http://www.flickr.com/photos/hebe/2875219582/in/photostream/

The United Methodist Church has no Pope. Our last individual in charge of everything was John Wesley, our founder. When he died, his authority was delegated to some Bishops. And then some regional entities. And eventually, some national entities that became global entities.

But all the while, the primary characterization of the UMC is that it has no head. The top bodies of the UMC are the connectional glue that hold disparate areas together, structured much like the United States government. General Conference serves as the Legislative Branch, creating doctrine and polity. The general boards and Bishops serve as the executive branch, putting into action the will of General Conference. The Judicial Council serves as the…well, judicial branch, ensuring the constitutionality of General Conference’s doctrines. So everything works together even though there’s not a single person at the head, creating the narrative for the United Methodist Church from the top-down.

However, in recent months, this delicate balance is being undone because of issues at the bottom-up side of the connection.

First, Cokesbury bookstores were closed in the past few months. While deeply flawed as a business, they served an important function for the laity. Laity could walk in and learn something, they could look at curriculum, peruse (most) of the books that were not outright Calvinism, and get a good exposure to United Methodist polity and practice. Now, the bookstores are gone, and the only business model is traveling salespeople that attend to both churches and regional gatherings…in other words, focused on pastors and staff, not the average layperson. So the effect is that the laity will have less exposure to United Methodist teachings outside of their local church.

Second, this week the United Methodist Reporter is shutting its doors, closing the book on an institution since the 1840s. Here’s the UMR writeup and a Christian Post article. The UMR had editorial independence from the mothership, so the articles were a good source of varieties of perspectives. Most importantly, the voices were not the Hamiltons, Slaughters, or Bishops…they had tons of articles by young adults, especially young clergy. They were a strong champion of a plurality of voices that perhaps didn’t fit the narratives by the mothership communications. So the effect is that laity will have less exposure to the variety of voices within the UMC.

The unintended but definite effect of these twin actions is that there’s no longer an unofficial forum with authority in the United Methodist Church. Sure, there are bloggers, each with their own slant and tribe. There are regional newspapers from various conferences. There’s even UM-Insight, which is a helpful distribution channel but with a particular slant. In short, clearinghouses of varieties of perspectives, easily accessible to the laity, are more or less dried up.  [[update: Cynthia Astle of UM-Insight responds in the comments]]

Or are they?

The truth is that there are entities with strong distribution networks of the United Methodist voices and perspectives and with strong respectability/tribal followings.

• Church of the Resurrection has media distribution networks for Adam Hamilton studies, is multi-site and online, and will soon house a seminary (St. Pauls)
• Ginghamsburg Church has media distribution networks for the Michael Slaughter books and is multi-site.
• Grace UMC is multi-site and Jorge Acevado has a strong presence in southern Florida.
• The Woodlands UMC in Houston houses the brain trust of the Confessing Movement and will continue with their promotion of that longtime caucus group.
• Caucus networks of supporters for RMN, MFSA, Good News, etc will continue their promotion of their causes within the United Methodist Church via their strong distribution networks.
• The IRD has their bridge that they lurk under, trolling all who pass within reach.
• Even official United Methodist groups like United Methodist Women and United Methodist Men (well, until the BSA snafu) maintain a strong following within individual churches and may have more influence than the rest above! Who knows!

In short, without the Cokesbury/UMReporter, we not longer have the connectional glue which introduced the average laity to the variety of voices within the UMC in ways that catalogs and news aggregates could not.

Instead, what I believe we will rapidly have are distributed allegiances to particular geographic megachurches or cults of personality because of their already strong distribution networks. These allegiances will exacerbate the findings of the Call To Action that distrust in official Methodist entities is already too high, leading to reliance on these more local/more theologically aligned sources of authority within the UMC. We may end up with Hamilton Methodists, Acevado Methodists, etc…more shaped by individual, uh, men, than any elected leader or theologian.

I’d like to think that maybe it’s okay.

For our connectional church that has strong regional variances, perhaps it is okay that we decentralize “what makes us Methodist.” Maybe it will teach more folks that a decentralized polity and missional expression would be good for the church.

But in the meantime, I wonder what might happen. Because from my perspective, these twin losses will exacerbate the gulf between the leadership and the laity and strengthen the powers of those with already strong distribution networks, becoming even more of an echo-chamber to their geographies or constituencies. And some of those powers scare me when I wonder what United Methodism might become if one of these distributed channels wins out overall…

Thoughts?

Thanks for reading, and considering this a reliance, if opinionated, source of what Methodism is or can be.

My nitpick addresses the release of the Common English Bible’s Study Bible. The CEB was launched with much fanfare by the United Methodist Publishing House and Cokesbury–little wonder, because a new translation is like printing money for a publishing house–and is soon to be put into a study bible form.

The CEB has a sample PDF out on the Gospel of Mark (issuu here). So just like always ordering enchiladas at a new Mexican restaurant, I turned to my tried and true passage that I adore for its complexity: the healing of the Gerasene Demoniac in Mark 5. There’s a textual nuance there that I wanted to see if they framed “correctly” (quotes meaning my interpretation, of course).

Here’s the passage in the Common English Bible (5:14-16):

People came to see what had happened. They came to Jesus and saw the man who used to be demon-possessed. They saw the very man who had been filled with many demons sitting there fully dressed and completely sane, and they were filled with awe. Those who had actually seen what had happened to the demon-possessed man told the others about the pigs. Then they pleaded with Jesus to leave their region.

So the test comes at the bottom of the page, where for this passage the Common English Study Bible has this commentary:

5:15 filled with awe: or they feared. The people’s response to Jesus’ throwing out the demons is the same as the disciples’ response to Jesus’ power over the wind and sea (see Mark 4:41).

You see my problem? The text reads that the people were not in awe of Jesus throwing out the demons.  They were in awe of seeing the Demoniac sitting normally and in his right mind. The awe was at the Demoniac, not at Jesus’ action. They are told of Jesus’ action in the very next line, and their response is to ask him to leave. No “awe” there.

Thankfully, my church’s library is by far the best church library I’ve ever seen, curated by a five-person committee every week. Really! So a brief trip there yielded three other Study Bibles that directly address this passage (many other study bibles do not, sadly):

The Discipleship Study Bible:

5:15 Afraid The people  do not trust this new circumstance of wholeness; they fear the disruptive power that brought it about. Change is threatening, even change for the better.

The Harper-Collins Study Bible:

5:15 They were afraid: either awestruck in the presence of the supernatural or fearful of Jesus’ power .

The Oxford Annotated Bible (4th Edition):

14-17 They feared: the people were apprehensive that Jesus had disrupted their delicately balanced adjustment to the alien possession.

You see the difference? The purpose of a Study Bible is to offer background when there’s support, and open-ended commentary when there is nuance. For the Harper-Collins and the Oxford, they recognize the “awe”  as directed towards the situation not Jesus directly. The Discipleship study bible gets it most accurately, in my opinion, because the “awe” is at the man not Jesus.

It’s a nitpicky line, but one of those distinctions that I look for. I’m not saying “Don’t buy this book” but I do want to caution against study resources that miss little nuances like this. Again, in my opinion.

Thoughts?

We must love them both, those with whom we agree, and those with whom we disagree. For both have labored in the search of truth, and both have helped in the finding of it.

~ Saint Thomas Aquinas

Every year after General Conference, the topic comes up again: schism, or amicable separation, will solve our church debates over the inclusion of LGBT people in the life of the church. It’s a popular topic and comes in like the tide for two years after GCs and then goes out about 2 years before GCs. Given it has been a year since the last GC, we are right on track to keep talking about it.

Schism is a popular topic here at Hacking Christianity too. Since 2008, our assertion for the United Methodist Church has always come down on the negative: Schism won’t solve our church problems. To facilitate and not repeat ourselves, here’s a top ten list of reasons (and blog posts) why Schism doesn’t (and won’t) solve problems within the United Methodist Church.

1. Schism assumes the problems before us are intractable and unsolvable, which is an unfaithful response to the Holy Spirit. There is no problem too big for the Holy Spirit and faithful Christians. 
   • 2013 article: “Reply to Ted Campbell RE: Schism“
2. Schism will NOT end ecclesial discrimination against LGBT people–it just leaves future generations having to deal with the same issue. While gridlock and injustice are part of our current system, they are more destructive if they are given the ability to run free.
   • 2012 article: “About that UMReporter Article…“
3. Schism creates echo-chambers of like-minded churches who just grow more and more extreme in their unopposed views. Better is for two sides to remain in the family together to moderate the other side towards a holistic approach.
   • 2008 article: “Why Connectionalism Matters
4. Schism negates to honor the reality is that our UMC functions with wide diversity already. There is a tension between chaos and control–schism removes that tension and allows both to run rampant instead of the Holy Spirit guiding us towards a better third way together.
   • 2012 article: “Is the UMC the Rebellion or the Empire?“
5. Schism is a false hope that a more perfect church can be created by cutting out dissension. While we are called to be onward towards perfection, the idea that a split creates a more perfect/less perfect dichotomy is false.
   • 2008 article: “My Church Isn’t Perfect“
6. Schism FAILS every point of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral–including Scripture, for you Wesleyan Originalists out there. While amicable separation can seem tempting, it doesn’t pass the Methodist smell test.
   • 2012 article: “You need a left wing and a right wing to fly“
7. Schism seeks to end the tension between doctrinal purity and missional relevance, but fails. There can be space in the UMC for both those who place doctrine above the human condition and those who place the human condition above doctrine.
   • 2009 article: “Two Track Methodism: Doctrinal and Missional“
8. Schism over HUGE theological debates such as Just War Theory hasn’t happened…why can’t it have a Just Sexuality Theory model as well? While the article below is old and has some valid criticisms, I do think it is an interesting parallel.
   • 2010 article: “From Just War to Just Sexuality?”
9. Schism fails to recognize logical, reasoned, and biblically-grounded ways to be a unity in diversity. Neither side has a lock on biblical and spiritual guidance for the church.
   • 2012 article: “You need two wings and understanding to fly“
10. Schism has not solved our historical issues–but mergers have. In our church’s history, social questions about African-American and female clergy have been solved by mergers, not by schisms. Really!
    • 2012 article: “Schism? Please. Mergers actually solve church problems“

This blog’s stance against schism puts us at odds with both Traditionalists who want to carve out dissenters and Progressives who want to end ecclesial discrimination. But our motives are the same: we all want change and we want it to come more quickly than it is. Schism may solve problems quickly, but it is a band-aid not a systematic regimen. It papers over our issues with different names instead of addressing root issues. It grants space for novel forms of ministry, but removes common resources to make those novel forms more replicable and adaptive. In short, schism ghettoizes a church that may be the world’s best chance to model what diversity without enmity might look like. 

But let us be clear: opposition to schism does not mean support of the status quo. While the status quo justifies an unjust system, this blog has actively worked to create better systems and to think out what better ways of life together might be helpful. What a church with a uniform mission but a diverse way of living out that mission might look like. While unity is a shallow altar and ought not define what our obedience to the Gospel looks like, taking our toys and going home doesn’t solve it either. Better to be pragmatic and do the discernment together. The status quo is a failed model, and it is our hope that a new common model of ministry and mission will emerge–not in spite of tension, but through it.

Thoughts? Thanks to those of you also participating in our synchblog today!

Earlier this week, I had the pleasure of hanging out with a church planter who does lots of missional church behind-the-scenes work: getting to know the community, the people, the needs, and the aspirations…and allowing those factors to dictate what the church looks like.

And what she told me shocked me.

She told me of a conversation with the pastor of an evangelical church plant in Portland–the heart of the None Zone and one of the cities with the lowest rates of Christian attendance–who said that his congregation recites the Apostle’s Creed every Sunday.

I was like…what?

That’s a mainline church thing. That’s a stuffy Frozen Chosen thing to do. Saying the Creed, being high liturgy. Why would they do it?

The pastor replied that “Saying the Creed is freeing.”

What? Freeing? Excuse me, Mister Pastor Person, you realize that the Creed is Creedal, as in you are giving you assent to the beliefs in the Creed. How is that freeing?

He said that for his congregation, most are post-evangelical: people who have left evangelical traditions with their intricate moral codes and expectations for one reason or another.

So when his church says the Creed, they are saying “This is IT. This is ALL there is. Outside of the 10 Commandments and the Great Commandment, this is all you have to believe.”

And in its simplicity–especially for post-evangelicals who are used to rigorous expectations and serpentine moral structures such as at Mars Hill–the Creed can be freeing indeed.

Two thoughts in response:

1. I wonder if when I look at church websites and they have page after page of “Beliefs” in the belief section if they aren’t turning these same type of people away.
2. I also wonder if in the worship context if the beliefs we espouse are framed as freeing not restrictive? Are they obligatory or emancipatory? Are they squeezing people’s minds or are they giving voice to that beyond ourselves?

I’m not sure.

Musing for today…thoughts?

This blog will be participating in responding to the question “Is Schism the best future for the UMC? Why / Why not?”

From my previous blog posts, you can guess my response. But come check it out on Monday. See you then.

If you want to join in the synchblog, here’s the details at the DreamUMC website.

You may have heard of Rev. Dr. Thomas Ogletree. He’s kind of a Methodist statesman. He was the dean of Yale Divinity School and Drew Divinity School. He’s written tons of books and articles. He wrote the section in our Book of Discipline on the Quadrilateral. In short, he’s taught and lived Christian Ethics for his entire life and few people have the breadth and depth of knowledge about working within and without a religious system than Ogletree does.

And out of that Christian ethic, he has chosen to violate the doctrine and polity of the United Methodist Church. Last October, Ogletree officiated at the wedding of his son to his longtime partner, which is in violation of the rules that clergy share.

The New York Times has a great short article for context about Ogletree and the trial.

Dr. Ogletree, 79, is now facing a possible canonical trial for his action, accused by several New York United Methodist ministers of violating church rules. While he would not be the first United Methodist minister to face discipline for performing a same-sex wedding, he could well be the one with the highest profile. He is a retired dean of Yale Divinity School, a veteran of the nation’s civil rights struggles and a scholar of the very type of ethical issues he is now confronting.

“Sometimes, when what is officially the law is wrong, you try to get the law changed,” Dr. Ogletree, a native of Birmingham, Ala., said in a courtly Southern drawl over a recent lunch at Yale, where he remains an emeritus professor of theological ethics. “But if you can’t, you break it.”

While every clergy trial is a terrible terrible thing, I suspect this will be kind of like the trial of Dumbledore and Harry Potter before the Ministry of Magic. Did Harry use magic outside of the rules? Yes. But why? And was it okay? Or were there other forces at work? Such questions will be had at Ogletree’s trial and it will be fascinating to see whom the prosecution pairs with a theological titan like Ogletree.

For an example of the type of argument Ogletree is capable of, he wrote an article on Reconciling Ministries Network that I’m still trying to wrap my head around.

I am deeply grateful, moreover, for the opening section of The Book of Discipline, which reminds us of serious flaws and shortcomings manifest in the larger history of Methodism.  Shortcomings specifically listed include our previous accommodation of racial segregation by establishing a race-based Central Jurisdiction, and our extended denial of ordination rights and prominent leadership roles for women.   These unjust practices were by no means easily addressed or overcome.  Indeed, the struggles to eliminate them generated serious conflicts within the church, conflicts that were only resolved by persistent efforts to press for more just and inclusive church practices.

Indeed, such practices were based originally on a few lines in the Bible, and then over time the Methodist church chose to go a different way–to our benefit. Ogletree expounds:

I fully embrace the basic theological commitments that undergird the mission of The United Methodist Church.  Indeed, I had the honor to play a role in drafting the section on “Our Theological Task” (par. 104, Part II of the Discipline, “Doctrinal Standards and Our Theological Task”).  Drawing upon John Wesley’s teachings, this section emphasizes the priority of biblical authority, and it underscores as well the indispensable roles of tradition, reason, and experience in informing our efforts to comprehend and appropriate the biblical witness.  These principles are clearly incompatible with attempts to settle complex theological and ethical issues by “proof texting,” i.e., the citation of carefully selected biblical texts that allegedly provide definitive resolutions of particular issues.  The self-conscious inclusion of tradition, reason, and experience in our critical engagements with biblical resources actually deepens our discernment of the profound, life-transforming promises of the gospel message.

Just as secular court cases take a single instance and extrapolate it for other instances, I wonder how far-reaching of effects a church trial like this will have on the burgeoning movement to remove the Quadrilateral from our polity and doctrine. But that’s for another blog post…

In the meantime, it hurts my heart when our church’s judicial process becomes front and center to the news rather than our mission, ministry, outreach, and witness to the world. May that witness to the world be made evident in our church trial and that the world can see our unity in diversity on display in life-giving ways.  We’ll be watching this one closely.

My challenge to readers: While any blog post on LGBT issues in the UMC brings out the snakes, let me posit a direct question:

• What is your understanding of Christian Ethics? How would you define it?
• Is it adherence to the community’s rules or to your own sense of yourself? Or is it both?
• What circumstances would it be allowable for a person to violate church law due to their Christian ethic?

Discuss!

It’s funny but Mormon theology does give an intricate backstory to a question that isn’t strongly addressed in the Bible:

Where were our Souls before they became part of us?

Do our souls exist in Heaven and come down and enter our bodies, or are they intrinsic to human reproduction or does part of God get torn off and become part of us?

I was asked this question recently and I didn’t really have a well-reasoned response. So what’s your take?

• Do souls exist before they become part of a human? “Do they have particularity?” is the theological term.
• Do souls not exist before they become part of a human?
• Did God give us a soul in Adam/Eve and thus that same soul is multiplied in every birth since?

Or is the entire exercise pointless because I don’t have a proper definition of “the soul?”

Thoughts?

Excellent! May the Fourth Be With You…tomorrow!

Last week I posted the first in a series of posts in the “Young Clergy Exodus” from the United Methodist Church. It was spurred by a 48 hour period in which I found out four young clergypersons were leaving ordained ministry. I’ve written about young clergy issues a lot, so needless to say I was dismayed by the turn of events.

So I created a survey, put it out there, and it was picked up by some of the UMC news organizations, young clergy networks, and a host of Facebook friends.

So it is with a somber heart that I report that 128 people have filled out the young clergy survey. Somber that there are that many, and that I know even more wait in the wings.

In addition, eight people have contacted me who haven’t filled out a survey but have told/will tell their stories in different ways. So in reality, 136 people have responded. When you add in the 14 people in my life whom I know have left ordained ministry and who I haven’t approached about filling out the survey, we start to hit 150 people that I know will respond.

Here’s the breakdown so far of young adults filling out this survey:

• 21 were ordained/commissioned clergy or local pastors that left the ministry process.
• 45 were laity seeking ordination that stopped the ordination process.
• 10 were laity that opted to not seek ordination at all.
• 31 are current ordained/commissioned clergy or local pastors that are considering leaving ordained ministry.
• 21 are laity seeking ordination that are considering leaving the ordination process.

There’s terrible stories and mundane “life happens” stories. There’s stories of hope and stories of deep deep bitterness. There’s LGBT people who have left ministry and those who remain in but are unsure. While these are self-reported stories and the facts may not match memories, this isn’t a professional peer-reviewed survey and it shouldn’t be noted as such. The testimonies are what are most important, in my opinion.

I’ll be running the survey for two more weeks until May 15th. If there’s someone in your life whom you know would be able to fill out this survey, please let them know before then.

Thanks for sharing.

Photo by katherynmoranphotography.com

Because I have a blog and a cute baby…

===

We had a photography session gifted to us by some friends with Katheryn Moran Photography, located in the Pacific Northwest. Katy is a terrific and child-adoring photographer.

• Website: http://www.katherynmoranphotography.com/
• Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/KatherynMoranPhotography