What is Right and What is Easy

All of this is very fresh and this is my first take, but...

Today the Judicial Council handed-down their decisions related to the Traditional Plan legislation that was passed during the special session of the UMC's General Conference in St. Louis (February 23-26, 2019)--noting that the delegates passed it "... fully cognizant and in spite of its constitutional flaws.”

Seven portions of the legislation were declared, thankfully and expectedly, unconstitutional. We are spared a spiritual KGB and worldwide Magisterium.

However, several pieces were upheld, meaning they will be become church law as of January 1, 2020. With the "center of power and influence" shifting away from North America and Europe, these changes (to my limited way of thinking) are unlikely to be changed by the next regularly scheduled General Conference (May, 2020, in Minneapolis), though certain matters may again be referred to Judicial Council for further rulings.  

Among the matters declared legal, the rulings supporting The Traditional Plan:

1. Expand The Book of Discipline's "chargeable offenses" against clergy (already a long list in Par. 304.3) to include "living in same-sex marriage, domestic partnership, civil union, or public declaration of being gay." (Petition 90032)

2. Affirm an explicit ban on gay bishops, and the prohibition of other bishops consecrating a gay bishop, even if the bishop were elected by a Jurisdictional Conference. (Petition 90036)

3. Mandate that when charges are brought against clergy for matters related to #1 above, or for performing same-sex weddings, the charges cannot be dismissed unless they are unfactual, and strict enforcements are mandated (first offense: a year's suspension without pay; second offense: removal of ministerial credentials). Additionally, candidates for ministry must state their commitment to upholding all the provisions of the Discipline, and must agree that “homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” and that “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” cannot be certified as candidates for ministry, ordained or appointed. (Petitions 90042, 90043 and 90044). Presumably, if they cannot or will not so agree, the candidates, too, will not be certified, ordained or appointed.

4. Allows appeals to past trial verdicts if the verdict demonstrated "egregious errors of church law or administration.”

Thus, there has been a tightening of church laws and the policing of said laws. Among many other collaterals (and the loss of young clergy could be significant), this ruling will further distance the UMC, as it is as of January 1, from our historic UM schools, colleges and universities--and other of our institutions which are pledged to full-inclusion.  The institutional turmoil is only beginning.

While this ruling was not unexpected, it is still disappointing. And, of course, all of it will be challenged again in 2020 by more moderating voices...even as other voices will advocate for yet more tightening of language and consequence. That to say, the next General Conference will in all likelihood see more of the same rancor we saw in St. Louis, more fighting and posturing and self-righteous pontification... unless...

One (or more) "side/s" or the other "disaffiliates." Another of the Judicial Council decisions relates to ways congregations can pull-out.

From the UM News article (the link is below):

In Decision 1379, the Judicial Council reviewed an amended version of Petition 90066, one of the petitions designed to provide “a gracious exit” for local churches that want to leave the denomination... such an exit must meet three minimum requirements:

• Approval of the disaffiliation resolution by a two-thirds majority of the professing members of the local church present and voting at the church conference.
• Establishment of the terms and conditions, including the effective date, of the agreement between the annual conference and the exiting local church by the conference board of trustees in accordance with applicable church law and civil laws.
• Ratification of the disaffiliation agreement by a simple majority of the members of the annual conference present and voting.

Only, it may not come to a piecemeal series of local decisions. There are discussion underway between Traditional Plan advocates (who are not wholly pleased with today's rulings, feeling they do not go far enough) and One Church Plan advocates (who have been nauseous since February) to determine plans of disaffiliation: that congregations, annual conferences, etc, might choose to form separate Methodist Churches, much as we did during the mid-1800's when the issue of slavery was before us. Then, the church split three ways, with two abolitionist wings (The Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Protestant Church), and one wing that--while other issues were certainly at stake--still at least tacitly supported the institution of slavery (The Methodist Episcopal Church, South).

There is talk of a one-to-two division (the two being: support/non-support for same sex marriage and ordination). But there is also talk of a one-to-three division, with the awareness that many current UMs may not be comfortable on either "wing" of advocacy, and want a place in the middle where everyone is welcome, where love and embrace is crucial, but where Christians can find their raison d'etre  in other matters related to Jesus and mission.

At Hawthorne Lane, we will soon need to meet to process what we have heard this week. Of course, we will have to be patient, too. Again, the discussions are just beginning. The terms are clearer now than they were previously. This series of rulings will cause more pain, of course, but at least we know the terms of the discussion.

We have lost a family in recent days that feels HLUMC is too open: they had planned to join, but have realized the UMC as a whole is too far to the "left" of their theological and social convictions (I told them that HLUMC is to the UMC, but they need to be where they need to be). Conversely, and ironically, I know of other families already in our church who are struggling with whether to stay because they feel our Church is too far to the "right," and our congregation playing it too safe: is not engaged enough in "resistance" to the decisions of General Conference. Pity the preachers who are trying to keep their people talking to and not just at/about each other!

And pity the many UMC congregations that have no idea AT ALL what is going on or what it is to come.

In any case, as Dumbledore said to Harry, "The time is coming when we may have to choose between what is right and what is easy." I am both thankful, and sorry, to have to lead us through these next months and years as we determine what is right for us when it comes to living-out "church" in the ways we believe Jesus calls us to at Hawthorne Lane.  

For the UM News report... https://www.umnews.org/en/news/court-oks-part-of-traditional-plan-exit-plan

Pray for the Judicial Council

Just a reminder that the Judicial Council of the UMC begins meeting tomorrow, and much will be decided by that group--perhaps including the future of the UMC as we know it. The Council itself will rule on the constitutionality of many portions of the Traditional Plan passed at the special session of General Conference. The rulings will set the stage for "next steps."

I will be monitoring the rulings as they are announced and will report as I see them.

I encourage you to go to www.umc.org to see for yourself news and commentary around these matters.

Prayers for Our Lady of Paris

Tonight, one of the members of my Monday night beer and Bible study group wondered aloud if it would naturally occur to United Methodists to remember Notre Dame, appropriate for us to pray for the people in Paris--and Catholic Christians around the world-- who are horror-struck and heartsick about the cathedral fire today...

He, like a couple of others in our group, self-identifies as Catholic, but attend our church every Sunday, just about. To a person they such important parts of our congregation.

Of course, it was appropriate. But I am glad he brought it up because, scattered as we are when we first gather, I am not sure it would have naturally occurred to us to mention it. That said, I think we all would have thought of it later...

So we prayed for all who are affected, and know that even as UMs we are affected in as much as we weep with all who weep and rejoice with all who rejoice. In as much as many of us have visited that great cathedral. In as much as when any place of worship is destroyed, it connects us to the Temple, the Jews, our Christian past and the deep spiritual impulses of all people to build to the glory of God and the spiritual (and practical ) truth that what is built with human hands cannot endure. Such weeping tarries for the night and leads us to hope for the Home that is eternal in the heavens.

Which led me to think about this being Holy Week: and the irony or tragedy or tragic irony or ironic tragedy of one of Christianity's most important and iconic cathedrals burning on the day we remember, liturgically, the cleansing of the Temple. In the week when we remember the death (and resurrection) of Jesus.

And the ironic conversion of the French government this "death" may occasion. If unofficially but historically and condescendingly, France is so secular and so anti-religious that, as I understand it, support for the cathedral has been virtually. Today, the French government has pledged to rebuild Notre Dame--and perhaps a part of the determination comes from seeing rank-and-file citizens weeping, wailing, gnashing their teeth as their holy place died. And not just in Paris.

Which is to say, I wonder if this death also gives way to a kind of resurrection? If this tragedy gives rise to a renewed awareness of what alone may last? It was when Jesus died, according to Mark, when the Centurion said, "Surely this man was the Son of God." Could this horrible incident in its own way proclaim the gospel: how for Jesus, and Notre Dame, and each of us and the world, Empire crushes Savior, despair consumes faith, nihilism swallows life... but by God's grace, the power of hope and the Resurrection of Jesus, death itself is swallowed-up in victory and soon, and very soon, death will be no more.

Resurrection comes, in spite of and no thanks to secularity, but on account of the prayers of the people (Philippians 1:19) to awaken even the cultural despisers of religion to the suffering wonder of faith and the beauty, even in death itself, of enduring faithfulness.

A Crisis of Interpretation

You will remember that Jesus once said to a lawyer, “What is written in the Law? How do you read?”

The lawyer had stood to ask Jesus’ which command was greatest in the law.

Not a bad question. Not a bad question at all. In point of fact, all of us at one time or the other, each of maybe now, might wonder the same thing. What is most important to God in how we live? What, among all other things, does God pay most attention to in terms of whether we obey, or do it or don’t?

At least let me say I would sometimes like to know.  

The lawyer was not asking Jesus for information, though. Not really. He was interrogating Jesus. Cross-examining. Trying to set Jesus up.

As would be the case later, though, when he stood before Pontius Pilate, Jesus turned the tables: proved the real Interrogator. He asked the lawyer two questions in turn:

”What is written? How do you read it?”

While we sometimes read the second as a reiteration, or paraphrase of the first, in truth they are very different questions. “What is written” can be stated clearly: is as plain as verses on a page. But how one reads what is written is a whole other matter.

The lawyer answered the first question rightly: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart soul, strength and mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”

Exactly, Jesus said. Do that and you will live.

But “Who is my neighbor?” the lawyer asked. In other words, “How do I read—how am I supposed to understand—that second part?”

“That’s what I asked you,” Jesus as might have said, for that is the deeper question: not just what is written, but how do you read what is written?   

Jesus would have the lawyer not only quote, but interpret.

Look beyond the letter to the spirit; beyond the words on the page to the heart of the Inspirer.

For us, this challenge is this—call it a crisis of interpretation: trying to figure out how both to love God with all our hearts, soul, strength and mind, and simultaneously how to love our neighbors (and for the moment, especially, our LGBTQI+ neighbors) as we love ourselves (or, better, as Jesus loves them).

+ + +

Those two questions continue to interrogate me, and they interrogate us as United Methodists  as we continue to negotiate the aftershocks of the Special General Conference in St. Louis. The subtext seems to be that whoever rightly interprets what is written, they will find themselves near to the heart of God, and not far from the Kingdom of God.

For some, loving God, first and foremost means adhering to a traditional understanding of oft-cited biblical texts (Leviticus 18:22, for instance; or Romans 1, or even Acts 15 where “acts of immorality” are equated, one-for-one, with homosexual practice). And if allegiance to that historic interpretation of what is written means we can’t bless or welcome (or marry or ordain) LGBTQI+ folk, then we will sacrifice the second great commandment for the sake of the first.

That, or claim that to love the neighbor means they have to change or repent or forego.

For others, love of neighbor means embracing emerging understandings of persons and relationships, celebrating the non-traditional as a way of affirming the ongoing and creative work of the Holy Spirit. And if that means setting aside certain scriptures or overturning traditional positions of the church, then we will sacrifice legal and traditional renderings for the sake of neighbor-love.

The positions seem intractable: this way of loving neighbor has to discount allegiance to scripture; this way of interpreting scripture mitigates love of neighbor.

I sympathize. I do not want to offend God disregarding the Word. But I do not want to think the Word is defined, qualified, by an isolated verse, or even scattered verses offered staccato and understood discreetly according to our personal lexicon—a verse here or there to define God or what is most important to God.  

Increasingly, I think that to obey God’s first and greatest commandment is honor the sweep and scope of God’s gracious hospitality and welcome—the ever-widening circle of God’s desire for justice and mercy—and then apply that back to discreet situations and moments in our lives and ministries.

And it is odd, I think, how so many preachers latch onto one thing as if that is the only thing. How even the legalists and fundamentalists among us would decry the legalism and fundamentalism of the Rabbis and Priests and never seem to see the contradiction of their own position.

Odd, too, that even among traditionalists accommodation is made for divorce and even polygamy (about which Jesus spoke plainly), and for women preachers (which, according to traditional interpretation of isolated texts, are disallowed), and for the abolition of slavery (which scripture never advocates but just moves on, as if to say those old categories no longer apply)…  we might say that the church has invoked, formally or informally, the “binding and loosing” power granted to it in these matters; so why not with LGBTQI+ matters? In other words, why do people get stuck here?

Fr. Rohr says that it may relate to “shadow material”: that those who spend too much time and energy on any one thing  may be saying more about themselves than others.  (remember your Shakespeare? “Me thinketh thou protesteth too much”) I have no idea. Just wonder why this issue, unlike so many other relational, sexual, ethical issues, are such quicksand.

In St. Louis, the pastor of a large UM church in LA would not even talk to me about these matters. He quoted Acts 15 as the final word. I wanted to talk about the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) in light of Deuteronomy 23:1-3; Leviticus 21:18-20 and Isaiah 56:1-8.

There is more to the text than “acts of immorality” in Acts 15, and two of the three “prohibitions” we do not enforce; could call null in light of grace. So why the other?

That is the crisis of interpretation… not just what is written, for as Barbara Brown Taylor has long maintained, for every in scripture there is a not saying, an alternative reading or interpretation. The Spirit tells Philip to do what the Law did not allow: join a eunuch for spiritual conversation. AND BAPTIZE HIM—there was no reason to prevent the eunuch from being baptized, though there had been ample reason under the written words of the law to exclude him.

I could recall the story of Cornelius: Do not call unclean what God has called clean. I could mention Peter saying to the legalists in Jerusalem, “If therefore God gave them the same gift as he gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” (Acts 11:16-17, NKJV).  I could expound any of the texts cited above.

But as Tom Long said, long years ago, “It is not enough to know the words of Scripture. What is crucial is knowing the heart of the One who inspired it.” And the way to know God’s heart is to know Jesus’s heart—who always drew circles and never lines; who always welcomed in the other (and even the judgmental others!); whose harshest judgments were always upon those who “tithed the mint and the cumin, but ignored the greater matters of justice and mercy.”