“More” Controversy…

Apparently, I should have chosen to be “more” controversial during my self-proclaimed “Year of More.” One of the neat things about writing a blog is metrics. WordPress tells me how many people have viewed my blog, what pages they’ve clicked on, what countries they viewed from, and so on. It’s really pretty cool.

Here’s the metric I find most interesting: the blogs with the most views and the most clicks are ones that deal with more controversial topics. The more controversial the topic, or at least if I can come up with a “click bait” headline, the more views the blog receives. I’ll be anxious to see the number of clicks the headline to this blog generates.

There are certainly plenty of topics to write about when it comes to controversy. Our world is becoming more polarized (well, at least in the good ole’ US of A), and this polarization makes every subject controversial. I bet you (if I was a betting man) that my article on controversy has the potential of being controversial.

Seriously, people have sparked controversy by saying or doing something that when the person said or did whatever it was, had no intention of sparking controversy. Yet, someone got offended by what the person said or did, so controversy arose. Civil discourse has ground to a halt in our culture. Oh! There’s discourse. It’s just that none of it is very civil.

There is controversy in the political realm. If I wanted to create a firestorm of controversy, I would say that I voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. I might have to close my comments section and delete the post from Facebook because of the responses I would likely receive. The problem is that I could conversely say that I voted for Hillary Clinton and get the same vitriolic response, except those responses would come from different people. No, I’m not going to tell you who I voted for in 2016. Suffice it to say that I held my nose while I voted, and that’s as controversial as I’ll get in that regard.

There is controversy in the cultural realm. Let’s see…I could do a Google search of the most controversial topics for 2019 and find abortion topping the list. I’m pro-life, just so you know (and that’ll stir no little amount of controversy, I’m sure). Of course, even Google has become somewhat controversial as there have been recent concerns about privacy issues (Google is now “Big Brother”), spying, censorship, tax avoidance, sexism and racism. I suppose I should stay off Google, but really, how does anyone stay off Google?

Other topics on the “controversial” list are gay marriage, gender identity, LGBT (I know, I’m leaving out some letters, which in and of itself is controversial) adoption rights, Planned Parenthood funding, women in combat, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Confederate flag, and the death penalty. I could go on, but you get the picture—our culture abounds with controversy, and following the debate on any issue on Youtube is like falling in a deep, dark hole (be careful…Youtube is owned by Google!).

The debates in larger culture have made their way into the church, too. Controversy in the church? Oh! My! Our denomination (the United Methodist Church) is currently embroiled in a debate concerning same-gender marriage and the ordination of homosexuals. We are divided (almost as equally as the broader culture) on these issues (read my position here), and the debates have been ugly at times. These ugly debates have taken place amidst calls for “unity,” which interestingly enough, has become its own controversial topic.

Unity. That’s an interesting concept. How do you define it? Do we even know it when we see it? Can there ever be genuine unity? After all, opinions, someone said, are like armpits. Everyone has them and most of them stink. I have my own ideas about unity…and unity in the body of Christ…but I’ll save those for another controversial blog…perhaps one entitled “More Unity.”

There is one place, though, where I will choose to be ardently controversial—the power of Jesus Christ to change a life. I will continue to proclaim that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and that no one comes to the Father except through him. Yes, even those simple proclamations are controversial and I may have to close my comments, but so be it. I really don’t mean to be controversial. I really don’t mean to offend. But, if believing Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords, then call me controversial. I only ask that you do it in a civil way.

Until next time, keep looking up…

“MORE” Reality…

I resolved to make 2019 the “Year of More.” In all the resolutions I made…

  • More stillness
  • More service
  • More exercise
  • More writing
  • More love
  • More sleep

…there’s one very important “more” that I overlooked, and that is to be more Christ-like. Isn’t that the “more” that matters most? I must confess there are many days I fall far short of the goal, yet I am reminded of Jesus’ own words to his disciples:

13 You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you are right, because that’s what I am. 14 And since I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash each other’s feet. 15 I have given you an example to follow. Do as I have done to you. 16 I tell you the truth, slaves are not greater than their master. Nor is the messenger more important than the one who sends the message. 17 Now that you know these things, God will bless you for doing them. (John 13: 13 – 17 NLT)

The Apostle Paul’s words also remind me that my calling (please read this as “our” calling) is to become like Jesus:

29 For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. (Romans 8: 29 NLT)

How might I become “more” Christ-like in 2019?

MORE CENTERED

Jesus centered his life in Scripture. He answered the temptations of Satan by the power of Scripture, and he began his earthly ministry moving out of Galilee into Capernaum in fulfillment of Scripture. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus life and words pointed to the fulfillment of Scripture.

Scripture is at the heart of spiritual growth. If we desire to hear God’s voice clearest and loudest, it will be through God’s Word, the Bible. We can live a more centered in Scripture as we worship, participate in group Bible studies, and spend personal devotional time with the Bible.

Of course, being more centered will cause me to be still more, which was my first resolution, so maybe I’m on the right track after all.

MORE CHANGED

Jesus began his earthly ministry with a call to repentance. Repentance is a call to change our minds about sin—literally to do a 180. I’m not sure my greatest sin is pride, but it’s up there on the list. Probably topping the list is selfishness. Every other challenge to my desire to be more Christ-like flows out of that innate proclivity for wanting my own way.

Repentance that is meaningful repentance is more than a changed mind. I think it is a changed mind that leads to changed actions. I also think it not a one-time thing. Repentance is an on-going process…at least it is in my life.

MORE CONNECTED

Jesus invited his first disciples to be connected to him, and to one another. We are connected to Christ most fully when we are connected to his body, the Church. And, we become more Christ-like the more we are connected to his body.

Unfortunately, it’s hard for pastors to make friends in the body. Ron Edmondson has written about that here. It doesn’t change the fact that I need more connection.

MORE COMMITTED

I think about Jesus’ first disciples who, when called by Jesus, left their nets and their tax-collecting table immediately and followed him. Am I as committed as those first disciples? Am I willing to drop everything…even the pastorate (the source of my livelihood)…to follow his calling?

Seriously, what would I do if Jesus walked into my office today and said, “Come, follow me”? I’d probably say, “I thought I was following you.” Just the idea of that conversation frightens me and causes me to reflect on my commitment of Jesus.

One of the most challenging books I’ve read recently (or ever) is Francis Chan’s Letters to the Church. Here’s a video describing the book’s premise. Chan’s book caused me to question so many assumptions about “church,” but it also helped renew my commitment to it…and to Jesus.

MORE CONSECRATED

To be consecrated is to be “set apart for special service.” Jesus consecrated his life for preaching, teaching and healing knowing that it would lead ultimately to the cross. His consecration led to his sacrifice. How is my life set apart for greater sacrifice? What sacrifice is God calling me to in order to be more consecrated to his purpose?

I earnestly desire to be more Christ-like, but this “Year of More” is looking MORE difficult by the day. Perhaps I should have been LESS bold in proclaiming it so.

Where is God challenging you to be more Christ-like? I’d love to hear your comments below.

Until next time, keep looking up…

Happy New Year, 2019 Edition

There is a phrase in Psalm 46: 10 that is virtually identical in every English translation of the Bible: “Be still, and know that I am God!” Ancient or modern, the Psalmist reminds us of how necessary it is for us to be still if we’ll experience God in the deep places of our being. It’s also a good reminder as we begin a new year to be still as we reflect on all that has happened in 2018, and look with anticipation to all the opportunities God has for us in 2019.

2018 was, for me, a year of learning.  It was, in some ways, a great year.  It was, in some other ways, a bad year, but it was, good or bad, another year in which the faithful mercies and grace of God sustained me.  I know you could say the same thing, too.  Whether your year was filled with celebration, or mourning, or both, God sustained you, and that is reason to celebrate, and if you’re like me, you’ve learned a few lessons along the way.  I’m going to do all I can to allow the lessons of 2018 be a bridge that joins my past with my future, for no matter what happened in 2008, January 1st, 2019, reminds me that I have a new opportunity—I begin with a New Year.  We cannot deny anything that happened in the past.  That would be foolishness.  We can, however, learn its lessons as we look ahead to order our life in the New Year.

What are some of the lessons I’ve learned?  The first is not actually a new lesson. I should say I’ve re-learned that I’m a “glass half empty” kind of guy.  I’ve learned that I’m impatient, and that I need to be willing to admit it.  I’ve learned I don’t like rules and regulations (does that make me a rebel?).  I’ve learned that I tend to be impulsive.  I’ve learned I often assume too much, and I’ve learned that all these characteristics cost me dearly, and in costing me, they cost others around me.  I regret that my shortcomings impacted others.

The reality is I can’t change anything that has happened in 2018.  But I do have a new opportunity to change the attitudes that caused so many of the regrets. Unfortunately, I can’t change my attitude. Oh, I can resolve to change my attitude, but like so many resolutions of the past, that one, too, will soon go by the wayside. What I can do, though, is bring my attitude to the cross of Jesus Christ, and say, “Here is my attitude, Lord.  It is poor, and it has cost me and those I love.  Take it, crucify it here, and by your grace, transform me.”  He does the work in me that I am unable to do in myself.  That is the only way I will ever change.

That brings me to the greatest lesson I’ve learned this year.  Oh, I knew it, but I had to be reminded—to be like Him, I have to spend time with Him. My attitude is often so poor because I don’t spend enough time nurturing my relationship with Him.  It’s easy to lose my spiritual connection. I become so busy with work (yes, folks, ministry is work) that I had fail to maintain an intimate relationship with the God who died for me and called me to His wonderful salvation. I have learned I have to be still, and know that He is God.

I am reminded of this in a compelling way in the most unlikely of places.  My mother gave me many years ago, a book entitled Amazed by Grace, written by Carole Plemmons. That name means nothing to you, but Carole is a lady from my childhood.  She played the piano for our children’s choir, and her son, Andy, and I ran the streets of Chatham together for many years. She penned a daily devotional out of her rich spiritual journals compiled in a 32-year journey with her wheel-chair bound husband.  Listen to how she states it:

“I do have one specific request for this new year, Lord.  I pray that my spiritual ears will be, more than ever before, listening for you voice.  Please help me learn how to maintain that core of stillness within so that I can hear Your softest word to me.  I know, Lord, that this is not a matter of straining to hear.  It is rather a relaxing—a leaning into Your embrace—a yielding to Your touch.  This I long to do, not just for a moment now and then, but for all the days of the rest of this earthly life.”

So, I resolve to do that more–lean into His embrace–to be still. Then, I might know that He is God.

Perhaps I might even define 2019 as “The Year of More.”

  • I resolve to be still more.
  • I resolve to serve more.
  • I resolve to exercise more.
  • I resolve to write more.
  • I resolve to love more.
  • I resolve to sleep more.

Perhaps those are enough resolutions for one year. After all, I don’t want to get to the end of 2019 and look back only to have learned the same lessons over again. That would be a wasted year, wouldn’t it?

How about you? What will 2019 bring for you? I invite you to leave your comments below.

Until next time, keep looking up…

The Final Nail in the Mainline Coffin?

Let me say–“I am a traditionalist.” There. Now that’s out of the way. You know where I stand.

I have been reluctant to comment on the current state of affairs in the United Methodist Church as we head into the special called session of General Conference scheduled for St. Louis, February 23 – 26, 2019. The special session was called by the Council of Bishops after the 2016 General Conference for the purpose of dealing (definitively?) with the issue of “full inclusion” of LGBTQI+ individuals in the life of the church. The debate centers primarily on the issues of same-gender marriage and the ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals.

There are several reasons I have not commented (at least not very publicly). For one, I serve a diverse congregation, and discretion being the better part of valor, I want to be able to be a pastor to everyone no matter where they lie along the spectrum from traditional to progressive.

Another reason I’ve been reluctant to comment is my own acknowledgement that I could be wrong. After all, I’m “Not the Perfect Pastor,” so my imperfections do tend to get in my way.

My prayer for 20+ years has been, “Lord, change my heart if I’m wrong.” Being the traditionalist I am, I believe God actually hears and answers prayer, so I continue to pray, but as of this writing, the Lord has not answered this prayer (at least in relation to the presenting issue facing the UMC). I also know that there is still more for me to learn. I take to heart the advice Jordan Peterson offers in his book 12 Rules for Life. Rule # 9 states, “Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t.” If I offered too many comments, I might have to walk some of them back, and being of the male species, I don’t like to walk statements back.

Yet one more reason I’ve been reluctant to comment is the fact that there really hasn’t been enough information to have an informed conversation on the matters before us. Prior to July 8th about all one could say is “We really don’t know what the possibilities are at this point.” Everything until that point was pure speculation (although there is still much speculating to be done), and I figured why confuse the conversation or risk upsetting people dear to me if I couldn’t have an informed conversation. Besides, I have numerous colleagues with whom I disagree on the issue of same-gender marriage and the ordination of homosexuals, and I dearly love them. I have no desire to have our relationships broken because a speculative conversation devolved in to name-calling and accusations. Not worth it!

Then, of course, there is the issue of giving my focus to the work of the congregation I serve. As an alternate delegate to General Conference, it is very easy to get distracted by all the information, blogs, speculation and social media posts concerning the future of United Methodism. Yes, we are a connectional church, but at the end of the day, I’m appointed to a local congregation, and the mission of the United Methodist Church (to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world) gets carried out in the local congregation. People’s lives will be transformed in and through the local church. That is my primary focus.

Now that sufficient information has been made available and petitions filed with General Conference, it’s time for me to weigh in on the situation we United Methodists find ourselves in. Many people have asked my thoughts over the past few months, so I figured this medium is the best way to communicate to the broadest number of people.

I know a post such as this will get feedback, both positively and negatively, and I’ll probably get called a few names if I don’t take the position that someone thinks is the correct one. But, I suppose I will take that chance. February will soon be upon us and the conversation can no longer be avoided.

The Commission on the Way Forward

The Commission on the Way Forward

The Commission on a Way Forward was appointed by the Bishops subsequent to the 2016 General Conference to “do a complete examination and possible revision of every paragraph of the Book of Discipline concerning human sexuality and explore options that help to maintain and strengthen the unity of the church.” The Commission completed its work and submitted its report to be translated for General Conference. The report includes three possible ways forward for the UMC. The Traditional Plan, the Connectional Conference Plan and the One Church Plan. I’ll unpack each later in the post.

The Council of Bishops has recommended adoption of the One Church Plan. That is their preferred future for the UMC. Initially, the bishops sought to direct the debate of General Conference, but after a challenge before the Judicial Council, the Judicial Council ruled that any United Methodist with standing could submit legislation to General Conference. That means, obviously, there will be a plethora of legislation presented to General Conference. As a side note, the bishop’s recommendation was moved to a footnote in the report.

General Conference, 2019

The General Conference is slated to last four days. With a plethora (I’ve used that word twice!) of legislation, the work will be daunting, and the reality is it may not get done at all. Historically, the work of the General Conference begins with adopting the rules of order. There may be a four-day fight on the rules and the Conference may never get around to doing the actual work. Can you imagine having two years of conversations and meetings, and spending millions of dollars to accomplish nothing? That’s exactly what could happen.

Other than a significant waste of time and money, nothing happening would not be the worst thing to happen (in my humble opinion). The status quo would remain, which means the Discipline would not change (of course, neither would the current lack of enforcement). The proverbial can would get kicked down the road to General Conference 2020. Speculation? There will be some laity, clergy and congregations who depart out of sheer frustration, and the United Methodist Church would be weakened. It would also break my heart.

One thing that could happen even before February is the Judicial Council could rule one, two or all three plans included in the report as unconstitutional. The Council of Bishops has asked for a declaratory decision on the constitutionality of the three plans. If all three plans are declared unconstitutional, there would be no work for the Conference to complete. I suppose it would be cancelled, still costing an unknown amount of money and kicking the can down the road. There will be some laity, clergy and congregations who depart out of sheer frustration, and the United Methodist Church would be weakened. It would also break my heart.

The Three Plans

The Traditional Plan

The Traditional Plan retains the current language in the Book of Discipline that states all persons are “of sacred worth, created in the image of God” and also states that the practice of homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” The Traditional Plan dramatically enhances accountability to the church’s requirements and closes many of the loopholes currently being used to avoid accountability by those who, in practicing “biblical disobedience,” conduct same-gender weddings and ordain “self-avowed, practicing” homosexuals. At the same time, the Plan offers a gracious exit for annual conferences, congregations, bishops, and clergy who cannot in good conscience abide by the church’s historic standards. 

This plan has the best possibility of passing General Conference (again, in my humble opinion) simply based on the votes of previous General Conferences in similar matters.  It will likely be supported by evangelicals, southern delegates and the delegations from the Central Conferences (outside the U. S.). The groups together constitute a majority. I won’t bore you with every single detail of the Traditional Plan. For a more comprehensive treatment, my colleague Thomas Lambrecht has an article here, or you can read the legislation by clicking here.

I am a supporter of the Traditional plan because it maintains our current position which I believe is grace-filled even if it doesn’t sound like it in this 21st Century shifting culture. I believe it remains faithful to the biblical witness and to 2,000 years of church history and tradition. It also remains faithful to almost every cultural understanding in the world of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

There will likely be some people who depart the United Methodist Church should the Traditional Plan pass, but they would likely be fewer in number. Many of the most progressive leaders in our denomination have stated they will not depart under any circumstances. Of course, that means acts of disobedience would continue, so it is a realistic possibility that the Plan would ultimately be ineffective, in which case, laity, clergy and congregations would depart out of sheer frustration, and the United Methodist Church would be weakened. That would break my heart.

The Connectional Conference Plan

The Connectional Conference Plan is perhaps the most confusing of the three. The plan as proposed would do away with our current five jurisdictions and replace them with three “Conferences” aligned along theological perspectives. There would be a traditional Conference (maintaining the current Disciplinary language), a progressive Conference (ordaining homosexual clergy and performing same-gender marriage) and a centrist Conference (each did what was right in their own eyes).

Each of the three conferences would continue to operate under the umbrella of the United Methodist Church, and as I understand the legislation, each Annual Conference would choose to align with one of the Conferences. Each would continue to share some doctrinal standards, missions work globally and administrative infrastructure (think General Boards and Agencies here).

If a local church did not want to affiliate with the Connectional Conference chosen by its Annual Conference, it could vote to become a member of one of the other Conferences. Clergy would have the same option, but would be obligated to abide by the standards of the chosen Conference. If I understand the legislation correctly, the Bishop and Cabinet of the Annual Conference will still control the appointive process. I’m not sure how that would work, but that’s what it says. Consideration for re-affiliation would be provided every four years.

As for bishops, the current Council of Bishops would be retained with each Connectional Conference having a College of Bishops composed of those bishops who chose to affiliate with each Conference. They would continue to lead in ecumenical relationships and in oversight of the administrative agencies of the Church. Funding for bishops inside the U. S. would be provided by each bishop’s respective Connectional Conference, and bishops outside the U. S. would be supported by the umbrella organization. Confusing, huh?

Each Connectional Conference would adopt its own Book of Discipline starting with the Articles of Religion, Doctrinal Standards, Confessions of Faith and General Rules. Everything else would be contextual to the particular Connectional Conference. Still confusing, huh?

Again, for the full plan you can click here and read the enabling legislation for yourself. I wouldn’t recommend it unless you’re a legal nerd.

I believe this is the most impossible plan offered. It would take up to six years to implement and the passage of five constitutional amendments. Does anyone realize how hard it is to pass a constitutional amendment in the United Methodist Church? Each amendment requires a two-thirds vote of the General Conference and a two-thirds vote of the aggregate members of each of the Annual Conferences voting. What it really means is this plan isn’t likely to gain any traction in 2019 (assuming that GC 2019 gets around to voting on any plan).

The confusion created should this plan be adopted would likely lead to many laity, clergy and congregations departing out of sheer frustration and the United Methodist Church would be weakened. Heart-breaking, no?

The One Church Plan

The One Church Plan as proposed would remove the “restrictive” language (some have called it “hurtful” language) in the Discipline as it refers to the practice of homosexuality, and would change the definition of marriage from “between one man and one woman” to being between “two adults.” Additionally, each Annual Conference Board of Ordained Ministry would be allowed to determine its own ordination standards as it relates to human sexuality.

Okay, this is where it gets sticky. Some have referred to this as the “local option” plan because individual clergy would not be compelled to violate conscience if he/she was opposed to same-gender marriage. The clergy would not be required to perform weddings in celebration of the aforementioned, nor would local congregations be compelled to host same-gender weddings in violation of its collective conscience. (Here’s why I don’t believe this plan would ever work.)

Likewise, bishops are not required to ordain or license homosexual persons in violation of their conscience, but it does make provision if the Annual Conference has opted to ordain, for another bishop to ordain the individual in that bishop’s stead. It does not, however, protect a bishop from having to appoint a clergy person that he/she believes to be unfit for ministry. The Plan does include provisions that prevent a bishop or District Superintendent from retaliating against a clergy who refuses to violate her/his conscience.

I’ll not go into greater detail about the One Church Plan. I’ve linked to the entire plan in a couple of different places already. Read it at your leisure (or at your peril!). I will tell you why I think this plan is untenable.

The Council of Bishops of the United Methodist Church

Proponents of the One Church Plan (including the Council of Bishops–though not every Bishop agrees) believe it is possible for those who disagree on issues of human sexuality to peacefully coexist in one denomination. I think nearly 50 years of continuous debate over the issue proves that theory incorrect. Proponents of the plan see human sexuality as a non-essential. Opponents of the plan disagree greatly, and based on the conversations I’ve had, are not likely to change that understanding.

Adopting the One Church plan will accomplish one thing: It will remove the debate from the General Church level. What it will do, in the alternative, is take it down to the local church level where each local congregation will have to determine and debate its own understanding of human sexuality, thus increasing the conflict in the denomination rather than lessening it.

The One Church Plan would also weaken the understanding of what it means to be United Methodist. Well, it would just set up a situation where neighboring UM churches could have differing standards–UM churches in the same town…on the same street, for heaven’s sake! Talk about brand confusion (forgive the secular marketing reference, but…)! We can call it the One Church Plan, but it does, by default, create two (or more?) churches with its implementation. It is, at best, a false unity.

The One Church Plan makes me ask the question, “If we can choose our standards on human sexuality, why can’t each local congregation (or clergy) choose their own standards on baptism or communion?” Seems to me to be only one of the Pandora’s boxes we open with the passage of the One Church Plan.

Additionally, as a former District Superintendent, I can see the nightmare the appointive process would become under such a plan. It was difficult enough to connect clergy and congregations in a fruitful way without the One Church Plan, and for Annual Conferences with a shortage of clergy, the issue would be multiplied even more. I also envision a time in the not too distant future when bishops and cabinets would say, “Sexual preference is not a consideration in the appointment-making process.”

All this, and I haven’t even mentioned the fact that this Plan disregards the historic, biblical understanding of marriage and sexuality, and puts the United Methodist Church firmly outside the broader global community of the body of Christ on the issues of marriage and human sexuality. Do we really want to do that?

If the One Church Plan passes GC 2019, it will precipitate the departure of many evangelical, traditional members (both lay and clergy) and congregations for whom the issue of human sexuality is a non-negotiable. Their departure will weaken the United Methodist Church, and that breaks my heart.

Other Considerations

This has become a long blog (I apologize), so I will only briefly mention a few other considerations involved in the debate. Bishop Bruce Ough has rightly discerned, “Let’s be clear, if we divide, nearly all our essential unifying institutional activities would be lost or severely diminished.” Our UM institutions will be harmed, and the future of many will be uncertain–some will, in fact, cease to exist. Our global mission partnerships will end or be financially limited. Pension obligations may go unmet (especially pre-1982 pensions [Methodist nerds will know what that is]), and that would be devastating to countless faithful clergy. Property fights would ensue, diverting precious resources away from the mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

I contend that each of those things will happen regardless of which plan is passed. Perhaps not on the scale of a full-blown dissolution, but harm will come nonetheless.

The Final Nail in the Mainline Coffin?

The decline of the mainline church in North America is well documented, and while our denomination is growing globally, membership and attendance continues to decline in the U. S., and has since I entered vocational ministry in 1991. Ed Stetzer wrote a piece in 2017 noting that unless something happen, mainline Protestantism has a mere 23 Easters left. My heart aches as I consider the possibility that General Conference 2019 will hasten that decline, and will serve as the final nail in the mainline coffin (at least in the U. S.).

United Methodism is still the largest of the remaining “mainline” Protestant denominations, and the singular one which has not yet embraced the ordination of LGBTQI+ persons or same-gender marriage. Only the Traditional Plan will (ostensibly) prevent this from happening, but even if it passes, the UMC is likely to come out bruised and weakened. Regardless of what happens February 23-26, 2019, in St. Louis, everything will be different in the UMC on February 27th. At least, that’s my speculation.

Alarmist, you say? Negativity? Hyperbole? Divisive? Well, I prefer the term realistic.  I don’t want our church divided. I don’t want to see our congregations diminished. I don’t want the United Methodist name to be tarnished. I don’t want to break fellowship with sisters and brothers with whom I’ve traversed the highway of ministry. Each of those possibilities break my heart.

Yet, I am not one who is without hope. I do believe in miracles, and I am praying for a miracle to happen in St. Louis. I believe God has the power to work a miracle among the people called United Methodist. The problem doesn’t lie with God’s ability, but rather with our openness to the move of the Holy Spirit among us as the work is done. So, I pray that all our hearts will be open to what the Holy Spirit desires to accomplish in us and through us during that time.

In the meantime, I’m going to focus as much effort as I’m able to reach the lost in the community around me. I’m going to look to the future with plans for continuing ministry to the broken among us. I’m going to do all I can do to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. That mission hasn’t changed.

Even still, I’m not without hope. Should February 2019 drive the final nail in the mainline coffin, I am certain the work of the Kingdom will continue. God is in the resurrection business, and we all know there has to be a death before there can be a resurrection.

Until next time, keep looking up…

Cruiser without a Cause…

Vanessa and I finally took that cruise. Many people have told us often that we should take a cruise…”it will be fun”…”it will be special”…”you’ll enjoy it”…were all the things people were saying to us…oh, and…”you’ll love the food!” So, for our 36th anniversary we signed up and went on a cruise.

The Carnival Triumph

We opted for a four-day western Caribbean cruise out of New Orleans on the Carnival Triumph. We figured we could do anything for four days, but we didn’t want to sign up for longer in case we didn’t like cruising. For me, four days was plenty.

I’m a glass-half-empty kinda’ guy. Yeah, I know…Christians aren’t supposed to be that way, but I guess I haven’t allowed the Holy Spirit to do His regenerating work in my life in that area, so I should probably warn you not to let my experience taint your love for cruising, or your desire to explore the opportunity for yourself. I’m writing only because many folks have asked me, “How was your cruise?” Rather than telling the same story anytime someone asks, I can simply say, “Read my blog.” So, here’s my glass-half-empty view of cruising.

First, I have to ask, “Who even takes a cruise in a hurricane?” Apparently, Vanessa and I do, and I don’t suppose a hurricane has ever stopped Carnival Cruise Lines from leaving port. Hurricane Nate was making his way across the western Caribbean just as we were getting ready to leave New Orleans. Carnival was good to keep us updated, and we found out just prior to boarding the ship that ours would be a cruise to nowhere. We were originally headed to Cozumel, but Nate was sitting right over the Yucatan Peninsula that morning. Great! Our first cruise and it’s going nowhere! Now, for the glass-half-full part–Carnival agreed to refund 50% of our cost and give us a 50% discount on any future cruise for which we might sign up. Can’t beat that for generosity!

I’ll applaud Carnival. The customer service was excellent. The accommodations were first class. The ship was CLEAN! Everywhere you went on board ship, someone was busy cleaning something. The entertainment was professional and the shows enjoyable (if you’re into that kind of thing).

Something else I discovered about cruises: If you don’t drink (to excess), don’t dance or don’t gamble, there’s only one thing left to do and that’s eat, and even eating gets old after four days. The food was one of the reasons we were told we should take a cruise. Well, either they don’t know what good food is, or we don’t. Oh, the food was okay, but it wasn’t great..certainly not great enough to gorge yourself three times a day, but with little else to do, Vanessa and I took the Ray Barone philosophy of cruising (Google “Ray cruises with Marie”), which is to just eat all the time. That, my friend, is an evil philosophy. I either now have to buy new clothes or go on a diet. After the cruise, I can’t afford the one and don’t want to do the other.

Speaking of drinking, why would anyone drink alcohol on a cruise? With the waves rocking the ship, you can stumble your way anywhere on board. You get the effect of drinking without the cost, either financially or physically…unless you get seasick (I did not!).

Chocolate-dipped Key Lime Pie from Kermit’s in Key West, Florida

Something else I discovered? Key West, Florida is nowhere. We left New Orleans on a cruise to nowhere and ended up in Key West. I suppose that’s another glass-half-full occurrence, after all. Key West (for me) was the highlight of the trip. Simply put, four days on a rocking (and not in the good way) boat was not shaping up to me to be much fun, but when the captain informed us they had made arrangements to port in Key West, I brightened up. I’d never been to Key West before, and I can say that six hours wasn’t nearly enough time to do all we wanted to do, although the cuban sandwich we had a Pepe’s was fantastic (best meal I had on the trip…and I had to pay extra for it) and the chocolate dipped frozen key lime pie from Kermit’s was worth every penny I paid!

 

Lest I be too pessimistic in my assessment, cruising was a new experience. One I can check off my “to-do list” now. New experiences are always fun, and it was a trip for our 36th anniversary, so that made it meaningful. Even with a 50% refund and a 50% discount on our next cruise, I’d rather have spent four days lying on the beach somewhere, though with a hurricane in the Gulf there was no guarantee of the weather there either. I suppose four days in the mountains would have sufficed,too. As for cruising, I can say, “Been there, done that! Didn’t buy the t-shirt.” But please, don’t let that affect your impression of cruising. After all, I’m a glass-half-empty kinda’ guy.

Until next time, keep looking up…

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions…

On April 28, 2017, the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church issued its ruling regarding the July 2016 election and consecration of Rev. Dr. Karen Oliveto as Bishop in the United Methodist Church. Almost everyone I know (from a Methodist perspective anyway) was waiting for this ruling, and many of them have asked me what I thought of the ruling. My answer has been: “I think it’s better than it could have been and worse than it should have been.”

BETTER THAN IT COULD HAVE BEEN

It’s better than it could have been because the Judicial Council could have decided it didn’t have jurisdiction over the matter. That is, in essence, what they ruled in part of the case. The Council concluded it did not have jurisdiction over the nomination, election and assignment as Bishop (you can read the entire decision here), but that it did have jurisdiction over the consecration of a homosexual bishop, and in that matter, the Western Jurisdiction violated church law. The decision goes on to say that any clergy who participated in the consecration are subject to a “chargeable offense.”

I’m not going to comment on the intricate details of the case because I’m not an attorney steeped in church law, but I will say that any intelligent person could read The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church and conclude that the consecration of a “self-avowed practicing homosexual” is a violation of church law. No matter how one parses the words, they say what they say, and no matter a person’s gifts and graces for ministry, the words say what they say. If we don’t like what the words say, then the words should be changed, but every four years for forty plus years, the wording has been reaffirmed by the General Conference of the United Methodist Church.

So, the ruling is better than it could have been. The Western Jurisdiction violated church law when it consecrated Rev. Dr. Oliveto bishop (although Oliveto was not specifically named in the petition). I believe it was the correct decision, and it helped to bring some clarity to the current debates within the United Methodist Church around human sexuality.

WORSE THAN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN

But, the decision is worse than it should have been. I know many will disagree with that statement, and that’s perfectly okay with me (this is me assenting to your right to dissent–so please keep the nasty and snarky comments to a minimum). The decision left Oliveto in “good standing” in the office of Bishop, and remanded the case back to the Western Jurisdiction for what is called an “administrative process.”

Yes, others have asked what that means, too. Let me see if I can explain it briefly. Just like in the secular world, a person has a right to “due process,” so in the church a clergy person has the right to “due process” before any action can be taken against him/her (this is a good thing), so the ruling sends it back to the Western Jurisdiction for the process to play itself out.

So, while that’s good, it’s bad because the Western Jurisdiction is the entity that elected  and consecrated Oliveto in the first place, so I anticipate that nothing of substance will be done through the process, and when all is said and done, Oliveto will still be a Bishop in the United Methodist Church, and those of us who hold to the traditional biblical understanding of marriage will continue to be frustrated with the politics of it all (I’m speaking purely of church politics here). It’s also bad because it will continue to be a distraction from the mission of the church, and will continue to drain time, energy and resources away from the mission of making disciples for the transformation of the world.

WHAT NOW?

So, what do we do now? We wait…just like we’ve been doing. We’ll wait to see how the administrative process works itself out in the Western Jurisdiction. We’ll also continue to wait and see what the Commission on a Way Forward recommends when it completes its work, and we’ll wait to see what the special called session of General Conference does with that information when it meets in February of 2019, in St. Louis, MO.

In our waiting, we might discover that the Holy Spirit is prepared to do a new work with these people called United Methodist. The Holy Spirit could, in fact, be giving birth to a new Methodist movement. If we react now with frustration and anger (no matter which “side” of the debate we take), we might just miss the greatest move of the Holy Spirit in Methodism since John Wesley‘s heart was strangely warmed at a meeting on Aldersgate Street. Let’s all remain faithful with our prayers, our presence, our gifts, our service and our witness (those are the vows every person takes when she/he joins the United Methodist Church).

There is one thing we can do in the waiting, and that is to pray. We must pray for unity…but not unity for an institution…we must pray for unity in the body of Christ that goes far beyond any human institution. We must also pray for unity in the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We must also pray for the Holy Spirit to fill us with fire so that our singular purpose will be a people who have nothing to do but save souls.

More than waiting, though, is the necessity of work…the work of the Kingdom. We must continue to be in ministry to the least, the last and the lost. There are homeless people to feed. There are foster children to care for. There are churches to build. There are souls to save (there’s my evangelical bent coming through). There are people to love, there’s a God to worship and adore and there’s Jesus to follow. Nothing any Council (Judicial or otherwise) could ever do will change the commandment Jesus gave us to “go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.  Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28: 18-20 NLT).

So, I’ll wait, and pray and work. May I invite you to join me in that endeavor.

Until next time, keep looking up…

A Call to Prayer…

It’s time to pray. Of course, as disciples of Jesus Christ, it’s always time to pray, but that sentiment is never more true than now for those of us called United Methodist. The Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church begins its semi-annual meeting in Newark, New Jersey April 25th, and one of the main issues on its docket is the legality of the election and consecration of a homosexual clergy person to the office of Bishop in the United Methodist Church.

Members of the 2016-2020 Judicial Council. (From left) Front: Ruben T. Reyes, N. Oswald Tweh Sr., the Rev. Luan-Vu Tran. Back row: Deanell Reece Tacha, Lídia Romão Gulele, the Rev.Øyvind Helliesen, the Rev. Dennis Blackwell, and the Rev. J. Kabamba Kiboko. (Not pictured, Beth Capen)

In July 2016, the Western Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church elected Rev. Dr. Karen Oliveto as the first openly gay bishop. As Bishop Oliveto was being elected, the South Central Jurisdiction was still in session, and upon the announcement of Dr. Oliveto’s election, delegates of the South Central Jurisdiction passed a resolution asking the Judicial Council to rule on a specific set of questions regarding the legality of the election.

Oral arguments in the matter are expected to be heard on April 25th, and the expectation is the Judicial Council will issue its ruling soon afterward. There are several possible outcomes in the case. For a review of those possibilities and more docket information, you can click on these links:

https://juicyecumenism.com/2017/04/20/preview-umc-judicial-councils-april-2017-cases/

http://um-insight.net/in-the-church/finance-and-administration/lgbtq-united-methodist-allies-prepare-for-judicial-council-s_1/

For me, this week is a watershed moment for United Methodism. In the interest of full disclosure, I was at the South Central Jurisdiction in July 2016 as a delegate, and I voted in support (as did 56% of the delegates) of the request to the Judicial Council. How the Council rules (or fails to rule) may well determine the future of our denomination. I have had persons tell me they were preparing to leave our church if the ruling went one way, and I’ve had people tell me they were prepared to leave our church if the ruling went another way. That’s a no-win either way you look at it. The ruling will likely impact mission, membership and money, and in a cultural environment that is increasingly hostile to the Gospel, it is an unfortunate witness to the grace and love of Jesus Christ.

Additionally, no one really knows how a ruling may impact the work of the Commission on a Way Forward.  The Commission has been working for several months now to discern a unified way to move forward in the face of the diversity that exists, both within the Church and within culture. It will also be unfortunate that the General Conference has invested such resources to render the work moot.

Please don’t read any of this blog as anything more than a simple call to prayer for our United Methodist Church. Mine is simply another in a litany of such calls. You can read one here. I have a number of sentiments I could share here, but a colleague, Rev. Shane Bishop, has done a masterful job here, so I share his thoughts, not as my own, but as a summation of where I am personally and professionally.

So, please join me in prayer this week. Pray for:

  • Wisdom and discernment from the Holy Spirit for the Judicial Council
  • Grace for those who will present oral arguments
  • Peace among the “opposing” sides in the continuing debate
  • Strength for our bishops as they lead us amidst the chaos
  • Unity in our denomination as we face the uncertainty of the decisions and their consequences, both intended and unintended
  • Bishop Oliveto
  • Our pastors who lead congregations that hold a diversity of opinions
  • Our laity who desire to serve Christ through their local congregations

It’s time to pray folks! If you’ve never prayed for your United Methodist Church before (well, shame on you if you haven’t!), please do so now. While you’re praying, keep in mind that whatever happens, we are an Easter people. Things may not be the same after this week, but each day provides an opportunity for new life. The Lord is not done with the United Methodist Church yet. It just remains to be seen what the Lord might do with us next.

Until next time, keep looking up…(and, pray while you’re doing it!)