This coming Monday, Oklahoma has their Annual Conference, a gathering of about 1,000 United Methodist clergy and laity in Oklahoma City. Only once a year is a concentrated group of United Methodists gathered together on this scale in Oklahoma City. While many come from areas affected by tornado activity the past week, the majority come from areas not affected by the tornadoes.

The theme is Mission:Possible for the week with a thumbprint through the “im” part of “im-possible.” Clearly a reflection on the can-do attitude of United Methodism in Oklahoma that we are known for in our mission, ministry, and work together. I’m a member of the Oklahoma conference (serving in Portland, Oregon), so I’ll be in attendance and I’m looking forward to a great few days to be in fellowship and be inspired on our mission together.

But on reflection to that term “mission” my musing today is this:

Wouldn’t it be truly missional
to cancel Annual Conference entirely for one day
and send the delegates out to do relief efforts?

I’m quite serious about this. A week after the storms, we will have just under 1,000 people sitting less than 15 miles away from Moore, the site of much devastation this past week. Such a ready base of helpful and hospitable Methodists is too good an opportunity to pass up!

And the amazing thing? We are already halfway there!

OK has mission opportunities for the afternoon on Wednesday on the schedule to visit a dozen sites and do mission work in the Oklahoma City area. So really all I’m asking is for Wednesday all day to be dedicated toward relief efforts (and we can gather for the Ordination service that night as evening light fades).

I’ve thought of some limitations to this idea and here’s some responses to those concerns:

1. Disaster Response is for professionals: While everyone wants to drop everything and self-deploy themselves with a hammer to a disaster situation, the truth is that fewer trained professionals can do more work safer. This applies to the first 72 hours of a relief effort. However, after that time window and avenues of support have been created, then untrained volunteers can do the grunt work of cleaning, clearing, and hauling debris away. For the able-bodied delegates, being told where to go and clean up is a reasonable effort.
2. Physical Abilities: Annual Conference delegates tend to be senior adults. While there’s good numbers of young adults chosen as delegates (from my own church, our delegates for 2 outta 3 years were both under 30), some senior adults may not have the physical abilities to do recovery work. However they can line the street leading into Moore and pray. Or wander the depot sites praying with folks.
3. Pre-registrations: The Annual Conference had planned to spread out and visit almost a dozen sites on Wednesday afternoon. Certainly those ministries would be disappointed if the Methodists didn’t come. However, everyone is in adapting mode right now and it would be my guess that the help needs to be funneled towards the Tornado victims.

I will readily admit that those three limitations fall far short of the biggest one: People love to give presentations. That Wednesday morning session is dedicated to hearing reports from the various ministry areas, many of which I love to hear from (CJAMM!!!).

But wouldn’t it be great–leading the church–if some of the more administrative areas might elect to do theirs as a video or written report instead of taking up conference time? Giving up their podium so that we might serve others? Giving up the moment in the limelight–and I’ve twice stood in front of OK Annual Conference at that podium, I know how it feels–is a hard choice to make, but one I’m confident if given the opportunity that the space would be made.

Keep in mind: I am one of those hapless people that loves Annual Conference. I love connectionalism (and promote it fiercely on this blog) and these times together are rare and precious indeed. But I worry that if we are simply talking the talk and not walking the walk that it will leave many Methodists (and many outsiders) with a question as to whether we can walk and talk at the same time.

Thoughts?

Feel free to pass onto the Annual Conference leadership and be in prayer for them as they seek to address this disaster situation in faithful ways.

Further action:

• Visit UMCOR for ways to volunteer and support.
• Text ‘RESPONSE’ to 80888 to give $10 to the United Methodist Committee on Relief.

As stories of devastation emerge from Moore, Oklahoma, and the surrounding areas hit by the Tornadoes on May 20th, while first responders and support networks continue their recovery work, while families await knowledge of the fate of their homes or loved ones, while people who are not there read and watch in horror…there’s also a group of clergy who are looking towards Sunday and how to provide a solid word of hope and resurrection in a time of pain.

Attached is a repost of “Children’s Sermons RE: Haiti” back when the earthquake occurred and Children’s Sermons RE: Newtown after the school shooting. I write this for clergy/children’s ministers who choose to confront and talk about the disaster which involved several schools being destroyed and many children losing their lives (although some may choose not to talk about it as parents tend to shield their children from the news…and for those parents, look at #3 as it is more vague).

For those who want more professional takes on working with children and trauma, the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial website has really extensive resources. Check it out.

Note: they are written verbatim in my personal voice which may/may not be yours. Feel free to adapt accordingly.

#1 Focus on expressed coping behavior of crying:

“You know what, I’ve been crying a lot this week. Anyone else cry alot? What about? [responses] Now one of you said the school, what happened there?  I can understand crying then. I cried too about Moore. I cried so much my tummy hurts, anyone else ever cried so hard their tummy hurt? Now what about God…does God cry? Do you think this made God sad? I bet it did. Can you think of any other time when God cries? [responses] I think God cries anytime people are suffering or hurting or have lost a loved one. Jesus cried when he lost his friend Lazarus. I think Jesus cried (a) because his heart hurt too (b) but also to remind us that God cries and is hurt whenever we are. So its OK to cry or have friends that cry this week, because we believe God cries with us. So maybe you can be good friends this week to your friends who are hurting, cry with them, because that’s what Jesus did with us. Let’s pray…”

#2 Focus on expressed questions of theodicy:

“I’ve been thinking alot about superheroes this week. Who are some superheroes from comics or movies? [responses] now, do they really exist? No, they do in our imagination, right? But what about us, is there anyone in our lives who is like a superhero? [responses] When I was your age, I thought my [dad, mom, grandma, teacher] was a superhero. S/he could do anything, if there was a cup on the top cupboard s/he could get it, if there was a car, s/he could drive it. Now, are those superhero superpowers? No, pretty silly huh?  I think there’s a reason why we pray to Father God, Mother God, Parent God and not SuperGod or BatGod…because God is more like a loving parent than a superhero. Superheroes stop bad things from happening, right? What bad thing happened this week in Oklahoma? Yes, a lot of children were hurt. If we believed in SuperGod, SuperGod could have stopped it with x-ray vision or superspideystrength, right? But we believe God is more like a parent, and what do parents do? When I cut my knee riding a bike, what did my [parent/whoever] do? They held me and bandaged my booboo. I think God is like a parent right now holding every person in Oklahoma, every person here with family or friends in Moore, and all of us who are scared right now God is holding us and here with us. Does that feel good to you to know God is holding us right now? Maybe squeeze yourself really really tight? [squeeze!] God is even closer than that squeeze and God will never leave you alone. Let’s pray…”

#3 Focus on expressed emotion of fear:

“I have a secret to tell you. I’m afraid of the dark sometimes. Are you afraid of it sometimes too? And sometimes during the Winter, it gets dark at 4pm, doesn’t it? Has anyone noticed that every night it seems to stay lighter longer and longer? In Spring, the nights get shorter and shorter and still dark (but dark for not as long) until we reach summertime when we have really sunny days, right? It makes me feel better because there are more sunny days ahead than dark days. So even when there are really dark days when I am sad and afraid (and I was really sad and afraid when I read about Moore and the tornadoes), I know that I don’t need to be afraid because there are more good days ahead than bad days. So let’s make a deal. I will pray for you whenever you are afraid, and you pray for me whenever I am afraid. Can we do that? Great. Let’s pray…”

#4 Focus on people who help others and Mister Rogers (always a sure thing):

“I want to tell you about a friend of mine. He used to be on TV, and he really wasn’t my friend, but I thought of him like a friend. His name was Mister Rogers. Do any of you know Mister Rogers? Whenever I would see him, he would be coming in the door singing a song, and he would put on his sweater and his shoes. He was really nice. And whenever I was afraid when I was a kid, I would turn on the TV and watch Mister Rogers because he made me feel comfortable. In fact, he has a quote that I want to share with you, this is something he said one day. He was talking about being scared and he said this “When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, “Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.” To this day, especially in times of “disaster,” I remember my mother’s words and I am always comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers – so many caring people in this world.” This made me feel better as I was really sad and scared this past week. Have you ever been sad? Have you ever been scared? Well Mister Rogers wants you to know that when someone is having a bad day, there are always helpers close by. Whenever you are bullied at school or someone makes fun of you or maybe worse than that, there are always helpers around, people who you can talk to and get help. And we should pray that wherever there are really bad days, and there were several this past week, that those people who had really bad days know there are helpers there to help those people having bad days have better ones. Can we pray for the helpers today and for those who are scared? Let’s pray…”

Thoughts/reflections/other children’s sermons to share? I hope these are helpful to someone…

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!