affirmation of the status quo trigger it? Would voting to divide the entire UMC? Would voting in favor of full inclusion and affirmation of all people, including ordination and marriage?

Or will we just do it anyway, regardless of the specific outcome in May?

This is one of the myriad of questions that the Pathways team will be asking. And there are so many. It is my hope that we are as transparent as we can possibly be in this process, and for me that includes listening to your hopes and fears as well. Please comment, email, or message me with your questions. Your voices are important to this conversation.

And finally, I just ask that you please pray. A lot. Pray a lot. Pray for God's wisdom. Pray for an awareness of the movement of the Holy Spirit. Pray for our church. We are living through a season of reform, and the future is uncharted territory. In prayer together, we can navigate what lies ahead and continue to become the church that God desires.

Two or Three?

Help me out here, United Methodist friends. In the ongoing conversations about the future of our denomination, one of the questions is essentially, "Two or three?"

As in, will there be two different systems (one traditional and one progressive), or three systems (one traditional, one centrist, and one progressive). Yes, I know it is way more complicated than that, and the language and labels are different among different "plans" and such. And I'm assuming we are all resigned to the idea that staying one system and trying to make that system more just is no longer an option, as February 2019 made clear to so many of us.

So, a core question to wrestle with remains, "Two or three?"

And here's where I need some help. I fail to see how there are three options. It seems to me that there is either "status quo" or "change." Either we allow same-sex weddings or we don't. Either we ordain LGBTQ+ people or we don't.

There is nuance, of course. Some people are in favor of ordination but not marriage. Some would favor marriage as a legal relationship but not a spiritual one. And so it goes. Yes, it is nuanced.

But ... let's do some practical theology, ok?

A young gay person comes to their pastor and says, "God has called me to be ordained in the United Methodist Church." That pastor either says "Yes" or "No." That pastor cannot say, "Either."

A same-sex couple comes to their church and says they want to get married. Their church either says "Yes" or "No." That church cannot say, "We are divided on that question."

In fact, if that pastor says "either" or if that church says "we are divided" are they not in fact saying "No?"

It seems to me that if we end up with three systems and one of those is labelled "centrist," the "centrist" system is in practice "traditionalist" if weddings and ordinations are still prohibited. And it is in practice "progressive" if weddings and ordinations are allowed.

So, in practice, either "status quo" or "change."

Many clergy colleagues have expressed some trepidation about making their congregation choose. There is significant anxiety about the tone of the conversation, and the potential for conflict. "It would split the congregation in two," some have said. I get that. I feel that.

Nevertheless, I disagree. What better place to have the conversation than in a community of people who worship together, serve together, learn together, and love each other as members of one another in the Body of Christ? Surely there's no better place to have potentially difficult conversations than in the local church. It's certainly a far better place to have them than on the floor of General Conference, isn't it?

Look, it is naive for anyone to think that no LGBTQ+ people in their congregation will ever be called into ordained ministry, or want to be married in their own church building. And so, we probably ought to go ahead and have the conversation, so that we can respond in a Christlike way when (not if) it happens. Otherwise the urgency of the moment will prevent effective communication, and the conflict will be harder to navigate.

Right this moment, though my mind is open, I like the "UMCNext Plan," mainly because it presents a clear answer to the question of "Two or Three." The UMCNext answer is "Two." The UMCNext Plan basically says, "We would like to change the status quo in the UMC. If you don't like that change, we are going to create a respectful way for you to leave and form your own Wesleyan church, where you can have policies that prohibit marriage and ordination if you want."

I like it because it is a choice between two things. Clearly articulated. One is fully inclusive; one is conditionally inclusive. You can pick. You have to pick. It is time to pick. Have the conversation. Choose.

Help me. How is having a "centrist" system not choosing one or the other?

The Second Sunday

After a wave of “first Sundays” across the connection, United Methodist pastors woke up to discover it is week two, and another Sunday is right around the corner.

We celebrated last weekend, pulled out all the stops, wore all the nametags, shook all the hands. Preachers brought their "A" game. Musicians filled sanctuaries with joyous praise. Hospitality teams polished up welcome desks. And it was wonderful! It was a party! There was cake! Everyone was there to check out the new pastor, and it felt like a big family reunion where one of the kids is bringing home a new significant other for everyone to meet.

It was great.

And guess what … this coming Sunday is just as important. I might even go so far as to say that this coming Sunday is even more important. A one-time celebration of a special event is awesome and spectacular and fun, and I don’t want to take anything away from all the good stuff that United Methodist churches did last weekend. It was a mountaintop moment.

Faithful, fruitful discipleship is more than just mountaintops. Following Jesus is comprised of mountaintop moments that are connected by long stretches of valley, and those valleys are where life happens. Those valleys are where faith is tested. Those valleys are where we grow and learn and serve and share.

The good news is that there’s another mountaintop coming. We get one a week, actually! How cool is that? When we gather together to be the church at worship, whether it is the new pastor’s first Sunday or the old pastor’s one thousand first, it is the day the Lord has made and we ought to rejoice and be glad in it.

For a lot of us, this weekend will be the second Sunday (or Saturday) of a new appointment. And I hope we pull out all the stops and bring our "A" games and fill the room with joyous praise. Yes, again. Because God is worth it.

God’s grace comes both in periodic bursts of brilliance and in slow, steady streams. We live in valleys interspersed with occasional mountaintop moments. Growing in faithfulness means learning how to navigate both.

It’s the second Sunday, week two. There may not be cake this week. Get up and go worship anyway. I’ll see y’all in church.

Delegation Election Thoughts

Here’s what I think happened in the delegation elections at the Missouri Annual Conference in 2019. (For background, click the lead story of this conference daily journal.)

It was about principles, not labels.

The national UMC Next gathering generated four clear, succinct principles. Written as commitments, these principles provide an unambiguous way for people to self-identify. Labels like conservative, centrist, and liberal can mean different things to different people and at different times. I am conservative in some ways and progressive in others. Does that then make me an aggregate centrist?

Instead of those subjective terms, the Missouri UMC Next group took the four commitments and asked potential delegates if they supported them. People were then able to say, “Yes, I affirm the four principles of the UMC Next movement,” rather than, “I am a centrist” or some other nebulous label.

It made some people mad.

I am truly sorry that some people were upset or angry or disappointed by the lack of theological diversity on the Missouri delegation. And to be honest, in past years I would have shared their disappointment. I am an advocate for a “big table” church in which many different theological perspectives have a voice. But this isn’t “past years;” this is a profoundly significant time in the history of Methodism.

In this season, I am particularly mindful of the voices who for decades have been at best only partly included at the table if not excluded completely. And one of the UMC Next commitments is to “build a church which affirms the full participation of all ages, nations, races, classes, cultures, gender identities, sexual orientations, and abilities.” Actually, that sounds like a pretty big table to me!

It was driven by hope and trust.

At a pre-conference meeting of 225 people or so, hosted by the Missouri UMC Next group, there was a notable buzz in the room. I said to my colleague Lori, “There’s a lot of energy tonight.”

Lori looked at me and without missing a beat said, “It’s hope.”

There was a generally positive, hopeful outlook among those who affirmed the UMC Next principles. The 2019 General Conference had sucked a lot of life out of a lot of people, and here for the first time since February were some tangible ways to respond. That generated a lot of really good hopeful energy.

This hopefulness spilled over in an abundance of trust. The Missouri UMC Next list of suggested delegates would have been nobody’s personal preference from one to twelve.  The names came from a series of regional meetings held all over the state, countless personal conversations, and several flurries of group emails. There was broad participation, as many, many people connected in a variety of ways to pray and talk and discern together.

So yes, people were voting for people they had never actually met before. Nobody knew each and every one of the slate, much less had spoken to each one about how they would serve on the delegation. But here’s what happened - personal preferences were set aside, because if you didn’t know someone on the list, you knew someone who knew them. It was relational and organic, the Methodist connection working like the connection can and maybe should.

It was a small part of a great awakening.

Here in our conference, there has been a reluctance to dialogue about points of disagreement. Sidestepping difficult conversations has generated an ethos that some would describe as unity. I do not see it as unity; I see it as conflict avoidance.

But the church is awake now, in a way it hasn’t been before. It happened all over the country at one annual conference session after another. United Methodists are pretty strongly rejecting the petitions passed at General Conference 2019 and the manner in which they were passed. And while that doesn’t mean we ought to seek out conflict, it very clearly means we will no longer be avoiding it for the sake maintaining a veneer of artificial unity.

There are so many things that are going to happen between now and General Conference 2020, and nobody knows how everything is going to shake out. Bishop Farr said at our Annual Conference session this year, “The United Methodist Church is experiencing an earthquake. But maybe we need to be shaken up.”

However you view this season in the UMC, very few can deny that Easter people are raising their voices all over the place. Hope and trust and grace and love abound! God’s Holy Spirit is alive and on the move!

The church is awake. It is glorious. It is terrifying. It is in God’s hands. All shall be well. Amen.

"A Huge Thunderclap"

The United Methodist Church lost a long-time member a couple of weeks ago. He's still going to be active, will still come to worship and be very faithful in a lot of areas of the church.

He just doesn't want to be a member. At least not at the moment.

Here's part of what he said in his letter, shared with his permission:

"I've been reading, listening, and pondering about what's going on within the Methodist Church surrounding the position that has been taken regarding 'we are inclusive but not really.'

"As a result, I've come to the conclusion that I can no longer be a member of an organization that does not reflect my personal belief on whether members of the LGBT etc. community are 'full' members of the church. By 'full' I mean they have the right to become clergy and to be married in a Methodist Church by a Methodist pastor. ...

"This is my protest to the direction the UMC has decided to go at this time. As a protest I'm very aware that it is not going to be a huge thunderclap in the Annual Conference and/or General Conference. Heck, it probably won't even be heard.

"I believe the UMC needs to assess itself as whether it should continue to be a single philosophy world-wide religion or if it should split into conferences that reflect the people that each serves. There are too many cultural differences across the world for a single [denomination] to try to be 'one for all.'"

(Can I just say how much respect and admiration I have for my friend and brother in Christ? And then can I just say how much my heart breaks at how harmful the United Methodist Church has been to so many people for so long?)

There is some thunder that cracks, very loudly, very suddenly. It startles you, makes you jump.

But there is other thunder that starts slow and rumbles, you almost don't hear it at first but it builds slowly and gradually until before you know it the windows are rattling and the sound fills your ears.

The United Methodist Church is experiencing that second kind of thunder. Little by little, one member at a time, the denomination is shaking apart. I have heard Bishop Farr refer to it as "death by a thousand cuts." It will only increase. Soon it will be rattling our windows and shaking the very foundations of our church.

By that time we will be forced to do what we might be able to get ahead of right now, if we have the will to do so. We have to say "no" to the "traditional plan." We have to eliminate discrimination in our church. We have to embrace our rich Wesleyan theology. We have to advocate for goodness, justice, equality, and love.

At the moment "We are inclusive but not really," as he puts it.

And the thunder rolls.

A Non-Confirmation Affirmation

A young woman decided not to join the United Methodist Church last Sunday.

In one sense that’s rather unremarkable. After all, every Sunday there are millions of people who don’t join the United Methodist Church.

But the young woman’s decision was noteworthy, and I want you to know about it. She gave me permission to tell her story.

She attended confirmation classes for weeks, learning about the church, the theology and history of Methodism, and about what it means to be a member. And those classes were happening during a significant, tumultuous season for the denomination.

In February the General Conference met and tightened our restrictions on participation of LGBTQIA persons in the denomination. That decision was then upheld by the Judicial Council at the end of April. And then Confirmation Sunday was May 5^th.

And because the young woman does not want to be a part of a church that excludes people, she decided not to become a member. Her decision did not make headlines; her story will not go viral. That’s not why she made her decision.

She made her decision because she doesn’t want to be a part of the United Methodist Church as long as gay people are only conditionally accepted here. “You are welcome up to this line, but not beyond” is not her theology, nor does it represent her understanding of who God is, nor does it reflect her interpretation of the Bible.

She is a young woman of principle, of courage, and of high integrity. I have the utmost respect for her and for her decision.  It was not an easy decision, and she made it with much prayer and discernment. Nor did her decision take any of the joy away from the other nine who decided to be confirmed and join the church; no judgments here, on anyone’s part.

A part of why she gave me permission to share her story was to help people recognize the writing on the wall for the UMC. This is the future of the denomination, as it has come to be.

 
We have not shattered in one explosive Thanos snap moment. Rather, the United Methodist Church is gradually disintegrating, just steadily eroding, one decision at a time. And no conference resolution, petition, or piece of legislation can even begin to reverse that slow yet unrelenting decline.

A young woman did not join the United Methodist Church last Sunday. Do you see her? Do you hear her? Will you affirm her story?

I baptized her a year ago; she professed her faith in Jesus Christ, made her baptismal vows, and was affirmed by the church surrounding her in that moment. So she is a disciple, but not a member. Which is wonderful of course, and at the same time heartbreaking.

A young woman made a decision to not join the church last week. And we need to hear her voice, respect her integrity, and affirm her story. And then we need to go to work so that no young person makes that decision ever again.

What Do You Mean By That?

The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers it to be incompatible with Christian teaching.

That’s the sentence at the heart of it all. This sentence in the United Methodist “Book of Discipline,” was added in 1972 via a last minute amendment offered by lay delegate Don Hand at that year’s General Conference. This sentence is why the UMC has adopted our discriminatory policies, denying same-sex couples the right to be married in United Methodist church buildings, denying United Methodist pastors the right to marry same-sex couples, and denying people who are gay the right to be ordained to serve in the church.

That sentence is why we had the sound and fury that was General Conference 2019.

So let’s take a minute with that sentence, and dig into it to think about what we really mean. Let’s parse that sentence in the most Methodist way possible, using Scripture as the primary source, illuminated by tradition, reason, and experience. Let’s just see what we mean by that.

For this project, I’ll unpack four individual phrases in the sentence.

- “…does not condone…”

- “…the practice of homosexuality…”

- “…incompatible with…”

- “…Christian teaching…”

1) “Does not condone”

“Does not condone” is a flaky phrase. What does it mean to “not condone” something? Well, it isn’t quite neutral, right? To say that I condone something is to say that I will allow it to continue, to sanction it, to approve of it. So to “not condone” something is to “not allow it to continue.” It’s just phrased a bit awkwardly, and not as clearly as it could be.

The opposite of “condone” is “condemn.” A more direct, clearer statement would be, “The United Methodist Church condemns…” It begs the question: Why was that stronger language not chosen in 1972 when this phrase was added? Did it seem kind of un-Methodist to actually “condemn” something? Was it theological, in that only God can condemn, not us? Was it perhaps an attempt to soften the harm that the author of the phrase inherently knew would obviously be done by adding it?

Of course, one can only speculate. Suffice it to say that there was something about the word “condemn” that did not appeal to the author of the phrase way back when. When the idea is placed in context, however, it becomes clear that “condemn” is exactly what is meant here. The real life implications of this statement are ample evidence that condemnation is intended.

So in this case, “does not condone” means “condemns,” and I will use the clearer language in the remainder of this project.

2) “The practice of homosexuality”

The United Methodist Church does not condemn homosexuality directly. It is really important to realize that same-sex sexual orientation itself is not condemned by the denominational statement. The big deal about that is that The United Methodist Church acknowledges that sexual orientation is a real thing.

Many people still do not believe the science behind sexual orientation. Many people still think that being gay is a choice. You can tell when somebody thinks this way because they use phrases like “that lifestyle.” However, the United Methodist Church has, since 1972, affirmed that homosexual orientation is a real thing. Any United Methodist who thinks being gay is a choice is technically therefore in violation of the Book of Discipline.

It is “the practice” of that one particular sexual orientation that is in question here. So what does that mean? Well, since I am straight I try to think about in terms of my own orientation. What does it look like for me to “practice” my heterosexuality?

Every morning I give my wife a kiss. We send text messages during the day that say, “Could you pick up some milk?” and stuff like that. We hold hands sometimes. When we can finagle a babysitter we might occasionally go out on a … what are those called?  … oh yeah, a date. We have sex sometimes. We give each other hugs a lot. We sit on the couch and watch TV shows together. We argue about bills. We worry about our kids. And so forth, and so on.

This is what it looks like for me to “practice” my romantic attraction to my wife, to “practice” my heterosexuality.

And so, these public (and private) displays of affection are condemned by the United Methodist Church if you are romantically attracted to someone who is the same gender as you. In other words, The United Methodist Church does not condemn your orientation, it just condemns your expressing it in any way. The United Methodist Church officially believes that you have to stay in the closet if you are gay. You have to repress any expression of romantic attraction you might feel for someone. You do not have to deny who you are, but you have to deny any outward appearance of who you are.

This statement says nothing specifically about marriage, by the way. However, marriage is clearly one way that one “practices” their sexual orientation. And so later in the Book of Discipline, when marriage is specifically forbidden, it refers to this particular sentence to do so. The word "practice" also plays a part in ordination discrimination. In our wonky policy language, we say that "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" are forbidden from being ordained. Again, it isn't the orientation that is condemned but rather the practice thereof.

Now, some will say that the statement is really about sex only. Some will say that the intent of the sentence is to apply only to actual sex with someone of the same gender. And often tangled with this interpretation is a thought that the sole purpose of marriage is sex, or procreation. Again, any thought about the author’s original meaning is only speculation. The plain truth is that the statement doesn’t condemn only sex; it condemns “the practice,” which includes much more.

In fact, the word "practice" appears twice in the sentence, which reinforces the idea that romantic attraction to someone of the same gender is acknowledged and not condemned, but merely the various expressions of said romantic attraction.

3) “Incompatible With”

Actually I’m going to come back to this one, and do the last one next. So…

3) “Christian Teaching”

This phrase could mean a lot of different things. In the original motion the phrase was "Christian doctrine;" it was changed to "teaching" via a friendly amendment. At its simplest, “Christian teaching” is the teaching of Christ. So that would mean that somewhere in the things Jesus said we should find a teaching about a person expressing their love for someone of the same gender.

The problem is, it’s not there. Sometimes marriage traditionalists cite Matthew 19 to claim that Jesus did, in fact, say something about same-sex marriage. However, Matthew 19 is not about same-sex marriage. It is about heterosexual marriage, opposite-sex marriage if you will. He is asked a direct question about a man divorcing his wife, and he answers that question. It is an interpretive leap to claim that this Christian teaching is about same-sex marriage. It is directly connected to opposite-sex marriage, clearly.

(As a side note, the church has not taken Matthew 19 seriously for years. Divorced pastors are numerous; divorced Christians are welcomed into full inclusion of the church without question. To actually take Matthew 19 as seriously as many marriage traditionalists say we should would decimate our church membership rolls.)

And if we’re talking about Matthew 19, we should talk about a bit later in Matthew 19, when Jesus says something that could quite easily be interpreted as actually affirming a gender non-binary, non-heteronormative perspective: “There are eunuchs who have been so from birth” (NRSV). And, it should be noted, such are not condemned by Jesus.

Okay, so if we’re not talking about the actual teachings of Jesus himself, we could be talking about the New Testament, right?  The New Testament is often called the “Christian Scriptures” to distinguish from the Old Testament, referred to as the “Hebrew Bible.” The books of the Bible from Matthew to Revelation, therefore, are distinctly “Christian teaching.” And since we have already eliminated the words of Jesus himself, we are actually talking about the books of Acts to Revelation.

What about the Hebrew Bible though? Sure, you could make the case that the entire Bible is “Christian teaching,” however the Old Testament books are also “Jewish teaching.” This would be referred to as “Judeo-Christian teaching,” if anything. But the Book of Discipline says only “Christian teaching,” and to also include the Old Testament in that category would require an interpretive step away from what the text actually says. Which is fine, but needs to be said aloud.

And further, nothing in the Hebrew Bible speaks directly to same-sex marriage or homosexuality anyway. Genesis 2 is about two straight people whom God joins together as life partners. Genesis 19 is about gang rape. And the Levitical laws are about national purity and idolatry, not to mention the whole “pick and choose” aspect of citing those 2 mentions and leaving out others.

However, “Christian teaching” could also include the teachings of the church, right? The doctrines of the church over time comprise “Christian teaching” on a second tier down from the Bible, but are nonetheless “Christian teachings.”

The problem here is that there in not one, clear doctrine of the church to refer to. Which version of church doctrine would be meant here? Which era of history? Arranged marriages? Wives submit to husbands? And which region of the world? The Western Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church? The Southeastern Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church?

Marriage traditionalists would say the doctrine in play is the “one man, one woman” definition of marriage. But the actual doctrines of the church around marriage have changed over time, are different in different places, and are much broader and more diverse today than ever before. One can pick and choose various church doctrines based upon one’s preconceived belief. If we go to church doctrine to define “Christian teaching,” it becomes more complicated, not less.

So maybe we stick to the New Testament as what comprises “Christian teaching.”

So, to recap, we know this – The United Methodist Church condemns expressing your romantic attraction for someone you love if that someone is the same gender as you, and this condemnation is based on something found in the books of Acts through Revelation in the New Testament. With that, let’s think about the final phrase.

4) “Incompatible With”

For two things to be “incompatible” means that they are so opposed to each other that they are incapable of occupying the same space. If software is incompatible with your computer, it won’t run. One just doesn’t work with the other.

So the United Methodist Church thinks that it is impossible to both express romantic love for someone of the same gender and also ascribe to the teachings contained in the New Testament.

It is impossible to do so. Incompatible. If expressing romantic love for someone of the same gender is software, it won’t run on Christian computers. It simply cannot be.

Except of course, it is. There are a whole lot of Christians who are gay and who express their love for their significant others every single day.

Incompatible? Here Inigo Montoya might say, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” It is obviously not “incompatible” to both be gay and also follow Jesus. People do. I mean, just look around.

And secondly, to make such a claim is a pretty bold move. It is blunt, it is direct, it leaves no wiggle room. There must be multiple overwhelmingly compelling passages somewhere in there that make it abundantly clear. Surely it says over and over in there that expressing your romantic attraction to someone of the same gender is a bad thing. In order to make a claim such as this, the evidence has to be pretty overwhelming, right?

Romans 1. 1 Corinthians 7. 1 Timothy 1.

Only three places. Hm.

But still, those three places must be crystal clear in their condemnation, in order to support a statement indicating such a direct and unequivocal incompatibility. Right?

Well actually, not so much. A full reading of Romans 1 reveals that it is actually a discussion of idolatry, and the verses in question are describing what happens when people exchange faithfulness to God with the pleasures of this world. Thus Paul describes lust and impurity, degrading and shameless acts, unnatural intercourse.

In my book, none of those describe a romantic relationship, period. Same-sex OR opposite-sex. There is nothing degrading, shameless, and unnatural about the covenant of marriage. Paul is writing to tell us that succumbing to degrading, shameless, and unnatural sexual acts is the consequence of God abandoning some people who were not recognizing God’s primary place in their lives.

Simply, Romans 1 is not about being gay.

The other two New Testament passages are lists (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10). The lists in both places mention two Greek words that are very difficult to translate. Different versions use different English words, so it is actually really easy to find a version that aligns with your preconceived notions.

It is fascinating to trace the history of translation, to discover how those two passages changed over time. The word homosexual didn’t appear in there until 1946, in the Revised Standard Version. The New Revised Standard Version, published in 1989, changed it to “sodomites” with a footnote about a “pederastic” relationship – an older man paying to have sex with a young boy. In other words, child abuse.

Other words chosen to interpret this word, both in historical translations and modern ones, are numerous. Obviously, it is not clear what these words actually meant to Paul when he wrote them, much less what they should mean to us today.

All said, rather underwhelming.

In fact, none of the New Testament passages in question describe a loving, gracious, mutually respectful, covenant relationship between two people. None of the three verses in play have anything to do with expressing a romantic attraction.

I understand that not all Christians interpret the Bible the same way I do. Some interpret the Bible as affirming only heterosexual romantic relationships. My question is, given that there are alternate interpretations (like mine for example), why have they chosen the one that does harm to others?

So, back to the originating question, it seems to me that there is nothing in “Christian teaching” with which the “practice of homosexuality” is “incompatible” and therefore no reason the United Methodist Church should “not condone” it.

So what?

Discriminating against people who are gay by denying them the right to be married or ordained in the United Methodist Church is undergirded by a fatally flawed statement. The statement is neither Biblical, nor reasonable, nor aligned with real life experience, nor has any clear connection to Christian tradition.

And so, the phrase needs to go. It needs to be deleted from our Book of Discipline. And if that phrase goes, the policies connected to it need to go also. It’s time. It’s actually long past time.

As long as there is a venue in which to work for the full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people, I will work there. If that means in the current version of the United Methodist Church, I will work there. If that means in the creation of a new expression of Methodism that is fully inclusive, I will work for that creation.

Because it’s time.

#GC2019 Day Three Summary

"It is better to be divided in truth than united in error."

That was a sentence spoken on the floor of General Conference today, and pretty much summarizes how things went.

There is a faction in the United Methodist Church, a faction that I am certain is a minority of the denominational membership but happens to be a majority of the General Conference delegates, that considers their own belief to be truth, with no room of for disagreement. And to this faction, it is more important to claim that your own interpretation is "truth" and stick to that, even if it inflicts pain and harm on others, than it is to compromise.

The votes were consistent throughout the day, each one a litmus test for the larger question. about 53-55% to about 45-47%, give or take. The larger question, of course being "Should the United Methodist Church include gay people fully in the life of the church or not?"

The faction that currently controls General Conference does not control the future of the church, of that I am quite certain. The future is inevitably bending toward justice. It is only a question of when.

With that said, I am no longer going to try to convince people to stay. The policies of the United Methodist Church are harmful, and if you have to leave, I have nothing but respect for that decision.

I am going to stay. This is my grandfather's church, and I am going to be a part of making it better, making it right, more just. I am going to help to renew the church in a way that would make him proud, focused on Jesus and grounded in the beautiful theology of John Wesley.

I am going to stay. This is my father's church, who devoted his entire career to speaking up for those who are oppressed. I feel like I am just getting started, already thinking about what to do in 2020 to advocate for the big tent diversity that so many of us consider a core principle of Methodism.

I am going to stay. This is my church, and I'm not going to give it away to people who cannot see how their interpretations of Scripture are causing such harm to so many people, my friends, my family. People unwilling to even entertain the notion that they may actually be wrong.

I am going to stay. This is my children's church, and by the time they are my age this won't even be a question any more, thank God. And so I want to make sure there's still something of a church left for them once we get to that point. No matter what happens, I want to be able to tell them that I did my best.

And I tried today. I had my name in the pool to speak for a long time, but never got called. There were a LOT of people in the line to speak in favor of the One Church Plan when the chair decided to allow a motion to call the question. A lot, and I was one of them.

For people who value diversity, today was awful, like getting the wind knocked out of you over and over again. Tomorrow promises to be the same. We are working against a deeply entrenched 53-55% of the delegates who are unwilling to yield, unwilling to say that their opinion may be wrong, unwilling to see things from anyone else's point of view.

We are working against a faction who believes that it is better to be divided in "truth," even when what they think is "truth" is not universally accepted as "truth," than it is to be together in "error," even when what they think is "error" is really just "disagreement."

Even so, I am going to stay. Not all of you will stay with me, and that's okay. Go if you have to; I understand. I get it. But I'm going to stay.

More tomorrow ... onward!

#GC2019 Day One Summary

I was keenly aware of you. I was not alone, for a single minute, all day. I was aware that a great cloud of witnesses surrounded me, more so than I ever have been before.

Day one of General Conference was a longer time spent intentionally praying than I have ever experienced before, and it was really, really good. As the bishops led prayer foci from around the world, we shared moments of singing, moments of silence, moments of smaller group prayers, and it was really, really good.

I felt you, I felt my grandfather, I felt my seven generations of Methodist preachers, my five generations of General Conference delegates, I felt my friends and family in the LGBTQ community, their families, all of you who are allies. I felt you all wondering if we would do the right thing. I felt the weight of 864 people making decisions that will impact 12 million Methodists around the world. I felt all the anxiety, anger, hope, excitement.

I cried probably five different times during the day, just caught up in everything.

The heaviness of the cloud of witnesses, more fully present than I have ever felt it before.

Messages of encouragement came throughout the day, via text and social media. None were more helpful to me than my wife Erin's. In one text she said, "You are not voting on the worthiness of people. You already know their worth. You are voting in such a way that will allow for others to see it, too."

It is nonsensical to define "sacred worth" as anything less than full inclusion in the church. I am voting in such a way that allows others to see the inherent contradiction of saying every person is of "sacred worth" except for those who are "incompatible with Christian teaching."

My day 1 summary? Yield. Submit. Give way to God. Lay aside reputation, agenda, preconceived notions. Let God work. God's will, not ours, be done.

Those were day one words. We'll see today if they were just pretty words. Or if they might actually truly guide us, govern our words, our actions, and our decisions, for day two and beyond.

We All Belong to God - Sermon manuscript, February 17, 2019

We All Belong to God                           February 17, 2019 - Year C: Sixth Sunday after Epiphany
Romans 14:7-12
Sermon idea: The source of Christian unity is not us (our beliefs, practices, thoughts, opinions); the source of Christian unity is Christ - we belong to Christ.
Series theme: A Holy Mess: Christian Unity in the 21st Century
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I usually outline my sermons and then preach by following that outline. But this morning I have done something a little different; I wrote the whole thing out, word for word. I did it this way because I want to be particularly careful with my word choices today, and also because I want to make sure I say the same thing at all three services this morning. (Most Sundays, my sermons are a “holy mess,” and you never know what you’re going to hear from one service to the next, as Pastor Adrienne can tell you!)

It feels like there is an extra significance to this sermon, because it is coming just a few days ahead of a specially called session of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church, which is the global meeting of 864 delegates tasked to set policy and doctrine for our entire denomination. Normally, the General Conference meets every four years; the last one was in 2016 and the next one will be in 2020.

One of the reasons the United Methodist Church is having a special called session of General Conference next week is simply this: we have been trying to have two very different conversations simultaneously, and that, predictably, has not been very productive.

For some (and I put myself in this group) the conversation is about ecclesial practices, specifically marriage and ordination. These two practices of the church are significant, meaningful, and important aspects of the church’s identity. For our Roman Catholic siblings, they are sacraments.

And so for this group of United Methodists, the questions on the table are, “Will we marry same-sex couples?” and “Will we ordain people regardless of sexual orientation?” Much of the conversation is defined as a dialogue about allowing for differences in the practices of ministry. It is equivalent to a conversation about whether to baptize infants by sprinkling or to baptize teenagers by full immersion. A significant, meaningful practice of the church, done differently in different contexts.

I am able to define the conversation this way, but others are not.

For others (and I have many friends and colleagues in this group) the conversation is about sin and salvation, specifically the church’s response to and inclusion of those they believe are unrepentant sinners. This group embraces the idea, “Love the sinner; hate the sin,” and would say that gay people are welcome to be a part of the church, on the condition that they not be married or ordained here.

For this group of United Methodists, the questions on the table are, “Will we condone sin?” and “Will we be disobedient to Scripture?” It is deeper than just a different way to do ministry, because it speaks to a reality of all human experience, namely our sexuality. For this group, the conversation is visceral, and fundamental to our Christian faith. It is equivalent to a conversation about the nature of God or the divinity of Jesus.

Granted, this is an over-simplification, an artificially binary viewpoint that does not adequately describe the nuance and subtlety of the situation. But I think this is a fairly accurate illustration of the holy mess that lies ahead of us. How is it possible to even converse about a way forward, much less discern one, when we are stuck having two such dramatically different yet simultaneous conversations?

And there are some who have already answered this question, deciding, “No, we cannot talk about this any more. It’s time to go.” Indeed there have already been members, pastors, even entire congregations who have left the United Methodist Church, in part because we do not agree on the parameters of the conversation itself. After next week, there will undoubtedly be more who leave, no matter what the outcome of the General Conference may be.

I want to say that I do not begrudge anyone’s decision to leave one congregation for another, or to leave one denomination altogether and connect with another, when that decision is about discipleship. When you join a church, you join a group of people with whom you want to follow Jesus. A group of people who will encourage you and hold you accountable to your Christian discipleship, and for whom you can provide similar encouragement and accountability.

Joining a church is all about choosing a certain group of people to walk among in your Christian journey.

And many factors go into that decision, among them location, size, style of worship, theology of the pastor, even whether or not the congregation hosts same-sex weddings. The point is to follow Jesus, not what particular church you are a part of.

Different congregations and different denominations are expressions of the diversity of the Church, one body with many members. The Church’s unity is not dependent upon our understandings, but rather depends on God. As Paul wrote,  ...to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. (Romans 14)

Christ is Lord of all of us. Resurrection means that each and every one of us belongs to God, and to God alone. If Christ died and lived again for all of us, if we actually believe that we all belong to God, then can we not commit to be united in the hard work of honest, respectful, and gracious dialogue about our differences of opinion?

Or will we insist that our unity comes not from Christ, but from a uniformity of belief? A uniformity which, when absent, thereby erodes our essential spiritual unity. I for one do not equate Christian unity with doctrinal uniformity. Granted, uniformity is tidier than unity, and we do like things to be “neat and tidy.” But unity can actually be quite messy, and it does not even imply lock-step uniformity.

 In fact when Jesus himself discussed unity, he did not describe uniformity of specific teachings. Rather, he prayed for unity in profoundly relational terms, expressing his desire in John 17: “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

Notice, Jesus asks us not to believe in a list of particular ideas, but rather to believe in him. It is our relationship with Jesus that unites us, not our beliefs about Jesus. And the reason Jesus unites us as one body is so that the world will know. Our unity is a witness to the world, a testimony to the power of God’s love.

I have heard some criticize “unity for unity’s sake.” They ask, “Are we to remain united at all costs? How much disagreement is enough, and how disagreement much is just too much? Are we just wanting unity for the sake of unity?” My answer: “Yes, in a way.” Unity in diversity is inherently a witness to the power of God’s love, and to the death and resurrection of Jesus. When we are united in spite of disagreement, we are announcing to the world that Christ is bigger than us, that God’s love is more powerful than our disagreements, and that the Holy Spirit is alive and well within and among us all.

This profound, relational unity is accomplished not by us but by the Holy Spirit, whose unifying power on Pentecost gave all who gathered the ability to understand, in spite of their obvious linguistic diversity. This spiritual unity is not something the Bible says should happen, it is something the Bible says does happen.

Unity is described in many places, including Ephesians 4:1-6. Paul writes, “I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.”

This passage asks us to “maintain” Spiritual unity, not create it. This passage says there “is” one body, not there should be. Spiritual unity is assumed in the Bible. Relational unity in Christ is a given in Scripture. Galatians 3:26-28 emphasizes the point this way, “...in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”

Unity is described, taken as a given for followers of Jesus. The Bible doesn’t say “You should be one.” The Bible says “You are one.”

We who are called “Methodist” should understand this more deeply than anyone. It is in our theological DNA, so to speak. The founder of our movement, John Wesley, seemed to get this better than most. Wesley understood Christian unity and was able to talk about it in powerful, articulate ways.

He said, “Every wise man, therefore, will allow others the same liberty of thinking which he desires they should allow him; and will no more insist on their embracing his opinions, than he would have them to insist on his embracing theirs. He bears with those who differ from him, and only asks him with whom he desires to unite in love that single question, ‘Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thy heart? … If it be, give me thy hand.’”

This is a quote from Wesley’s sermon titled “The Catholic Spirit.” Every United Methodist ought to read the full sermon at some point; this week would be a pretty opportune time to do so. Because, as I may have mentioned before, we have a pretty significant meeting coming up this week.

Friday evening, I’ll head to St. Louis. Saturday the delegates will convene for a day of prayer together. Sunday we will focus on prioritizing the various proposals. Monday is scheduled for legislative work, amending and perfecting the plan. And then Tuesday, final debate and vote. At least that’s the idea. We’ll see how things go once we get there. It may get a bit … messy.

I’d like to share my personal position with you, knowing that there are people listening to this right now whose position is different than mine. So please don’t get mad and leave - this is me being honest about me.

I do not believe the Bible directly blesses same-sex relationships, nor do I believe the Bible directly condemns same-sex relationships. I believe that, in order to bless or condemn them, one has to interpret what the Bible truly says.

So I interpret the Bible to condemn relationships that are idolatrous, abusive, objectifying, and degrading, no matter the gender of the individuals in the relationship.

On the flipside, I interpret the Bible to bless relationships that are loving, respectful, grace-filled, mutually affirming, and committed to a lifelong covenant, no matter the gender of the individuals in the relationship.

And because of how I interpret Scripture, I would like the United Methodist Church to change our policies that restrict marriage to only heterosexual couples and restrict ordination to only straight people.

But I know that others interpret Scripture differently. And so I would like for the United Methodist Church to also include an explicit statement that says pastors are not compelled to marry any couple, nor are bishops compelled to ordain any person, if their conscience does not permit them to do so. For the record, that makes me a fan of what is known as the “One Church Plan.”

And along with that change, I want us to stay together, as messy as that may be. I want us to recognize that unity is not uniformity. I want us to honor Christ’s life, death, and resurrection by affirming the truth of our spiritual unity, in spite of our diverse theological perspectives. The source of our unity is not us, not our beliefs, not our practices, not our thoughts and opinions. The source of Christian unity is Christ.

The United Methodist Church seems to be at a tipping point, and the old structures of the connection are rapidly eroding. It is a theological Gethsemane moment for us - And if we believe in resurrection, this is not a bad thing.

Rather than worry about who might leave the denomination after next week, shouldn't we be excited about who might join? Shouldn't we celebrate the new life emerging from the tomb? I, for one, commit to a resurrection redefinition of our beloved connection, and I hope the other delegates will too.

We are all, each and every one of us, a beloved child of God. We all belong to God. That is a stronger bond than any we could ever create ourselves.

The Impact of Non-Hateful Words

It is not true to say that all of the Christians who oppose same-sex marriage are hateful and homophobic.

It is not true to say that none of the Christians who oppose same-sex marriage are hateful and homophobic.

So let’s just cut that out, shall we? It doesn’t get us anywhere.

I wish that my “marriage equality’ colleagues would clearly and unequivocally affirm that it is indeed possible to interpret the Bible in a way that does not condone same-sex marriage, and that doing so does not necessarily make you hateful or homophobic.

I wish that my “traditional marriage” colleagues would clearly and unequivocally affirm that it is indeed possible to interpret the Bible in a way that condones same-sex marriage, and just as clearly condemn hatred and homophobia, instead of pretending it isn’t present.

If we could do that, then maybe we could get to a deeper level of dialogue. Because we need to be deeper than we are. We really need to be past the “yes it does” / “no it doesn’t” naiveté that predominates our sermons, our blog posts, our presentations and conversations these days.

We need to be talking about how hatred and homophobia are doing severe harm to LGTBQ+ people everywhere. We need to be talking about how to counteract this hatred and homophobia, which leads to discrimination, bullying, assault, suicide, and murder, rather than just turning an ecclesial blind eye.

Literally, lives are at stake. And here’s the deal … (buckle your seatbelts, y’all) …

The words, spoken and written, of non-hateful, non-homophobic “traditional marriage” clergy are fuel for the words and actions of hateful, homophobic people. And the words and actions of hateful, homophobic people are literally destroying lives.

Please consider the following questions:

What are the implications of saying (in a very non-hateful and non-homophobic way) that gay people are welcome in your church as long as they do not want to be married or ordained? What fuel does that provide a hateful, homophobic person? How would they interpret that?

What are the implications of saying (again in a non-hateful, non-homophobic way) that nobody who believes that the Bible blesses same-sex relationships will be allowed to hold a leadership position in your church? What other forms of discrimination will that implicitly condone in the mind of one who is in fact homophobic?

What are the implications of saying in that same non-hateful and non-homophobic tone that you simply cannot even be a part of a church in which same-sex marriages are permissible but not mandatory? How might that fan the flames of other, more sinister and blatant expressions of divisiveness and exclusion?

And flip that around …

What are the implications of telling someone who is gay that they are non-hatefully and non-homophobically welcome in your church, as long as they do not actually demonstrate outwardly in any way that they are gay? What does it say to the gay teenager in your youth group that they can be a part of the Body of Christ as long as they stay in the closet? How will they apply that limited and conditional love and acceptance to their understanding of who Jesus is? How will your condition that she or he remain closeted at church compel him or her to remain closeted elsewhere; how will it affect his or her mental health, self-image, and ability to function in daily life?

These are the questions that we need to be asking, and that requires us to go beyond where we are. That requires us to go beyond what the United Methodist governance system is designed to do, to be honest. These questions require personal relationship, deep trust, covenant accountability that goes beyond following the rules, and an unrelenting commitment to speaking the truth in love.

I am not accusing anyone of being hateful or of being homophobic. I am just asking us to confess that there are people who are. And furthermore, to consider how our words might be fuel for the fires that drive them.

Beyond "Right" or "Wrong" - Thoughts on Interpretation

My dear progressive friends, of course it is possible to interpret the Bible as condemning same-sex marriage. It isn’t even very hard to arrive at that interpretation.

But, my dear conservative friends, a claim that the Bible itself directly condemns same-sex marriage is not supportable. It just doesn’t.

For someone who takes the Bible very seriously as a moral code intended to govern human behavior, this is the interpretive lens through which the entire book is read. And for one with such an interpretive lens, obedience to God is a matter of applying the text directly to personal behaviors. And sometimes you make a few interpretive steps to get there. And all of that is fine; we all do that.

So, in order to go from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to a belief that same-sex marriage should not happen in the church, you have to go through several interpretive steps.

- You have to interpret the Biblical euphemism “lie with” (the typical interpretation is “have sex with”).

- Since the passages only mention men, you have to interpret the passages as applying to both men and women, unless your claim is that same-sex marriage is only condemned for men but for women it is okay.

- You have to interpret sex as either synonymous with marriage or the only or primary reason someone would get married.

- You have to interpret the “as with a woman” (NRSV) part of the phrase from a heteronormative perspective. That is, you have to interpret it with the assumption that all men would in fact lie with a woman. (The truth is that gay men would not, so the strictest literal reading of these lines does not apply to a homosexual man.)

In order to go from Romans 1:27 to a belief that same-sex marriage should not happen in the church, you have to go through several similar interpretive steps.

- You have to interpret the “Therefore” in verse 24 and the “For this reason” in verse 26 in such a way that does not directly connect verse 27 to what has come before. (The previous verses are a description of idolatry.)

- You have to interpret words like “degrading,” “unnatural,” and “shameless” (NRSV) as applying to loving, mutually respectful, life-long, covenant relationships (i.e. marriages).

- You have to interpret marriage as consisting of being “consumed with passion for one another” (NRSV), or otherwise interpret degrading and shameless sex as synonymous with marriage or a primary reason for marriage, or have a preconceived notion that homosexual sex is inherently shameless and degrading.

- You have to interpret the “exchanging” and “giving up natural intercourse” from a heteronormative perspective. (For a gay woman for example, sex with another woman is in fact “natural.”)

And finally, in order to go from either of the other two scriptures frequently cited in this conversation, you have to interpret the practice of pederasty as being equivalent to marriage between two consenting adults who love each other very much and want nothing more than to spend the rest of their lives together as a married couple. The word “homosexual” is often used to translate the Greek in these two passages, even though the word wasn’t invented until the late 1800s and did not appear in translations of Scripture until the mid 1900s.

And the truth is, you can absolutely take those interpretive steps to arrive at the conclusion that same-sex marriage should therefore not be allowed in the church. The ample evidence of this truth is simply that a lot of people do.

However, what is unsustainable is to say without qualification that “the Bible condemns same-sex marriage.” The best you can do is say, “My interpretation of the Bible leads me to personally condemn same-sex marriage.”

And honestly, I do not begrudge my more conservative friends their belief. I just wish they would be honest about the interpretive steps they took to get there. Widespread unwillingness to do so has done great harm to people.

(And by the way my more progressive friends, same-sex marriage is certainly not directly blessed in the Bible, either. One must take some interpretive steps to arrive there as well. My own interpretation of the passages cited above involves condemnations of idolatry, promiscuity, child abuse (pederasty), and sexual violence – all things that I am glad the Bible condemns. And my own interpretations of numerous other passages lead me to a belief that a mutually respectful, gracious, loving, covenant relationship between two consenting adults is a beautiful thing, and one that the church should indeed celebrate and honor with marriage vows.)

Furthermore, I wish we could all be honest about the fact that there are indeed hateful and homophobic people in the church. It is infuriating and exhausting when every time hate and homophobia are pointed out, then begins the inevitable protests of “But not me! I’m just doing what the Bible says.” Okay, not you, dude. But can you at least acknowledge that it’s there, and speak up when you see it?

And finally, the very last thing I want to do is push someone away from a relationship with God. I lament that when there are differing interpretations of scripture that lead people to very different places, some Christians choose to double down on their own perspective even when it is hurtful, which inevitably builds barriers between people and Jesus. I personally would choose to err on the side of love and grace, offering a connection instead of severing it altogether.

In the United Methodist Church, we are far, far beyond arguing over whose interpretation of Scripture is “right.” There are a variety of interpretations of Scripture in our denomination. The discussion has shifted to, “What are we going to do about that?”

That conversation requires honesty, humility, and integrity. I fear the supply of these qualities may be too short in this present season to make any difference.

"Strange and Stirring"

I could be wrong, but ...

I have noted some resonance between the Methodist church of the reconstruction era and the United Methodist Church of the marriage equality era. I wonder if the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States in June of 2015 might just be as significant a moment for the church as emancipation was in January of 1863. Certainly not in the particulars, but a pivotal moment theologically nonetheless.

A phrase has been recurring in my mind just lately - “The Times Were Strange and Stirring.” It’s the title of a book by Reginald Hildebrand about the history of the church in the time just after the Civil War. In it, he summarizes Methodist responses to recently liberated slaves. In the introduction, Hildebrand writes:

“The emancipation of black southerners was both conventional and radical. It was conventional in the sense that, in their quest for freedom, the freedpeople did not try to alter the commonly held understandings of what that term meant. They did not challenge the fundamental political, social, or economic ideals of the American republic. Southern blacks wanted to direct their own lives: they wanted to have secure families, to be educated, to own property, to be protected by the law, and to participate in the political process. In short, their aspirations were very traditional. On the other hand, emancipation was radical in the sense that it challenged the omnipresent, multifaceted ideology of white supremacy which posited that blacks should be subordinate to whites in all areas of life. Some emancipationists tried to finesse that ideology by allowing freedom to be mediated through white paternalism. Others insisted on confronting the ideology head-on through a kind of black nationalism. Still others believed that the ideology of white supremacy could be transcended, and they tried to construct a new social order in which color would play no significant part.”(Hildebrand, p. xiv-xv, underlines are mine)

In many ways, marriage equality is also both conventional and radical. It is quite conventional in that same-sex couples want to raise families, to have jobs, to live equally under the law, to have a say in the way their communities function. And in another way, marriage equality is similarly quite radical in that it challenges long-held beliefs of heteronormativity that assume the exclusive validity of heterosexuality and the duality of complementary gender roles. I hear a definite resonance with Hildebrand’s observations around emancipation.

Further, Hildebrand notes three Methodist ecclesiological responses to emancipation. In his terms they are “white paternalism,” “black nationalism,” and “a new social order.” I see more connections here with the way churches have responded to people who are gay in the “marriage equality” era.

There is a kind of “straight paternalism” in churches with an ecclesiology that says that gay people are welcome because all sinners are welcome. And if we all will confess and repent then we will be saved. A church with such a theology can claim to be acting in love for people who are gay, out of a desire to save them from God’s punishment. The most drastic manifestation of “straight paternalism” is conversion therapy.

Secondly, it isn’t nationalism, but there is a distinct ecclesiology in churches whose theology is focused on issues pertaining to homosexuality to the exclusion of any other concerns. There is a perfectly understandable righteous indignation born of years of oppression, discrimination, and violence. The confidence, aggression, and energy of this theology will not rest until there is complete liberation from even the smallest hint of homophobia.

And finally there is a “new social order” type of ecclesiology that seeks to completely transcend homophobic ideology and to be a church in which sexual orientation plays no significant part. Churches with this theological perspective may address questions of marriage and ordination of people who are gay very selectively, if at all. Full inclusion is assumed, but not advertised.

It must be said that there is an obvious and crucial distinction to be made. The Methodist movement had already splintered into multiple denominations by the time emancipation came, and examination of the ecclesiology of that time consists in comparing different denominations, among them the AME, AME Zion, CME, ME North, and ME South churches. In the post-marriage-equality era, we are mostly talking about differing ecclesiologies within one denomination, in my particular case within the United Methodist Church.

If I had more time, I would love to be able to research more fully, and write more extensively about the post-marriage-equality church. The thoughts I have jotted above are really just ideas rumbling around in my noodle, and still very much in the early stages of development. It seems to me that there is something there, but I could be wrong.

If you have managed to slog through this far, please help me tune these ideas with your comments. This post was really one of those where I was writing mostly to get the ideas out of my head and onto the page, so I could see them and reflect.

One thing that I know for sure, we are once again living in times that are “strange and stirring.”

Diversity Without Division

The United Methodist Church is not divided, it is diverse.

This distinction is crucial to understand in these weeks leading up to February's General Conference session. The practice of ministry looks very different from one region to another, from one town to another, even from one congregation to another in the same town, and even within one congregation!

And in this diversity of ministry, we are still the United Methodist Church. I am not sure when "diversity" became a bad thing, but among many it seems to be so. We are a beautifully, frustratingly diverse church; some people celebrate that and others dig in their heels against it.

Among the things we do very differently across the denomination are some practices that comprise the very heart of Christian discipleship: worship, Holy Communion, mission and service work, small group processes. Our buildings are diverse, our staffing structures are diverse, our administrative processes are diverse. We are a diverse denomination. (Or, as I have said before, we are a "holy mess.")

So, let me get to my point. In the United Methodist Church today, there are pastors who officiate at same-sex weddings, congregations that host same-sex weddings, and ordained clergy who are gay and out. And in the United Methodist Church there are pastors who will not officiate at same-sex weddings, congregations that refuse to host them, and conferences and bishops who would never ordain a person if they are gay and out.

That's the reality. That's what is happening now. And some look at that reality and see "division" whereas some see "diversity."

In addition, there are already a processes in place in our denomination to respond to all of that. We have processes by which we seek a "just resolution" to conflict. Paragraph 362 of our Book of Discipline says, "This review shall have as its primary purpose a just resolution of any violations of this sacred trust, in the hope that God’s work of justice, reconciliation and healing may be realized in the body of Christ."

The just resolution process allows for dialogue and relies on relationship. It means that one case may look very different from another, and be resolved in a very different way. And while that frustrates some, I would much rather have a flexible system that can be contextualized easily than a rigid system of automatic responses that we try to apply to every case everywhere, for all time.

Beyond that, there are already processes in place by which an individual member, a pastor, or a congregation can exit the denomination. There are connectional, structural, and financial implications in those processes, of course, and relationships that need healing and restoration as a result. Nevertheless we already have these processes in place. Those processes are utilized every year, as people and congregations decide to not be United Methodist any more.

We are "Methodists;" we have methods for doing everything we do!

My point is saying this is simply this. In practice, not a lot is going to change after this upcoming General Conference, no matter what happens there.

Pastors will continue to marry same-sex couples - the question is are we going to change our denominational policy to formally allow it.

People who are gay will continue to be ordained - the question is are we going to change our denominational policy to formally allow it.

For some, the answers to these questions will be a hard NO. For the "hard no" people on the right, it is a matter of Biblical obedience. But there are "hard no" people on the left as well, for whom just "allowing" it is not enough; it is a matter of Biblical justice and therefore our denominational policy needs to "mandate" it. This reflects the polarization in which we live these days.

If I may offer an unpopular opinion - the far right (and maybe the far left as well) will leave the United Methodist Church no matter what happens next February. And then in 2020 at the next General Conference we'll address the new reality and look toward the future.

And listen Linda, if we think the decision made at General Conference 2019 is going to "fix" the church once and for all, we are naive and short-sighted. There is no one easy way to "fix" our brokenness; salvation is a life-long endeavor.

But one thing we can do toward that end is to understand the distinction between divided and diverse, and to reclaim diversity as a healthy, beautiful characteristic of the church.

+++
CLICK HERE to see my sermon about the Trinity in which I explore the idea of diversity without division and unity without uniformity.