Author: Teddy Ray

How the UMC Divides

Most people now think some sort of divide in the UMC is inevitable. Tom Berlin shared this helpful illustration about our differences––attributed to Tom Lambrecht. It shows two groups who are “non-compatible” with the other’s stance on same-sex marriage. Their positions are so opposed that they cannot find any covenant both sides would agree to and keep.

from http://revtomberlin.com/church-vitality/#sthash.6KAWMFae.7RLszL8M.dpbs

Chris Ritter improved on that illustration in a recent post to show the relative size of each group.

from https://peopleneedjesus.net/2017/05/08/why-are-traditionalist-compatiblists-so-hard-to-find/

First, let’s ask whether Ritter and Berlin are right––these groups can’t all remain united. I think they are. Mainly because I’ve interacted with non-compatibilists on both sides. I know the pastors and church members who will leave any Church communion that endorses same-sex marriage, on paper or in practice, nearby or afar (i.e. what happens in California affects Kentucky). And I know the pastors and church members who will leave any communion that prevents them from endorsing same-sex marriage.

Unless I’m wrong about this, our Commission on a Way Forward will not find a way to keep us all united. Some divide must occur.

The question: where and how do we draw the lines?

The illustration above helps us see our current crisis. However, I think it leads us to the wrong conclusions when we start talking about drawing lines. We assume that if we’re headed toward inevitable schism, the line must cut according to these divisions––we’re going to divide over same-sex marriage.

I want to suggest a different way of looking at our current situation, not according to same-sex marriage (alone) but according to covenant.

“Covenant” in the UMC may sound like a shibboleth for conservative / traditionalist right now. Especially given the name and emphasis of the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA). But note that there are sugar packets on both sides here.

This is where some “conservative / traditionalist” repentance is in order. I offer this as someone who tends to identify more closely with the UMC’s “conservative” crowd. I hosted Bill Arnold’s guest post about the initial WCA meeting. I teach and affirm the UMC’s current positions on human sexuality. So I offer this critique of the UMC’s more conservative wing from the inside:

  1. Traditionalists have gotten serious about human sexuality far too late, and still leave some question about whether we’re concerned about human sexuality or only gay sex.[1] Many of our churches have allowed unmarried, sexually active heterosexuals to become members, leaders and staff members while denying the same to sexually active homosexuals, or in some cases, even celibate homosexuals![2] This reveals an incomplete and incoherent (or merely homophobic) theology of human sexuality. We must develop and practice a more robust theology of human sexuality.
  2. We have gotten serious about covenant far too late, and in an incomplete way. Some progressives have asked me why covenant-keeping has become so important to conservatives now, when they’ve never seen outrage about our several churches and pastors who practice re-baptism, “remembrance of baptism” by full immersion, or infant dedications with believer’s baptism. All of these are flagrant violations of our covenant.[3] If we’re going to get upset about flagrant covenant-breaking, it has to be about all flagrant covenant-breaking.
  3. We have suggested that traditionalists “believe the Bible” and progressives don’t. That’s unfair. I’ve been on the other side of that argument with Calvinists, believer’s baptism folks, and people who won’t ordain women. (“You let women preach? Oh, my church follows the Bible…”) We have to engage in more serious conversations about exegesis, not straw man take-downs.
  4. Some of us have withheld our apportionments as a sign of protest. That’s not the way to protest.

Our tendency is to acknowledge our “small” faults, but then to point out how much more the other side is at fault. I’ve never had a conflict move toward resolution by trying to point out that the other person was 80% of the problem. I don’t know the percentages here, but there’s enough blame to go around. No need to identify who’s more at fault.

Getting serious about covenant

With all of that, I want to suggest that it’s time for us all to repent, forgive, and get serious about our UMC covenant––all of it.

We need to offer full forgiveness to all who have broken that covenant in the past.

We need to ask which churches and pastors will find it impossible to abide our covenant going forward.

We need to offer them a gracious, graceful exit. This is not far different from what Bill Arnold and David Watson were proposing a few years ago (the A&W plan, as it was called). If you must leave, take your property and your pension with you. Some of our general boards and agencies may even find a way to continue to work in partnership with you, should you choose.

The major difference between this suggestion and the A&W plan: it’s not just about same-sex marriage. It’s about the whole covenant. Can you abide, or can you not?

Some of the most likely areas we’ll need to discuss:

      • Baptism practices. Will you need to break covenant to re-baptize someone, to perform an infant dedication, or to recommend believers’ baptism?[4]
      • United Methodist doctrine. Contrary to popular opinion, we have a clear set of doctrinal beliefs. Can you affirm and teach Trinitarian faith? The historical, bodily resurrection of Christ? Free grace on offer to all people (i.e. you’re not a Calvinist)? The Bible as the true rule and guide for faith and practice?[5]
      • Women in ministry. Can you support full clergy rights for women?[6]
      • Same-sex marriage. Will you need to break covenant to perform or live in a same-sex marriage?
      • Itineracy. If you vow to go wherever the Bishop may send you, can you keep that vow?
      • General Conference. Above all, you’re agreeing to live and minister according to the decisions of our General Conference.

These questions do not ask for full agreement, only obedience.

I have friends who believe we should re-think baptism, others who believe we should re-think same-sex marriage. But they’re willing to live within our current UMC covenant. I believe we need to re-think ordination and itineracy. But I’m willing to live within our current covenant.

We need dissenters who will keep dissenting, just as we needed them in the past to advocate women’s ordination until we changed our position. I’m not convinced by the alternative positions on baptism or same-sex marriage. I don’t expect ever to be. But people have historically helped the church re-think important positions by their advocacy.

If we divide (and we almost surely will), I hope we do it based on covenant, not the single issue of same-sex marriage. I hope we give a graceful exit to those who simply can’t abide the covenant. I hope we retain many people who continue to disagree and advocate for change. And I hope we then begin to take our covenant seriously––all of it.

I write about theology, ministry and the UMC, usually about twice a week. Click here to subscribe by email.

I don’t have comments here any more. If you’d like to discuss it with friends, share it with them and discuss. If you’d like to discuss it with me, send me an email. I’d love to hear from you.

[1] Some people have noted that traditionalists aren’t only now trying to maintain biblical faithfulness regarding human sexuality. They talk about an effort in the 60s and 70s to maintain faithfulness regarding premarital sex, adultery, and divorce. “We capitulated to cultural pressures” on those issues, writes one person. That’s a better historical perspective, not that traditionalists are only now getting serious about sexual ethics, but that we’ve capitulated on the rest in many places, making a firm stance against same-sex marriages appear merely homophobic, since it’s no longer paired with a firm stance on the rest.

[2] To be clear, I’m not suggesting that it would be unfaithful to our UMC covenant to admit people as members to the church, even while they’re doing something that we would call wilful sin. (I don’t advocate membership in those cases, but that’s another post for another day…) All I mean to suggest here is that if we’re willing to admit anyone “living in sin” as members, we need to be ready to admit anyone “living in sin.” No way can we exclude a gay or lesbian couple while admitting others.

[3] Several people have asked me if all of these are truly “flagrant violations of covenant.” I admit that I may have gone too far here. Re-baptism is a clear flagrant violation (including by willful ignorance or by any suggestion that the first one didn’t count).

Remembrance by immersion and infant dedication are more gray area. This article from Discipleship Ministries and the sources it cites are probably most helpful regarding infant dedication. If not 100% inappropriate, it’s at least a significant deviation from our sacramental theology (baptism as an act of God; dedication as a human action). For remembrance, This Holy Mystery states, “water may be used symbolically in ways that cannot be interpreted as baptism.” That makes it hard for me to see immersion qualifying. Usually a smaller amount of water is used and it’s not administered by another person. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck… Many of these “remembrances” seem to me a clever way of getting around our baptismal theology. But this, too, is not black and white.

[4] Why the heavy emphasis on baptism? “That’s not what’s causing our divisions,” some say. But if we say that infidelity to covenant is causing our divisions, then this is a prominent area of covenant infidelity in some areas, and it must be resolved. (Also, some value our sacramental theology as much as our theology of sexuality. We have not come lightly to our positions on the sacraments.)

[5] Several people have suggested that the primary cause of our divide is theological. First, I don’t believe we have one divide, but many. Theology is certainly a cause of division, though I’d caution us not to think of that divide in simplistic “left” and “right” categories. We have many people across the spectrum (and with varying beliefs about same-sex marriage) who can say the full Nicene Creed and mean it. And we have people across the spectrum who cannot. If we attempt to solve our divisions by means of sifting out the heterodox (something that fidelity to covenant does), we will not be chopping off a “liberal” or “conservative” wing or resolving our controversy over same-sex marriage.

[6] For any who think this addition unnecessary, here’s a comment to me from a United Methodist woman: “[O]ne of the things I was worried about before the WCA was that the conservative voices in the UMC particularly here in KY would begin to question women clergy (among other things). Let’s be honest many many [of our] UMCs do not totally support women clergy and in fact if we shine a light bright enough, we find several UMC pastors and maybe even DSs that do not as well. I have also seen and been privy to conversations surrounding Communion as a Sacrament, One Baptism and Calvinistic language among lay persons in leadership and clergy whose primary background is in another denomination. Seriously, we have many Bapti-Methodist churches in [our state] and the SEJ that ignore important aspects of our doctrine and polity as egregiously as those progressive whom they criticize. As I have heard and seen WCA emerge, I’ve been pleased to see that Orthodoxy, Wesleyan theology, and abiding by the BOD in all regards is the focus.” For the record: I don’t know of any DSs who don’t support women clergy, but I found this woman’s testimony helpful for anyone who believes we’re past these concerns.

Pastors come from within the community of faith, not to it from the outside

My last post considered the position of a pastor within the church community. I quoted Tom Long, who says, “we come from within the community of faith and not to it from the outside.”

I made this extra observation in a footnote, but it merits more than a footnote:

Of course, this notion draws into question not just how preachers enter worship, but how pastors are appointed. In the UMC, we expect our pastors to be sent to us “from the outside.” Churches that “call” their pastors from somewhere else expect the same.

How few congregations embrace the crazy idea that their next leader(s) may already be in the room! How much would that one change of assumptions change about a church?

What if your next lead pastor were already in the room? Your next youth or children’s pastor? What if someone told you today that one of the teenagers in your church will one day be leading it?

Let’s add some extra urgency… What if someone told you that you’re not allowed to hire or receive an appointment from the outside for your next pastor? You must fill that role with a current member.

Would that change anything about what you’re doing? Why not begin to act that way now?

Pastors shouldn’t have friends in the congregation…

I’ve heard several pastors discuss boundaries and friendship within their congregations. Seminaries and other pastors trained many of them not to make friends in the congregation. Several years ago, I heard an older pastor say that he didn’t have close friends. “I thought that was one of the sacrifices of ministry,” he said.

One pastor writes here about how he used to have his closest friends in the congregation. He refused to be like those older pastors “who stood somewhat aloof from their congregations.” But then he noticed something: he’s not perfect, and his congregation didn’t like grappling with the realities of his flaws. Now, he says, “I keep my spiritual struggles and personal issues to myself (and my wife).”

This mentality persists for preparing pastors. I share often in seminary classes about discipleship groups in our church. We ask questions like, “How is your soul?” and “Have you done all the good you could and avoided all the evil you could this week?” One question I receive every time: “Do you participate in one of these groups?” Most of them have been told by someone that a pastor shouldn’t share in that way with his or her congregation.

My answer to those classes: You better believe I participate. How could I expect any culture of honesty and vulnerability and growth if I stand outside it?

I tell those classes each time that if I’m living in a way that’s inappropriate for a pastor to live, then the problem isn’t that I’m sharing it, the problem is that I’m a pastor. I need to go confess to the right person (which in this case wouldn’t just be my group) and get out. But if I’m confessing to my group—even my congregation on occasion—that I, too, have spiritual struggles, I don’t think this diminishes my ability to lead. In many ways, it’s part of my leadership imperative—to be honest that I’m a fellow struggler.

In his brilliant book The Witness of Preaching, Thomas Long says, “How a preacher enters the place of worship is not just a practical matter; it is a theological issue.” He talks about how most preachers emerge “from somewhere outside; the preacher comes from somewhere else into the place where the congregation waits.”

But then he notes that theologically, “we come from within the community of faith and not to it from the outside.”[1] That has theological implications for how the preacher would enter the place of worship, according to Long:

“We would come from the pew to the pulpit, from the nave to our place in the chancel, from the middle of the congregation to the place of leadership. For most church settings it may seem somewhat far-fetched to imagine a minister rising from a pew to give the call to worship or to preach the sermon, but this is precisely the picture of the Christian church at worship portrayed by Jürgen Moltmann in The Church in the Power of the Spirit: […] ‘How, then, are we to understand the position of [those who lead the congregation in worship]? They come from God’s people, stand up in front of God’s people and act in God’s name.’”

According to Long, the whole vision of the preacher should be as one who comes from within the community of faith and not from outside. The pastor is one of the people—yes, set apart for a particular role within the community, but always still coming from within. If we take that view of the pastor to heart, we should be concerned with far more than how the preacher enters the place of worship. We should be concerned with how the pastor interacts with the congregation—not as an outsider sent or called to do a duty, but as a member of that community, with the privilege of serving it in this way.

If Long’s view of the preacher/pastor is correct, then it would be absurd for us to avoid deep friendships within our congregations. Instead, we may even find our own spiritual support from within the congregation. This may sound frightening for those who view the pastoral role as more akin to a licensed counselor (who for good reason should not be friends with his/her clients). But maybe that view of the pastoral role needs to go. I much prefer how Long and Moltmann understand it.

I don’t have comments here any more. If you’d like to discuss it with me, send me an email. I’d love to hear from you.
If you’d like to discuss it with friends, share it with them and discuss. Most people find this blog because you share it. Thank you!

[1] Of course, this notion draws into question not just how preachers enter worship, but how pastors are appointed. In the UMC, we expect our pastors to be sent to us “from the outside.” Churches that “call” their pastors from somewhere else expect the same.

How few congregations embrace the crazy idea that their next leader(s) may already be in the room! How much would that one change of assumptions change about a church?