General Conference 2016 is behind us now, and I return with a renewed hope that God is not done with these people called Methodist. There was much anxiety leading up to the once-every-four-year’s gathering of the church’s top legislative body because of the diverse nature in which members who call themselves United Methodist view culture, the Bible and the nature of “doing” church. Many felt this would be a “watershed” shed for the church, and in many ways it was. Knowing that hindsight is supposed to be 20/20, let me offer my personal reflections of our time together.

Primary among the sources of anxiety was the question, “How will the United Methodist Church respond on the issue of human sexuality in response to the Obergfell decision of the Supreme Court in June 2015?” Many wondered if this would be the time the church changed its understanding of homosexuality, and open itself to full inclusion by ordaining homosexuals as clergy, and permitting same-sex weddings to be presided over by its clergy and conducted in its facilities. Many others wondered if the church would maintain its teaching rooted in Scriptural and traditional understandings of marriage. Protesters were present throughout the ten days of meetings, and did disrupt the proceedings with organized protests on three different occasions. Additionally, delegates and alternates were greeted each day (but specifically on Wednesday) with supporters of a change in the church’s stance, particularly the wording that says homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” In the end, though, the delegates did what United Methodists have too often done…they didn’t decide. And, that’s not a bad thing from my perspective.

Wednesday, May 18^th was the pivotal day. Several petitions favorable to retaining the current stance of the church, as well as legislation designed to strengthen penalties for those who violated the Discipline had made it out of committee, and were ready to be presented on the floor of General Conference. I remind you, this is not something that has arisen in the last couple of years. This has been a forty-four year long conversation that has only escalated in the last decade because of the changing culture of the west. Please also understand, this is an issue that has no place for discussion among delegates and the church in Africa, Asia and other places where the church is growing. They can’t figure out why we’re fighting about it. They can’t figure out why they’re voting on it. They just think, “Those crazy Americans!” Yet, it is an incredibly contentious issue, and everyone thought this was the year it would be addressed. It was not. Let me explain.

The loudest group has generally been the most progressive segments of our church. Unfortunately for them, their numbers are shrinking.  Explosive growth is happening in the Global South, particularly Africa.  A coalition of American evangelicals and international delegates ran the tables in the legislative committees and swept elections to our highest court—the Judicial Council. Delay tactics by progressives was the only thing that kept more legislative items aimed at enforcement from being recommended.

But, there is a third player in the game—U.S. moderates. One colleague described them as “nice people, doing nice things, under high steeples, with above average educations.” These moderates are incrementally changing their minds on homosexuality. The pastor of our largest church, Adam Hamilton, is in the final stages of his transformation on the issue. He told a group of seminary students last week that he would like the first same sex weddings in his Kansas City-area megachurch to be conducted by associate pastors so he can be available to pastorally soothe those who will be unhappy about it.

The day prior, another moderate pastor took the floor following a night of rumors regarding a church split.  He asked that the Council of Bishops meet, show some leadership, and bring forth a plan for fixing things.  This was sweet music in the ears of delegates who have witnessed the council unable to police its own members, much less lead the church.  We delegates enjoyed the opportunity to tell our bishops what to do. Our bishops said they would meet and consider it.

The next day, our bishops came back with a plan representing the majority view of the council. They thanked the church for the invitation and expressed they would be willing to see the conversation on sexuality deferred, appoint a commission, and consider a specially-called General Conference in two or three years to entertain its recommendations. The conference found itself in the embarrassing place of having asked our bishops to lead. Be careful what you ask for! The Bishops returned with a plan that just happened to coincide neatly with the wishes of moderates trying to buy time. Progressives breathed a sigh of relief that the legislative train steaming their way had been derailed.

I need to make a long story short. The debate on the bishop’s recommendation turned ugly, with one delegate charging the presiding bishop with being corrupt. Fortunately, we didn’t see much of that delegate the rest of the time. After several emotional speeches, the episcopal plan was adopted as legislation by the narrowest of margins.

The political machinations we witnessed that day were impressive. Congress would be proud. But, the end of it means we spent a lot of money and time without really deciding anything. Well, we decided to take a little more time to decide. Many felt it unconscionable, but I’m not that put out by the whole ordeal.

Yes, I would like to have seen the General Conference decide once and for all on the issue of human sexuality, but as it stands, nothing has changed. The same language the United Methodist had before General Conference is the same language we have now, and I believe that’s a good thing. As for the future, we’ll look to the bishops to offer the leadership they say they’re willing to undertake. We’ll see if there will be a special commission, and a special called session of General Conference to deal with the issue.

That’s not the only thing we did at General Conference. Here’s a synopsis of our time together:

• The Conference defeated motions to separate the American Church from the global Church by creating a new Central Conference.
• Additionally, the African Central Conferences will receive five more bishops over the next four years, thus solidifying the global nature of the UMC.
• Moreover, the General Conference voted to double the amount of theological education for Africa (from $5 million to $10 million) in the general church budget.
• In a surprising fashion, the General Conference voted (by a margin of 3-to-1) to disaffiliate the UMC from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. This represents a significant shift in thinking for the global Church, and reflects how significant is the shift toward a more orthodox church.
• The church continues to pursue important justice and mercy issues including human trafficking, stamping out killer diseases like malaria and AIDS, environmental stewardship, and the sanctity of human life.
• A separation-with-property proposal passed a committee vote, signaling support for a conversation about this issue. The proposal did not make it to the floor of General Conference, but expect it to be a priority of the Bishops’ special commission exploring the issue of human sexuality.
• The margins in the votes on key issues signal that the weight of opinion has shifted toward a more orthodox theology.
• Both the University Senate and Judicial Council received a number of new members who are more theologically orthodox. For the first time, the chair of the Judicial Council is not an American.
• A proposal was made and accepted requiring bishops to hold one another accountable for decisions in their individual Conferences.
• The UMC grew by a total of 1.2 million members in the last four years, mostly outside the U.S. The African church, growing at significant rates, now holds the power in our denomination. The Africa Central Conference has grown by 329 percent, while in the United States the denomination has declined by 11 percent.

I am blessed to have had the opportunity to serve as a delegate to General Conference. The days were long and I returned home weary (for more reasons than one), but the experience was one I’ll never forget and will always consider an honor.

Until next time, keep looking up…

I find it interesting identifying the origin of popular words and phrases. No less so that the phrase many of us have often used, “But, that’s just my two cents.” Where did that phrase come from? Depending upon where one searches for the answer, we would discover that the English language contains many specific terms for goods or services that cost two cents (or twopenny, two-pence), some of them very old. We also might discover that over time two cent or twopenny also became descriptors of items that weren’t worth much, if anything. Finally, somewhere in the mid-1920’s, we discover the phrase became attached to the practice of offering unsolicited advice. But, the earliest reference to anything analogous to “two cents” appears in the lesson of the widow’s mite in the Gospel of Mark. In that earliest reference, the “two cents worth” has a totally different meaning than how we’ve come to us it. For the widow, the “two cents” was everything. For the wealthy who stood around her it didn’t mean much. I’m afraid we still take our “two cents” to be worth just that—two cents.

You know the scene. Jesus sits and watches as people put their offerings in the offering boxes around the Temple. There were 13 of them, in fact lined along the outside of one of the Temple courtyards. They looked like trumpets, and it was quite the show to watch persons go by and toss their coins into the horns. The noise would be predicated upon the type and number of coins a person dropped into the box (demonstrate with bucket and coins). There were even some who would make a show of their offerings. That might be why Jesus said in the verses just prior to the example of the widow:

³⁸ Jesus also taught: “Beware of these teachers of religious law! For they like to parade around in flowing robes and receive respectful greetings as they walk in the marketplaces. ³⁹ And how they love the seats of honor in the synagogues and the head table at banquets. ⁴⁰ Yet they shamelessly cheat widows out of their property and then pretend to be pious by making long prayers in public. Because of this, they will be more severely punished.”     (Mark 12: 38 – 40 NLT)

Remember that “the teachers of religious law” were the experts in the Law of Moses. They were teachers of the Law in schools and synagogues. They expounded on the Scriptures and preserved them. They were also referred to as lawyers and served as judges in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Supreme Court. Jesus warns His disciples “beware of these teachers of religious law.” He gives several reasons for His warning, but note one in particular: “they shamelessly cheat widows out of their property” (verse 40). They exploited widows. Jews and Christians have always been charged with a ministry of caring for widows. The Apostle James, in his letter says: “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27). So, Jesus charges them with cheating widows rather than visiting them in their distress.

As Jesus sits watching at the Temple, condemning those “teachers” or “judges,” he notices who is putting what in the Treasury, and he notices who makes the show of it. Then, enter the “poor” widow who puts in her “two cents.”

Just how poor was the widow? The word “poor” suggests she was “utterly helpless, completely destitute, living in such absolute poverty that perhaps even needed necessities for survival such as food and shelter were lacking.” It was highly probable that she did not have another male relative to provide for her needs—no father, son, brother, or even a brother-in-law. Basically, there was no social safety net to capture this poor widow. No social security. No husband’s estate or pension. No pension of her own. She was not like Christy Walton. I actually read this headline this week: “The WalMart heir everyone believed was one of the richest women in America is actually poorer that people thought.” Christy Walton is John Walton’s widow, and she was originally believed to be worth $32 billion dollars. Turns out she’s only worth $5 billion. What a shame. Poorer than people thought, indeed! Definitely not the widow Jesus was referencing. No, I’m afraid we don’t know the value of the two pennies the widow placed in the Temple treasury.

We can’t fully grasp what it meant for her to put in her two cents worth. Jesus calls his disciples together and says ‘truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth but she gave out of her poverty, she put in everything, all she had to live on.’

Jesus knew that these are not just two coins, but the woman’s last two. According to the text, it was all she had to live on. The original Greek word used is ‘bios’ from which we get biology, the study of life. This widow put her whole life into the temple treasury that day. The widow gave 100% of her money. She is down to two worthless little coins and she trusts it all to God, she laid her whole self before God. For the widow, it wasn’t just a matter of giving. It was a matter of going “all-in.” It seems almost reckless to us. It sounds so much like a poor person sending in the last two dollars they have to a television evangelist. We scratch our head and wonder, “Why would they do that?” But, I might suggest it is reckless—reckless trust, and that’s just the type of trust God honors and Christ commends. Her two cents represents total abandon to the Kingdom of God. The widow could easily have retained one of the coins for herself (and we would have called it justifiable). It wouldn’t have been much but it would have been something. Instead, she gave her life. And the call of Jesus to us is the give all we have. That’s a reckless thing to do because we never know where it will lead us, never know what we might be called to do.

For the woman the giving was sacrificial. It’s never the amount given that matters, but the cost to the giver. It’s not the size of the gift but the sacrifice of the gift. I might even suggest that her giving was never about money. It was always about her heart. That’s what she put in the Temple treasury that day—she put her heart. She was totally committed.

A pig and a chicken were walking down the road. As they pass a church, they notice that a potluck charity breakfast was under way. Caught up in the spirit, the pig suggests to the chicken that they each make a contribution.

“Great Idea!” the chicken cried. “Let’s offer them ham and eggs!”

“Not so fast.” said the pig. “For you, that’s just a contribution, but for me, it’s a total commitment.”

Jesus contrasted two different types of people. Those who put a lot in, but their heart wasn’t in the right place. It was more about themselves than about the Kingdom. Then, there was the widow who put all in that day. What a difference!

Today a lot of people categorize church into one of two categories. The first category would be those who ask, “What do I get out of church?” Or, they might ask, “What does the church provide me?” Or, “Does the worship service give me strength and encourage me?” Maybe, “What am I getting when I attend church?”

The second category would be those who ask, “What do I give to church?” I give praise to God in worship. I lead and teach children and youth and adult classes. I serve others whenever I have an opportunity. I use my gifts and talents to organize and plan ministries. I give my financial resources to the local church. I join in a partnership with the larger connection of United Methodist churches around the world. I share my story about what Christ has done for me, and so I’m witnessing my faith to lead others to Christ.

We must be careful which question we find ourselves asking, for therein lies the key to understanding the value of our “two cents.” When we only ask the “what am I getting” question, we come perilously close to being the former in today’s text. Sure, they put in much from their abundance, but there wasn’t much heart in the offering. When we ask the “what am I giving” question, it reflects a heart tuned to the heart of God and to the needs of the world around us.

The truth is: When we’re not getting much out of church, it is most likely we’re not giving much to church. The life of a disciple is one whose heart is “all-in.” The widows “two cents” were everything. I trust my “two cents” will be everything, too.

Someone may ask, “Well what good can I do? I am too old, or too young. I am too poor, or too sick. I have too many children to care for. I am a widow. I am too busy. I am too weak. The job is impossible for me to do. It’s asking too much. What can one person do?”

Martha Berry was a lady with a vision to help children. She had a dream to start a school for poor children in Georgia. When she started she had no books, nor building. More importantly, she had no money. What she did have was a vision of how things could be, and she had a desire to go out and live out that dream. She went to Henry Ford to ask for a donation. Mr. Ford reached into his pocket and gave Martha Berry a dime.

Most people would have been insulted. Seriously, a multi-millionaire, and all he could give her was a dime? But, Martha Berry took that dime and bought a packet of seeds, and she took the seeds and planted a garden, and she raised the crop and sold it and bought more seeds. After three or four harvests she had enough money to purchase an old building for the children. She returned to Mr. Ford and said, “Look what your dime has done.”

Mr. Ford was so impressed that he donated a million dollars to the Martha Berry School for Children.

What is “two cents” worth? Everything. But, then again, that’s just MY  two cents worth!

Until next time, keep looking up…