I welcome this opportunity to respond to the tragic shooting in Orlando, Florida from our perspective as a Reconciling Congregation in our denomination, the United Methodist Church. As a Reconciling Congregation, we stand in opposition to our denomination’s statement that, “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” As a global and connectional denomination, we have less latitude for regional autonomy. What we have is this means to say that we as a local church believe in the full participation of LGBTQI people in the life of the church.

My first response is to say that our perspective on events like this changes when they become more personal. I have family in France and specifically a nephew who is a music aficionado who frequented the Bataclan Theater in Paris; one can imagine how I felt hearing about the mass shooting there. Likewise, at least two people in our congregation made similar calls on Sunday morning. Knowing the life story of persons gives perspective; ultimately ideas cannot and should not be separated from the lives of people. This is true of anyone, the gay man, a Muslim, person’s who suffer from various disabilities including mental disabilities. It is rash and usually insensitive to speak generally about a group of people, especially when we don’t know a person who is a part of that group. And, as much as the Internet and social media provide an opportunity to reach out to people who are different than we are, they also allow us to hide in our lifestyle enclaves where our opinions are cemented rather than challenged and transformed.

The second thing I would like to point out is that the reasons for any tragedy like this are complex. It is a temptation to identify a cause; it helps us feel like we have more control of the situation. However, it isn’t that simple. Any of these mass shootings is connected to ideology, hate, mental illness, the experience of boys and young men in our culture and, yes, guns too (this list isn’t complete either). To identify a single cause or to deny any other contributor is narrow minded and usually self serving. Likewise, vitriolic blaming simply foments more hate.

In regard specifically to the relationship of this incident to our views on homosexuality, I will say that I see this event more as a hate crime than a terrorist attack. I believe that Omar Meteen was influenced by his background and could have felt sympathy for ISIS, but it wasn’t ISIS that initiated the attack. The story is still unfolding, now we hear that Metten had been at the Pulse numerous times; was he merely scouting out the place or was he dealing with his own sexual identity? How many times does one need to go to a place to know the floor plan? I don’t want for focus on ISIS to deflect the fact that this was an act of hate that lives well within our own culture. It is too easy to point the finger offshore at ISIS than to reflect on our own culture. And in spite of the progress we have made our culture is still wrestling with homophobia.

I was very proud of our bishop in the Los Angeles area, Bishop Minerva Carcano who in response to this tragedy wrote this: “Is it possible that we United Methodists with such a negative attitude and position against LGBTQI persons contribute to such a crime? When we say that those who are of a homosexual gender identity are living lives that are incompatible with Christian teaching, that they are not to be included in our ordained leadership, and that they are not important enough for us to invest resources of the Church in advocating for their well-being, in essence when we say that our LGBTQI brothers and sisters are not worthy of the fullness of life that Christ offers us all, are we not contributing to the kind of thinking that promotes doing harm to these our brothers and sisters, our children, the sacred children of God? It is harder to look at ourselves than it is to blame others; harder but more potentially transformative.” And the answer to Bishop Carcano’s question, in my mind is yes. And to anyone who speaks ill of LGBTQI persons, who disparages and dehumanizes them, or anyone, we are part of the problem.

Somebody will be reading this, I am quite sure and say, “But what about the Bible?!” I assure you we take the Bible very seriously, but not literally. I will also say that I feel the way I do not in spite of the Bible, but because of it. I would remind also that the Word of God is not the Bible; it is Jesus Christ who is the Word of God, and that’s biblical. I would ask us all, who would Jesus be with now? How would Jesus view this kind of hate? We view this as our challenge and we offer it to all.

P. Jim

On Pentecost I shared my initial feelings about General Conference; about Rule 44, which would have provided opportunity for delegates to talk about contentious issues outside of parliamentary procedure. As I said, that’s what we Methodists are all about, right? We gather and share – openly. When it was turned down the spirit of the Conference was revealed. We know that politics is a part of any conference in our denomination or any other. But the mood of this Conference mirrored our Congress – going into the Conference people had decided that they wouldn’t budge and would rather not even talk to those on the other side of the homosexuality debate.

I think I have also shared about the changing demographics of the UMC. We have striven to be a global church – which is a laudatory goal. But as a result we are experiencing a conflict of values: the value to be global and the value to invite LGBT people to participate fully in our Church. Both values are rooted in a desire to be open. However, the UMC has grown disproportionately in Africa and the Philippines; typically delegates from these places are less open to full inclusion of LGBT people. This has resulted in more delegates who want to retain the restrictive language in the Discipline. With this dynamic one might expect that the progressives in our Church would suggest that we split, but it was actually the conservative wing that first initiated that discussion. What t hat feels like to me is that they are recognizing that their power will likely grow as more delegates from Africa and the Philippines attend General Conference; they can simply dismiss the progressives.

Another event that alarmed and angered me was learning about the involvement of the Good News movement in the African delegation. Good News is the largest lobbying group for conservatives in the UMC. The African delegation met in Lubumbashi, Congo in January and then again in May in Portland, just prior to General Conference. This is from the UMC website: “Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, vice president and general manager of Good News, the unofficial evangelical caucus, attended the January meeting as an observer, and is handling logistics for the Oregon meeting.” This is a kind of political activity that I have not seen in our Church.

I left Annual Conference more convinced than ever that some sort of separation is necessary. I heard many words about unity and love but they felt hollow to me – when caucuses meet separately and unofficially with a whole delegation and then refuse to speak openly with others in smaller groups? This feels like more than a matter of disagreement – this is a spiritual matter. When people who vote to retain the restrictive language about homosexuality talk about love and unity I want to stand up and shout: you do not love! I’m sure they are sincere, but sincerity doesn’t mean much in the fact of injustice.

If Rule 44 had passed and I was a part of it and we did have small groups I would want to ask people, who is Jesus for you? What does it mean to follow him? In our Adult Sunday school class, reading Robin Meyers book, Saving Jesus from the Church, Meyers believes that belief in substitutionary atonement – that Jesus died for our sins – has allowed many Christians to ignore the character and teachings of Jesus. And, since the Reformation the image of Jesus has not been a source of authority for life and faith. Rather, the focus has been on the Bible. What conservatives will refer to in regard to homosexuality is not Jesus, but the few passages that ostensibly refer to homosexuality in the Bible. This means our split is not just about homosexuality; it is about theology and how we interpret the Bible. One thing that Bishop Elaine Stanovsky (former District Superintendent of the Puget Sound) said in her sermon on the final day that I liked is, “if you believe in the Bible and have not asked a progressive how he/she interprets the Bible you have to get out of that tomb.” I would prefer that the subject be Jesus, but I would love to talk with them about the Bible – I’m ready! But that gets us back to Rule 44 and the apparent unwillingness from the beginning, established at an unofficial preconference meeting that they just aren’t going to talk about it. Dismissed!

So, here’s where things now stand. The General Conference asked for the Council of Bishops to give leadership to the Church; this is actually unprecedented – bishops preside over the Conference but do not propose legislation. Well, at this Conference they did. Their proposal is to create a commission that will look into proposals to either restructure the Church or amicably split. The proposal passed on the second vote – not easily. I listened to one man from Texas speaking against accepting the bishops’ proposal say that we must say what we believe, right here and right now: “Do not be afraid to say what you believe.” It really didn’t make much sense to me other than, let’s vote on this and retain the restrictive language in the Discipline – put the progressives in their place and go on. Fortunately it did pass. The commission will work for two years. During that time no charges will be brought against clergy who come out as LGBT. It’s a breather and a sliver of hope that some change will come.

What I hope for is that the commission will recognize the conflict between the two values of being a global church and accepting LGBT people and that they will see that some sort of give on being global is needed. A united church is the ideal, but it isn’t the reality and we must allow for more regional autonomy. Adam Hamilton said in a talk to seminarians at General Conference that if we do not change the language in the Discipline we will lose a generation in America. I wonder if the Good News folk realize that. Keeping that hope for the next two years, I intend to carry on at Cedar Cross UMC. I intend to speak even louder about the need to change. And I really do believe in the long run, we shall overcome.

P.Jim

The General Conference of the United Methodist Church meets in Portland, Oregon, May 10-20. This is as close as General Conference gets! I will be going to visit General Conference during the first week; it may be the only chance I have to witness it – God knows I would never be elected as a delegate!

General Conference is the highest authority in the United Methodist Church. It meets every four years. They receive petitions from all across the connection. Some pertain to the structure of the Church, the process of ordination, the budget, etc. Other petitions have to do with social issues; the General Conference edits the Social Principles every four years.

I recognize that the first thing on most people’s minds is the issue of homosexuality. I believe most know that the denominations still states the homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” The reason we became a Reconciling Congregation is in protest to this language. In our Annual Conference the majority of people and churches stand in opposition to what it says in the Social Principles. The issue is problematic. The UMC has strived to be a global church – to reach out to Methodists from around the world. The majority of United Methodists still reside in the United States, but churches outside the USA are growing faster than the churches here. This means that at each General Conference the representation from Africa in particular has been growing. Culturally Africa has not been open to accepting homosexuality. In the USA things have been changing rapidly – just look how same sex marriage became accepted. I believe that if the vote was limited to United Methodists in America the language would be changed. This pits two values against each other. We want to be a global church but also an accepting and inclusive church. How do we reconcile these values? There are two petitions to restructure the Church. The more interesting one comes from the Northeastern Jurisdiction. This petition would rename General Conference the Global Connectional Conference. It would be a shorter meeting and deal only with matters that are global in nature. Then, the Church would be divided into four Connections: North America, Europe, Africa and the Philippines. Then it says this: “Each of the four connections will have the option of organizing into regions. Each connection will be responsible for its own, connection- wide book of discipline, relevant to matters that are not global.” Essentially, this petition would de-centralize power giving more to each connection. If I read this correctly the North America Connection would be able to create its own Discipline and then change the language on homosexuality. This will be hotly debated. We want to remain a connectional church and a global church. At the same time the issue of homosexuality is dividing us. The African churches will not change their attitude toward homosexuality any time soon. Meanwhile, in North America we are desperate for the Church to change. This petition will compromise our connectional character some, but it is better than a church divided. There are many other petitions to change the Church’s structure here in bullet points are some of them:

remove lifetime statue of bishops
remove guaranteed appointment of clergy
involve the Lay Leader of a local church in the appointment process
redefine a “local church’ to include such things as coffee shops
close one of the UM seminaries
merge the Boards of Religion and Race and the Status and Role of Women into a single Board of Inclusivity
As one would expect the General Conference will be dealing with numerous social issues:

A call for faithful lending practices – to discourage predatory lending; to limit exorbitant interest rates
A call for an equitable tax structure that addresses wealth inequality including encouraging the government to address transnational corporations that are essentially tax havens for the rich.
A petition for the government to more strictly regulate environmental pollutants.
A petition that advocates for the Church to pay greater attention to the dangers of climate change.
A petition for the courts to better support the victims of crimes
A call for more restorative rather than retributive justice.
A call to combat modern day slavery.
A call to adopt measures to reduce gun violence; most notably background checks and prohibiting assault rifles.
The divestment of Church Pension funds from fossil fuel companies.
A call to boycott the celebration of Columbus Day.
A petition to support welcoming immigrants.
A call to end the Church’s involvement with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
Numerous petitions to better support people living with disabilities.
There are many more and then there are petitions to add to the Book of Resolutions which deals with more specific issues.

Go on-line to the official site for General Conference for more information. Or if you’re curious you can read articles from various politically minded and biased groups. Just be aware of who the people are who are writing the articles. Also, United Methodist Communications provides live streaming of General Conference and daily reports on what is happening. I encourage us all to take some time to connect with General Conference.

P.Jim

What do we feel when we hear the word, “revelation?” My assessment is that most of us feel uneasy, or are repelled. And why not, when we usually hear about it, the context is some charismatic preacher shouting about the end of the world and how only a few will be saved. It comes across as a judgment and a threat.

As much as Revelation is used and abused ironically, it almost didn’t make it into the canon of the Bible. The first person to present a list of accepted Christian writings was 4th Century bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, who included it because he had used it to condemn heretics. Many others were against including it. The larger picture also includes Athanasius’ battle with another priest from Alexandria named Arius. Athanasius won the battle and Arius was sent into exile. Arius preached the idea that Jesus, while filled with the divine spirit, was not actually equal to God. Athanasius championed Christ’s divinity. It is my personal judgment that the faith would have been much better off without Athanasius. (He was also known to have been a bully.) All this is to say that Revelation is included in the Bible because of the whim of one person – who wasn’t, in my mind, even a good person. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t profound truth in Revelation. One of the strongest arguments against including it in the canon of scripture was that it would be misunderstood and then abused. That view was prescient – just look at what people are doing with it today!

This spring readings from Revelation are in the lectionary each week. I have decided to preach on Revelation each week until Pentecost (May 15th). (I will not be here on April 10.) My purpose is to get us to see Revelation less as a threat; by learning more about it to see it as even a means of grace. In fact, Revelation is greatly misunderstood. That isn’t a surprise since it is a collection of visions experienced by John of Patmos (not to be confused with the author of the Gospel According to John). The visions also include numerous metaphors and codes that the people who first read Revelation would understand, but we do not. So, most people reading about the Dragon or the whore of Babylon are left with interpreting it literally as prediction. While this can be interesting it is not enlightening. Like any other prophet John of Patmos was interpreting the times he lived in, prophetically insofar as saying that if things didn’t change the world would take a turn for the worst; but he was not a predictor, certainly not of events that would take place two thousand years later.

This Sunday the sermon is entitled, A Disturbance in the Force, and it will be about John’s visions and dreams; about the medium of being “in the spirit.” If the “medium is the message” it helps to know what the medium is; it helps to know what apocalyptic literature and mystical experience is all about. So… I hope to see you all on Sunday morning. P.Jim