It is discouraging to be a United Methodist pastor right now. Not only are we suffering from the same trends affecting all of Mainline Protestantism related to a decline in participation, but we have the added anxiety of a the failed special general conference which promised to produce a way forward, but instead produced nothing but pain and frustration. So in a reality where the vast majority of our churches are declining in attendance, membership, and funding, there are more UM pastors doubting their call than ever before.
And who can blame us? We got into this because following Jesus introduced us to a way of living that is a gift we wanted to share with those who are enslaved to our anxious, selfish, hopeless culture. And when we look at our ministry and are unable to see God using us to find the lost, heal the sick, and feed the hungry... well, it's natural to ask if we are still called to serve in this way.
And some have argued that everything will get better when we just rip off the bandaid and split the church. And I think there is some truth to this sentiment. Part of the difficulty is a lack of identity. In a world where people are looking for reasons not to participate instead of reason to participate, the large tent approach has made it so everyone has a good reason not to be United Methodist. If you are progressive, the evangelicalism of UM doctrine is enough to push you away. If you are conservative, the Bishops refusing to defend the faith from public disobedience is enough to push you away. If you don't like conflict... well, you get the picture.
So I do think it will be beneficial when we tear the big tent at the seams, but its not going to be a magic bullet for the problems affecting our local churches. Nor is it a miracle drug for the depression that is gripping a large group of my colleagues.
Now, this would be the point where if I was smarter I would propose a solution. Or if I was really smart I would tell you that the solution is in my new book which will be released next month. No, I don't have a simple solution or even a complex one. And my sense is that it is going to get worse before it gets better.
So pray for your pastor. Chances are they feel like they are failing you and failing God.
If you are going to criticize them, make sure it is missional criticism. You have no idea the breath of fresh air it would be for your pastor to hear you go to them and say, "Pastor, I got a bone to pick with you. We need to make new disciples." Understand that the vast majority of what gets to us is petty. So to hear someone voice a problem that is related to the mission instead of one's preference is better than ten compliments.
Because we see the hurt and anger and anxiety and hopelessness of so many people around us, and in our bones we know that following Jesus radically transforms a person's life. And our hearts are breaking and for many of us, it feels like we are alone. Because it is rare to hear someone ask what Jesus or the church can do for their neighbor who just lost a child to a heroine overdose. It is rare to hear someone ask what Jesus or the church can do for the son who is angry and being shaped by supremacist voices. It is rare to hear someone ask what Jesus or the church can do for the sister who lives with the shame of abuse.
But this is why we are here. We are here to be the instrument by which God finds the lost, heals the sick, feeds the hungry, frees the captive, and reconciles the rebellious.
The world has changed. The way your pastor was trained is not very effective anymore. But, we are doing our best to be faithful in this new reality, and most of us feel like we are failing. Methodism as we have known it is dying.
And if it is to be saved, it will be by lay people whose hearts are broken for the brokenness of their community. Men and women who believe, in their bones, that the gift of God is not to be hoarded by those who reside within the church, but is rightly received when it is being given away. Children and Seniors who know the power of new life offered to those who trust in Jesus and are filled by the Holy Spirit.
We are missionaries of life in a land of death. May we not grow weary in our mission.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Monday, February 18, 2019
The Way Forward: Humility as an Intellectual Virtue
A week from now 864 delegates, hundreds of alternates, thousands of support staff, and tens of thousands of demonstrators will invade St. Louis for the Special General Conference. And there is just one item on the agenda, negotiating a deal that will make those on the left happy enough that they don't riot and those on the right happy enough that they don't secede from the denomination. And honestly, I don't think this will happen. I think we will probably see a riot or two and by March 1st the gears will be in motion for a formal church split.
And honestly, this doesn't scare me or bother me. The UMC has put the mission and the vision in the trunk for decades and our bloated bureaucracy exists for the preservation of the institution and nothing more. So, a split that results in two or more new connections picking up the pieces and being forced to articulate a vision for being the church is the best thing that could happen to the Methodist movement.
My hope for the Methodist expressions of the future is that we will have the humility to recognize that we live in a slice of time, with a particular zeigeist, privileging evidence in a particular way, and that we are finite, fallible, and cannot be trusted to rewrite the doctrinal confessions of the church.
It is tempting to take six semesters of theological education and the tools one gains during that time and believe that these tools are all we need to properly interpret the Bible and properly execute the Christian life. But we could not be more mistaken. The Great Tradition is a gift and one that we leave unwrapped at our own peril. It may be that as we study a particular section of the Bible, we begin to believe that the church universal has gotten it wrong; and our proper response is to go back and read Athanasius and Augustine and Aquinas and Luther and Wesley and Barth and Coakley to understand what is deficient from my study that is putting my understanding at odds with the giants of the tradition.
Richard Feldman and his posse at University of Rochester have been exploring belief justification, and they measure a person's capacity to know based on three criteria. The first is the quality of their evidence: Does a person have all the evidence that they could possibly have? The second is the sincerity of the inquirer: Does a person have competing commitments that will get in the way of evaluating the evidence fairly? And finally, the last measurement is intelligence: Does a person have the brain power to evaluate the evidence.
With this in mind, is possible that a single interpreter with their divinity degree might have better evidence, but it is unlikely. And it is possible that one is somehow more sincere than those who came before, but again, this is unlikely. And it is possible that this person is more intelligent, but I doubt it.
Intellectual virtue demands that when my belief is in conflict with the belief of someone who is informed, intelligent, and sincere that my level of confidence in said belief is diminished. Likewise, if informed, intelligent, and sincere people from around the globe and across time hold a belief that is different than mine, I should be far more concerned with understanding their arguments, recognizing the likelihood that I am wrong than in psychoanalyzing the saints that have come before in order to smear their sincerity.
The arrogance one must possess to say, "Huh, would you look at that. My 'indepedently concluded' belief differs from Augustine, Aquinas, Sarah Coakley, and my grandmother; I must be a genius!" is unfathomable.
The reality is that we all occupy an intellectually vulnerable place and into this intellectually vulnerable place comes the creeds and confessions that make up the great tradition. It is a gift to us, and one that we would be wise to embrace.
Now, it is important to point out that the Great Tradition doesn't deal with everything. When the church has talked about doctrine, it has dealt primarily with questions related to the "nature of" God and creation. Which means that it won't give us particular instruction for how to deal with every technological development and how these developments interact with humanity. However, it will give us a starting point and oftentimes guardrails.
So my hope is that whatever happens in the United Methodist Church, we all find ourselves more appreciative and responsive to the wisdom of the Saints who gather alongside us and the Saints who have come before. My hope is that we rediscover the humility to recognize that when we hold beliefs that are at odds with the doctrine of the church that it is us who are probably wrong.
And honestly, this doesn't scare me or bother me. The UMC has put the mission and the vision in the trunk for decades and our bloated bureaucracy exists for the preservation of the institution and nothing more. So, a split that results in two or more new connections picking up the pieces and being forced to articulate a vision for being the church is the best thing that could happen to the Methodist movement.
My hope for the Methodist expressions of the future is that we will have the humility to recognize that we live in a slice of time, with a particular zeigeist, privileging evidence in a particular way, and that we are finite, fallible, and cannot be trusted to rewrite the doctrinal confessions of the church.
It is tempting to take six semesters of theological education and the tools one gains during that time and believe that these tools are all we need to properly interpret the Bible and properly execute the Christian life. But we could not be more mistaken. The Great Tradition is a gift and one that we leave unwrapped at our own peril. It may be that as we study a particular section of the Bible, we begin to believe that the church universal has gotten it wrong; and our proper response is to go back and read Athanasius and Augustine and Aquinas and Luther and Wesley and Barth and Coakley to understand what is deficient from my study that is putting my understanding at odds with the giants of the tradition.
Richard Feldman and his posse at University of Rochester have been exploring belief justification, and they measure a person's capacity to know based on three criteria. The first is the quality of their evidence: Does a person have all the evidence that they could possibly have? The second is the sincerity of the inquirer: Does a person have competing commitments that will get in the way of evaluating the evidence fairly? And finally, the last measurement is intelligence: Does a person have the brain power to evaluate the evidence.
With this in mind, is possible that a single interpreter with their divinity degree might have better evidence, but it is unlikely. And it is possible that one is somehow more sincere than those who came before, but again, this is unlikely. And it is possible that this person is more intelligent, but I doubt it.
Intellectual virtue demands that when my belief is in conflict with the belief of someone who is informed, intelligent, and sincere that my level of confidence in said belief is diminished. Likewise, if informed, intelligent, and sincere people from around the globe and across time hold a belief that is different than mine, I should be far more concerned with understanding their arguments, recognizing the likelihood that I am wrong than in psychoanalyzing the saints that have come before in order to smear their sincerity.
The arrogance one must possess to say, "Huh, would you look at that. My 'indepedently concluded' belief differs from Augustine, Aquinas, Sarah Coakley, and my grandmother; I must be a genius!" is unfathomable.
The reality is that we all occupy an intellectually vulnerable place and into this intellectually vulnerable place comes the creeds and confessions that make up the great tradition. It is a gift to us, and one that we would be wise to embrace.
Now, it is important to point out that the Great Tradition doesn't deal with everything. When the church has talked about doctrine, it has dealt primarily with questions related to the "nature of" God and creation. Which means that it won't give us particular instruction for how to deal with every technological development and how these developments interact with humanity. However, it will give us a starting point and oftentimes guardrails.
So my hope is that whatever happens in the United Methodist Church, we all find ourselves more appreciative and responsive to the wisdom of the Saints who gather alongside us and the Saints who have come before. My hope is that we rediscover the humility to recognize that when we hold beliefs that are at odds with the doctrine of the church that it is us who are probably wrong.
Friday, November 30, 2018
I am Disqualified.
Today, if you were on the West Ohio emailing list, you received a 'time sensitive' email about nominations for General Conference 2020. And as I read the email, I was discouraged by the language used to describe the ideal candidate, especially this paragraph:
We seek candidates who understand the worth of all persons and are willing to listen to their brothers and sisters who cry out for justice. Furthermore, delegates must think globally and be committed to the mission of The United Methodist Church; We are a global Church, and our decisions have a global impact.
Really? Think globally? When a major issue in United Methodism is that our leadership is disconnected from the local church, we think we can fix it by 'thinking globally'?
If you'll indulge a quick summary of my call: God called me to pastoral ministry nearly 20 years ago and I wanted no part of it, because I came from a church that crushed the souls of its pastors and nobody in their right mind would choose that life. But 9 years ago I was a semester away from graduating and the place where I found the greatest joy was investing in the small, urban church located north of campus--breaking bread with the people that the other church's in town didn't want. So I applied to seminary because I didn't know exactly what I wanted to do and it seemed like a good way to defer my loans for another 3 years.
The summer before I started seminary, I was mowing at the golf course, and my heart was warmed to the idea of calling up a former pastor who was leading a thriving church and asking if I could learn under him. I spent six months learning systems and management from him, when I saw an email from the DS of the Maumee Watershed District looking for student pastor to serve a two-point charge in the Lakota School District. And again, my heart was warmed so I responded and met with her, and before I knew it I was appointed... clueless, but appointed.
I loved those churches and their love for me took a hopeless, clueless 22 year old seminary student and made me a pastor. Two years later I was on facebook and an aquaintance of mine was announcing that they were taking a new appointment, and as I read, my heart was warmed to the idea of following him. Six hours later, I got a call from my DS about considering that appointment (which I thought was pretty coincidental). So I drove down to Dayton with my wife for an explore-go with the the senior pastor and SPRC chairperson. And before I knew it, there I was appointed... green, but appointed.
I loved that church. It had several campuses, and the love of that church taught me how to lead. After three years as the associate I met with my DS and she was much quieter than normal. The next day I got a call from the DS in Capital Area South about taking a new appointment. I had been told this wouldn't be a move year for my family (with our 4 month old baby), so the call was shocking, but as Cindy and I prayed about it, it became clear that God was calling us to Trinity. And three months later, here we were appointed... anxious, but appointed.
I love this church, and the love of this church is teaching me the supreme value of prioritizing that which is most important, both personally and in leading the church.
Over these years there have been a couple other opportunities that I have turned down, because I didn't feel called to them. And the realization I have as I consider the course of my vocational career is that I have been called to five local churches, but never called to The United Methodist Church™
I couldn't in good conscience advocate for 'the global church,' I don't know enough about the global church to advocate for it effectively. Invariably, if I tried to advocate for the global church, my experience would paint the global church to look a lot like what I know.
But, I can advocate for my local church and the other local churches I have served. And if everyone else came advocating for their local church and the churches they have served previously, we might have a dialectical process that acknowledged the uniqueness (and the sameness) of our contexts.
So, as I read the profile of the ideal candidate, it becomes increasingly clear that I am not that guy. I am not committed to the mission of the United Methodist Church. I am committed to the mission of Trinity (especially if the mission of the UMC is little more than self-preservation). I can't think globally, I can only think locally and hope that those from other parts of the globe will sincerely advocate for faithful, contextual positions. And if what is meant here is a paternalism that says, "you in Ohio clearly know what is best for those living in the global south, so give them what they really need" then I don't even know where to start...
So in summation, when I vote for the next delegation, I will be voting for people committed to advocating for their local churches, even if they aren't the 'ideal' candidate and I encourage you to do so as well.
We seek candidates who understand the worth of all persons and are willing to listen to their brothers and sisters who cry out for justice. Furthermore, delegates must think globally and be committed to the mission of The United Methodist Church; We are a global Church, and our decisions have a global impact.
Really? Think globally? When a major issue in United Methodism is that our leadership is disconnected from the local church, we think we can fix it by 'thinking globally'?
If you'll indulge a quick summary of my call: God called me to pastoral ministry nearly 20 years ago and I wanted no part of it, because I came from a church that crushed the souls of its pastors and nobody in their right mind would choose that life. But 9 years ago I was a semester away from graduating and the place where I found the greatest joy was investing in the small, urban church located north of campus--breaking bread with the people that the other church's in town didn't want. So I applied to seminary because I didn't know exactly what I wanted to do and it seemed like a good way to defer my loans for another 3 years.
The summer before I started seminary, I was mowing at the golf course, and my heart was warmed to the idea of calling up a former pastor who was leading a thriving church and asking if I could learn under him. I spent six months learning systems and management from him, when I saw an email from the DS of the Maumee Watershed District looking for student pastor to serve a two-point charge in the Lakota School District. And again, my heart was warmed so I responded and met with her, and before I knew it I was appointed... clueless, but appointed.
I loved those churches and their love for me took a hopeless, clueless 22 year old seminary student and made me a pastor. Two years later I was on facebook and an aquaintance of mine was announcing that they were taking a new appointment, and as I read, my heart was warmed to the idea of following him. Six hours later, I got a call from my DS about considering that appointment (which I thought was pretty coincidental). So I drove down to Dayton with my wife for an explore-go with the the senior pastor and SPRC chairperson. And before I knew it, there I was appointed... green, but appointed.
I loved that church. It had several campuses, and the love of that church taught me how to lead. After three years as the associate I met with my DS and she was much quieter than normal. The next day I got a call from the DS in Capital Area South about taking a new appointment. I had been told this wouldn't be a move year for my family (with our 4 month old baby), so the call was shocking, but as Cindy and I prayed about it, it became clear that God was calling us to Trinity. And three months later, here we were appointed... anxious, but appointed.
I love this church, and the love of this church is teaching me the supreme value of prioritizing that which is most important, both personally and in leading the church.
Over these years there have been a couple other opportunities that I have turned down, because I didn't feel called to them. And the realization I have as I consider the course of my vocational career is that I have been called to five local churches, but never called to The United Methodist Church™
I couldn't in good conscience advocate for 'the global church,' I don't know enough about the global church to advocate for it effectively. Invariably, if I tried to advocate for the global church, my experience would paint the global church to look a lot like what I know.
But, I can advocate for my local church and the other local churches I have served. And if everyone else came advocating for their local church and the churches they have served previously, we might have a dialectical process that acknowledged the uniqueness (and the sameness) of our contexts.
So, as I read the profile of the ideal candidate, it becomes increasingly clear that I am not that guy. I am not committed to the mission of the United Methodist Church. I am committed to the mission of Trinity (especially if the mission of the UMC is little more than self-preservation). I can't think globally, I can only think locally and hope that those from other parts of the globe will sincerely advocate for faithful, contextual positions. And if what is meant here is a paternalism that says, "you in Ohio clearly know what is best for those living in the global south, so give them what they really need" then I don't even know where to start...
So in summation, when I vote for the next delegation, I will be voting for people committed to advocating for their local churches, even if they aren't the 'ideal' candidate and I encourage you to do so as well.
Thursday, April 12, 2018
To marginalize or Not to Marginalize: Why the One Church Plan is (still) the worst possible option for GC 2019
Can you imagine what would happen if an annual conference decided that it would refuse to ordain candidates of color? (Or a bishop refused and had to call in a colleague bishop)
What if a Bishop refused to find appointments for female clergy?
What if a Pastor decided they were unwilling to officiate inter-racial marriages?
All of United Methodism would lose their ever loving minds. And rightly so.
Here is the deal, if the 2019 GC embraces the "One Church Plan" with regards to questions of human sexuality, what it is really doing is making the official position of the church one in which homosexual practice is affirmed while at the same time, sanctioning church-blessed discrimination.
This is wholly unacceptable. It is every bit as unacceptable as if we were to say that Pastors, churches, conferences, and jurisdictions can decide whether or not they will do interracial marriages or refuse to ordain female clergy.
The Judicial Council has ruled that the language in the plan is by and large constitutional; yet, the logic of the plan is so terribly flawed that to pass it requires setting aside one's intellectual integrity.
And I get why it is appealing. In many ways it is codifying our current realities and would (theoretically) preserve the institution. But the current reality is that we are failing in our mission in the United States and both sides blame the decline on the disobedience of the other side. Why would we choose to embrace this reality as what we want?
I am just a thirty year old dude from Central Ohio, and my opinion, my experience, my best guess should not be able to override the wisdom of the global church.
But if the wisdom of the global church leads to a change in official theology and language while not only allowing, but sanctioning discrimination, then woe to us.
What if a Bishop refused to find appointments for female clergy?
What if a Pastor decided they were unwilling to officiate inter-racial marriages?
All of United Methodism would lose their ever loving minds. And rightly so.
Here is the deal, if the 2019 GC embraces the "One Church Plan" with regards to questions of human sexuality, what it is really doing is making the official position of the church one in which homosexual practice is affirmed while at the same time, sanctioning church-blessed discrimination.
This is wholly unacceptable. It is every bit as unacceptable as if we were to say that Pastors, churches, conferences, and jurisdictions can decide whether or not they will do interracial marriages or refuse to ordain female clergy.
The Judicial Council has ruled that the language in the plan is by and large constitutional; yet, the logic of the plan is so terribly flawed that to pass it requires setting aside one's intellectual integrity.
And I get why it is appealing. In many ways it is codifying our current realities and would (theoretically) preserve the institution. But the current reality is that we are failing in our mission in the United States and both sides blame the decline on the disobedience of the other side. Why would we choose to embrace this reality as what we want?
I am just a thirty year old dude from Central Ohio, and my opinion, my experience, my best guess should not be able to override the wisdom of the global church.
But if the wisdom of the global church leads to a change in official theology and language while not only allowing, but sanctioning discrimination, then woe to us.
Squatting on a swedish ball: a better idea than the One Church Plan
This blog was published earlier, but edited in light of the recent decisons by the Judicial Council.
This blog was published earlier, but edited in light of the recent decisons by the Judicial Council.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
The Craziest Thing
This evening at dinner I was watching the Yankees and the Red Sox and the craziest thing happened. In the bottom of the second inning, the Red Sox centerfielder was on first base and attempted to steal second. He was didn't get that good a jump and the catcher made a good throw and they got him by a mile. But he wouldn't go back to the dugout. So manager Alex Cora used his challenge, the call was upheld as the runner being out at second, but he still refused to go back to the dugout.
At this point, Yankees manager Aaron Boone went to the home plate umpire to have him get the retired baserunner off of the field so that the teams could continue playing. So the umpire walked out to second base and had a conversation with the baserunner. He returned to home plate and explained to Boone that the runner felt like the tag was unnecessarily forceful and he was unwilling to return to the dugout, so the umpire had decided that they would let the runner stay out on the base paths.
Boone sauntered back to the dugout shaking his head, in disbelief of what he was seeing, but the game went on. And that runner who should have been out ended up scoring two batters later.
Again in the third, the Red Sox had a batter who grounded into a double play. This time, neither runner complied with the rules of the game and returned to the dugout after being forced out. Both of these runners scored as well.
By the end of the fifth inning, the Red Sox had pulled this charade 5 times and the game was tied 7-7.
In the top of the sixth, the Yankees scored three runs to take the lead 10-7. In the bottom of the sixth, the first Red Sox hitter struck out on three straight pitches, but he refused to go back to the dugout, instead he demanded to be allowed to hit until he put the ball in play. And he did, 9 strikes later, the hitter doubled to right field. The next hitter was struck out on three pitches as well, but this hitter too was unwilling to leave the field of play.
So the Yankees pitcher, utterly frustrated, plunked the hitter in the back with a 95 mile per hour fastball. The batter took his base and the umpire warned both teams against throwing at opposing batters. The third hitter of the inning worked the count to 2 balls and 2 strikes. And on the next pitch hit a towering fly ball that drifted just a few yards from being a home run, resulting in a long, loud foul ball. But the hitter rounded the bases as if the ball had been fair, and the scoreboard read 10-10.
At this point, the Yankees left the field, unwilling to waste their time with a team that was not going to follow the rules and unwilling to be subject to umpires that refused to enforce the rules.
After the game, the 'AL East Insight' blog wrote a scathing rebuke of the Yankees for being quitters. And 'Hacking Baseball' accused the Yankees of conspiracy against the integrity of the game.
But can you blame the Yankees? The umpires showed no intention of upholding the rules of the game; and while it is terrible sportsmanship to walk off the field before the game is over, what is gained by sticking it out to the end?
At this point, Yankees manager Aaron Boone went to the home plate umpire to have him get the retired baserunner off of the field so that the teams could continue playing. So the umpire walked out to second base and had a conversation with the baserunner. He returned to home plate and explained to Boone that the runner felt like the tag was unnecessarily forceful and he was unwilling to return to the dugout, so the umpire had decided that they would let the runner stay out on the base paths.
Boone sauntered back to the dugout shaking his head, in disbelief of what he was seeing, but the game went on. And that runner who should have been out ended up scoring two batters later.
Again in the third, the Red Sox had a batter who grounded into a double play. This time, neither runner complied with the rules of the game and returned to the dugout after being forced out. Both of these runners scored as well.
By the end of the fifth inning, the Red Sox had pulled this charade 5 times and the game was tied 7-7.
In the top of the sixth, the Yankees scored three runs to take the lead 10-7. In the bottom of the sixth, the first Red Sox hitter struck out on three straight pitches, but he refused to go back to the dugout, instead he demanded to be allowed to hit until he put the ball in play. And he did, 9 strikes later, the hitter doubled to right field. The next hitter was struck out on three pitches as well, but this hitter too was unwilling to leave the field of play.
So the Yankees pitcher, utterly frustrated, plunked the hitter in the back with a 95 mile per hour fastball. The batter took his base and the umpire warned both teams against throwing at opposing batters. The third hitter of the inning worked the count to 2 balls and 2 strikes. And on the next pitch hit a towering fly ball that drifted just a few yards from being a home run, resulting in a long, loud foul ball. But the hitter rounded the bases as if the ball had been fair, and the scoreboard read 10-10.
At this point, the Yankees left the field, unwilling to waste their time with a team that was not going to follow the rules and unwilling to be subject to umpires that refused to enforce the rules.
After the game, the 'AL East Insight' blog wrote a scathing rebuke of the Yankees for being quitters. And 'Hacking Baseball' accused the Yankees of conspiracy against the integrity of the game.
But can you blame the Yankees? The umpires showed no intention of upholding the rules of the game; and while it is terrible sportsmanship to walk off the field before the game is over, what is gained by sticking it out to the end?
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
UMC Disagreement: It's Worse than You Think it is
If you are reading this, you are surely aware of some of the challenges facing the United Methodist Church. In the popular spheres of media, our disagreements have been framed as fundamentally a disagreement around whether or not our connectional church should choose to change its polity so that those who engage in non-traditional sexual intimacy are welcome to 1. be married in our local churches and 2. be candidates for ordination by our annual conferences.
But what if I told you that this particular disagreement is the tip of the iceberg... That even if, by some act of divine grace, tomorrow morning every United Methodist had the same view on this issue, we would still be a church in schism.
I think the deepest divide in our church is not between those who want to hold to a traditionalist view of marriage and those who wish to change it; I believe the true divide is between those who privilege tradition as the primary tool to interpret the Bible and those who privilege experience.
Just yesterday, on the United Theological Alumni page, a debate was raging between an alumnus who is convinced that the Holy Spirit has spoken and that the polity of the UMC is in defiance of the will of God and a different alumnus who found it suspect that the Holy Spirit would wait 2000 years to reveal this truth to the church, allowing the church to be in error for two millenia. And as I read through the thread it became painfully clear: the difference in the interpretive lens between these two is so dramatically different that they can't even comprehend how their debate partner could come to the conclusion they come to.
I would argue that Outler/Barth/Wesley do a good job of describing the ideal way a person might interpret the Bible in saying that everything read in the Bible should be filtered through the lens of experience and of reason and of tradition... what they fail to recognize is that every single person naturally favors one of the three. And we know these people (and here are somewhat hyperbolic sketches of them):
The traditionalist: Mark is the typical traditionalist's favorite Gospel because it was first. And being first, it was most likely the most accurate commentary on the life of Christ. Undisputed Pauline epistles are better than the undisputed because they were written earlier. Augustine is better than Aquinas because he wrote earlier. You get the picture... When in doubt, the traditionalist will side with the tradition. It's not that the traditionalist has a different set of experiences than the experientialist, as has universally been assumed by the progressives in this debate; rather, it is the decision to error on the side of the wisdom that has been passed down over and against the wisdom of one's personal experience.
The experientialist: The experientialist typically prefers John to the other Gospels because of it's vivid imagery and relational tone. The experientialist prefers to read and gives preference to the narratives of others over other types of literature. The timeline doesn't matter nearly as much for the experientialist, however, for the experientialist, the narrative of a marginalized person is privileged and accept these narratives without critique. In fact, I would argue that the cardinal sin for the experientialist is to critique the truth of someone else (especially their truth). It is important to recognize that the experientialist, for the most part, comes from the same tradition as the traditionalist, however, when in doubt, the experientialist will error on the side of their experience and the experience of others, especially the experience of the marginalized.
The reasonist: The reasonist is hardist to find, because they are least likely to enter into social media debates. The reasonist will often prefer Luke because it came latest as a synoptic Gospel and has the most information. The reasonist wants to live on the cutting edge, and will tend to privilege recently published material over things from the past. The reasonist typically will seek the wisdom of other areas of study in order to make sense of difficult questions. Notice that both the traditionalist and the experientialist will use outside scholarship when it supports their position, but it is only the reasonist who uses the outside sources as a key feature of their interpretive process. The reasonist shares the same experiences as the experientialist and comes from the same tradition as the traditionalist, but is skeptical of both tradition and experience as sufficient lenses by which to interpret and to determine truth.
Can you see how these differences in interpretative privilege have caused our current impasse with regards to the question of human sexuality? Can you also see how these differences are not limited to creating the impasse surrounding human sexuality?
It is important to note that this isn't the only factor at work and everyone use all three to some degree, and I am sure that someone who is smarter than me will likely be able to pinpoint something with an even greater influence; however, as I have conversations with the self-identified progressives and the self-identified traditionalists, I am encouraged that almost everyone wants to be faithful to God. Almost everyone wants to grow in holiness. Almost everyone wants a church where everyone is welcomed and everyone is given the opportunity to grow in Christ-likeness.
But, in the information age, the gap between those who error on the side of tradition and those who error on the side of experience is not a gap but a chasm that has been supercharged by the postmodern turn. And even if the miracle occured and this issue was no longer a source of disagreement, the next one would be just as ugly, and for that reason, I don't think it would be a terrible idea for the church to seperate. Allow, those who are committed to a democracy of the dead have the opportunity to live out their mission without the pesky experience terrorists getting in the way. Likewise, those who privilege experience shouldn't have to deal with the prison of tradition as they do their best to faithfully follow Jesus. And honestly, the reasonists don't need their own denomination. Because the reasonist operates best as the faithful opposition and the reasonists I know would likely split based on who they respect and who they are already most deeply connected to.
So please, Commission on the Way Forward, draw up a plan for getting us out of our own way, but don't fall into the trap of thinking this is primarily a disagreement on human sexuality. Define the theological process for the new denominations and allow them in their first independent general conferences to elect their own bishops.
Post Script: After the writing of the blog, Rob Renfroe over at Good News Magazine posted an exerpt (likely the introduction) of a new book calling for an amicable separation in United Methodism. I often find myself critical of Renfroe, but I found very little to criticize with this most recent post. His lens is different than mine, but his reasoning is sound and I appreciate that someone with the clout that he possesses had the guts to say it, knowing that he will be labeled a schismatic.
But what if I told you that this particular disagreement is the tip of the iceberg... That even if, by some act of divine grace, tomorrow morning every United Methodist had the same view on this issue, we would still be a church in schism.
I think the deepest divide in our church is not between those who want to hold to a traditionalist view of marriage and those who wish to change it; I believe the true divide is between those who privilege tradition as the primary tool to interpret the Bible and those who privilege experience.
Just yesterday, on the United Theological Alumni page, a debate was raging between an alumnus who is convinced that the Holy Spirit has spoken and that the polity of the UMC is in defiance of the will of God and a different alumnus who found it suspect that the Holy Spirit would wait 2000 years to reveal this truth to the church, allowing the church to be in error for two millenia. And as I read through the thread it became painfully clear: the difference in the interpretive lens between these two is so dramatically different that they can't even comprehend how their debate partner could come to the conclusion they come to.
I would argue that Outler/Barth/Wesley do a good job of describing the ideal way a person might interpret the Bible in saying that everything read in the Bible should be filtered through the lens of experience and of reason and of tradition... what they fail to recognize is that every single person naturally favors one of the three. And we know these people (and here are somewhat hyperbolic sketches of them):
The traditionalist: Mark is the typical traditionalist's favorite Gospel because it was first. And being first, it was most likely the most accurate commentary on the life of Christ. Undisputed Pauline epistles are better than the undisputed because they were written earlier. Augustine is better than Aquinas because he wrote earlier. You get the picture... When in doubt, the traditionalist will side with the tradition. It's not that the traditionalist has a different set of experiences than the experientialist, as has universally been assumed by the progressives in this debate; rather, it is the decision to error on the side of the wisdom that has been passed down over and against the wisdom of one's personal experience.
The experientialist: The experientialist typically prefers John to the other Gospels because of it's vivid imagery and relational tone. The experientialist prefers to read and gives preference to the narratives of others over other types of literature. The timeline doesn't matter nearly as much for the experientialist, however, for the experientialist, the narrative of a marginalized person is privileged and accept these narratives without critique. In fact, I would argue that the cardinal sin for the experientialist is to critique the truth of someone else (especially their truth). It is important to recognize that the experientialist, for the most part, comes from the same tradition as the traditionalist, however, when in doubt, the experientialist will error on the side of their experience and the experience of others, especially the experience of the marginalized.
The reasonist: The reasonist is hardist to find, because they are least likely to enter into social media debates. The reasonist will often prefer Luke because it came latest as a synoptic Gospel and has the most information. The reasonist wants to live on the cutting edge, and will tend to privilege recently published material over things from the past. The reasonist typically will seek the wisdom of other areas of study in order to make sense of difficult questions. Notice that both the traditionalist and the experientialist will use outside scholarship when it supports their position, but it is only the reasonist who uses the outside sources as a key feature of their interpretive process. The reasonist shares the same experiences as the experientialist and comes from the same tradition as the traditionalist, but is skeptical of both tradition and experience as sufficient lenses by which to interpret and to determine truth.
Can you see how these differences in interpretative privilege have caused our current impasse with regards to the question of human sexuality? Can you also see how these differences are not limited to creating the impasse surrounding human sexuality?
It is important to note that this isn't the only factor at work and everyone use all three to some degree, and I am sure that someone who is smarter than me will likely be able to pinpoint something with an even greater influence; however, as I have conversations with the self-identified progressives and the self-identified traditionalists, I am encouraged that almost everyone wants to be faithful to God. Almost everyone wants to grow in holiness. Almost everyone wants a church where everyone is welcomed and everyone is given the opportunity to grow in Christ-likeness.
But, in the information age, the gap between those who error on the side of tradition and those who error on the side of experience is not a gap but a chasm that has been supercharged by the postmodern turn. And even if the miracle occured and this issue was no longer a source of disagreement, the next one would be just as ugly, and for that reason, I don't think it would be a terrible idea for the church to seperate. Allow, those who are committed to a democracy of the dead have the opportunity to live out their mission without the pesky experience terrorists getting in the way. Likewise, those who privilege experience shouldn't have to deal with the prison of tradition as they do their best to faithfully follow Jesus. And honestly, the reasonists don't need their own denomination. Because the reasonist operates best as the faithful opposition and the reasonists I know would likely split based on who they respect and who they are already most deeply connected to.
So please, Commission on the Way Forward, draw up a plan for getting us out of our own way, but don't fall into the trap of thinking this is primarily a disagreement on human sexuality. Define the theological process for the new denominations and allow them in their first independent general conferences to elect their own bishops.
Post Script: After the writing of the blog, Rob Renfroe over at Good News Magazine posted an exerpt (likely the introduction) of a new book calling for an amicable separation in United Methodism. I often find myself critical of Renfroe, but I found very little to criticize with this most recent post. His lens is different than mine, but his reasoning is sound and I appreciate that someone with the clout that he possesses had the guts to say it, knowing that he will be labeled a schismatic.
Monday, January 29, 2018
Love as Lip Service and the Divide in the UMC
Last night I was scrolling through my social media feed and one of my "friends" (who I have never met, but with whom I am a co-laborer) posted this passage from Romans:
And it got me thinking, in the UMC, both sides like to affirm their righteousness with regards to the inner-turmoil by publicly saying things like, "I love all my colleagues" and "we are better together;" however, these phrases are little more than lip service.
The truth is that in progressive safe spaces, there is no love lost for traditionalists who are keeping the denomination in the dark ages.
And behind traditionalist closed doors, there is little more than vitriol for progressives who have forsaken their first love for an Oprah-fied version of Christianity.
I once dated a girl who didn't really like me all that much. She might say that she loved me and daydream about an idyllic future with 3 kids and 2 dogs in the suburbs, but when it came down to it, I was an interchangeable piece to her future puzzle. It wasn't me that she loved, it was the idea of what she could turn me into.
And this is where we are as a denomination. We love the idea of a truly United Methodism where (if you lean to the left) everyone is united in self-discovery, living one's personal truth, and living in harmony with nature and neighbor; or where (if you lean right) we are united in self-control, spreading scriptural holiness throughout the land, and orthodox affirmations. But, we don't love our adversaries (and yes I chose this word on purpose) enough to allow their vision of the future to influence our shape our own.
Rather, in private text messages and while carpooling to conference events, we angrily decry "those people" who are killing our denomination in the safety of our echo chambers.
I ended up breaking up with the girl. It was a really good decision. In the freedom of no longer trying to live into her vision for me, I was able to embrace a more authentic, less anxious version of me.
Neither faction of United Methodists are willing to live into the other side's vision for the church, which has meant that at every opportunity, we flex our muscles to demonstrate that we won't submit to the other's vision for our denomination. What might happen if we did just break-up? What if these competing visions no longer had to coexist under the same roof? Would we too have the opportunity to embrace a more authentic, less anxious version of ourselves, both individually and corporately?
I have friends in both camps, and it will be a bummer to miss out on our annual excursions for ice cream and to play shuffle board; but, for the sake of the mission(s), because we seem incapable of loving each other sincerely, it is probably time to break up.
Now, I admit that I could be wrong. So, by all means please leave comments that are kind and truthful and if there is a way to keep this thing together, we can figure it out together.
9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. (Romans 12:9, NIV)
And it got me thinking, in the UMC, both sides like to affirm their righteousness with regards to the inner-turmoil by publicly saying things like, "I love all my colleagues" and "we are better together;" however, these phrases are little more than lip service.
The truth is that in progressive safe spaces, there is no love lost for traditionalists who are keeping the denomination in the dark ages.
And behind traditionalist closed doors, there is little more than vitriol for progressives who have forsaken their first love for an Oprah-fied version of Christianity.
I once dated a girl who didn't really like me all that much. She might say that she loved me and daydream about an idyllic future with 3 kids and 2 dogs in the suburbs, but when it came down to it, I was an interchangeable piece to her future puzzle. It wasn't me that she loved, it was the idea of what she could turn me into.
And this is where we are as a denomination. We love the idea of a truly United Methodism where (if you lean to the left) everyone is united in self-discovery, living one's personal truth, and living in harmony with nature and neighbor; or where (if you lean right) we are united in self-control, spreading scriptural holiness throughout the land, and orthodox affirmations. But, we don't love our adversaries (and yes I chose this word on purpose) enough to allow their vision of the future to influence our shape our own.
Rather, in private text messages and while carpooling to conference events, we angrily decry "those people" who are killing our denomination in the safety of our echo chambers.
I ended up breaking up with the girl. It was a really good decision. In the freedom of no longer trying to live into her vision for me, I was able to embrace a more authentic, less anxious version of me.
Neither faction of United Methodists are willing to live into the other side's vision for the church, which has meant that at every opportunity, we flex our muscles to demonstrate that we won't submit to the other's vision for our denomination. What might happen if we did just break-up? What if these competing visions no longer had to coexist under the same roof? Would we too have the opportunity to embrace a more authentic, less anxious version of ourselves, both individually and corporately?
I have friends in both camps, and it will be a bummer to miss out on our annual excursions for ice cream and to play shuffle board; but, for the sake of the mission(s), because we seem incapable of loving each other sincerely, it is probably time to break up.
Now, I admit that I could be wrong. So, by all means please leave comments that are kind and truthful and if there is a way to keep this thing together, we can figure it out together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)