United Methodists and Homosexuality

It would seem that my own denomination, the United Methodist Church, is continuing to trod down the same road that the Episcopal Church is currently traveling, only much further ahead.

Follow this link to a news article written by the United Methodist News Agency on what is happening in California pertaining to the issue of homosexuality:

California United Methodists React to Same-Sex Ruling

The issue here is one of covenant and integrity.  Whether or not someone feels justified in their interpretation of the Bible to allow homosexual unions is a point that can be debated until people are blue in the face.  I personally don’t think that this is a faithful way to interpret scriptures, mostly because the 2000 year history of the church and the myriad cross-cultural settings in which the church resides still hold to the interpretation that homosexual acts are contrary to the Christian life.  When most Christians in most places and over most time agree on something, chances are it is probably the correct interpretation.

Nevertheless, I have had, and continue to have, people disagree with me on that issue.  They are not going to change my understanding, and I am not going to change theirs.  This is where the issue of covenant and integrity come into play.

Clergy in the United Methodist Church covenant to uphold the Discipline, our book of organization and social positions.  Our General Conference sets those organization and social positions every four years.  And our position on homosexuality has not changed, nor does it look like it will.  There are simply not enough people in the United Methodist Church who want the position changed (even though the ones that do seem to be very, very vocal).

So now we have, shortly after yet another General Conference decided that the denomination’s position would remain that the homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with Christian teaching, clergy (and even bishops) actively supporting positions and actions contrary to the positions and actions they have covenanted to uphold.  If these people have promised, before God and the Church, to uphold something, and yet find they cannot do so, why do they not have the integrity to break that covenant and leave the denomination with which they are at odds?  Why do they continue to give lip-service to upholding their ordination covenant while advocating actions that are contrary to what they have sworn to uphold?

It seems to me that they are living a lie, promising to uphold the Discipline, but refusing to do so.  They have repeately experienced failure in trying to change the position of the denomination on homosexuality, but yet they are unwilling to admit that failure and walk away.  It is obvious they do not agree with the denomination, and it is obvious that the denomination will not agree with them on this issue, so why drag out the process and cause a lot of frustration for all involved?  If someone cannot, in good conscience, uphold a vow made to God to support a certain set of beliefs and social principles, then that person ought to remove himself or herself from the need to fulfill that vow.

The current situation in California, instead of taking this route, simply states that those clergy are going to do whatever they feel is the right thing to do, no matter what they actually promised to do (which is uphold the Discipline).  This shows a total lack of integrity and a mockery of the idea of covenant.

Religion in the Press

The New York Times has an interesting story here on whether or not one major claim of Christianity can be considered original, namely a suffering messiah who rises three days later. The speculation comes from a not-so-recently discovered tablet with text on it, which is referred to as Gabriel’s Revelation.

Israel Kohl, who is a professor of Bible Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is quoted as saying:

“This should shake our basic view of Christianity,” he said as he sat in his office of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem where he is a senior fellow in addition to being the Yehezkel Kaufman Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University. “Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.”

My very simple (and maybe simplistic) question is: why? Why should this “shake our basic view of Christianity”? Christians have long held to the belief that Jesus was the fulfillment of all that went before him in Judaism. All of the Law and Prophets find their completion in him. Jonah gives the three day period. Isaiah speaks of a suffering servant. Ezekiel illuminates resurrection.

Christianity did not create anything original. In fact, one of the hallmarks of Christianity down through the ages is precisely not coming up with anything original. We seek to communicate the truth that God has been revealing for at least 4000 years in new ways, but we do not change the message. That leads to heresy.

So what if this tablet of Gabriel’s Revelation is authentic (although even in the Times article some of the translation sounds more like finding an interpretation to fit a theory)? Does that damage Christianity? Not at all. If God had been revealing throughout history that he was going to do something amazing, it’s not all that unlikely that some people recognized what he was saying. After all, lots and lots of people (Jew and Gentile) accepted a suffering messiah who rose on the third day within a decade of Jesus’ resurrection. Could God have prepared the way with a written document in addition to John the Baptist? Why not?

It would take a whole lot more than a questionable translation of a tablet to shake Christianity.

Why Bad Things Happen

I’ve been reading Job lately for my devotions, and I have to confess this is a chore for me. I’ve never liked Job. It is too redundant for me. Job professes his innocence, his friends call him a liar and tell him to confess so the troubles will be over, Job professes his innocence, his friends call him a liar…

One verse jumped out at me, though: Job 13.12 “Your maxims are proverbs of ashes; your defenses are defenses of clay.” Job tells his friends this as they are trying to defend God from any wrongdoing in the trials and tribulations Job is enduring. They came to Job with the understanding that God is completely just and that the wicked receive the due rewards for their sins. With that firmly in place, they confront Job and (repeatedly) encourage him to confess his sins that have brought upon him such horrible judgments (losing his wealth, his kids, his health).

The problem with this defense, as Job and the reader know, is that there is no sin for which Job is suffering. He is a righteous man (which actually flies in the face of how we usually understand original sin, but that is another post for another day) who is enduring all of this not because of any sin.

This is an old, old story (no matter when it was actually written), and it is from a time before there was an understanding of an afterlife. This is why perceived injustice was such a mystery to these people: why Job would cry to the heavens for an answer to what was happening to him and why his friends were absolutely convinced Job had sinned to cause all of this. There was no understanding that beyond death life continued and all things were sorted out then.

Since we live on this side of the Incarnation of God in Jesus, we know there is an afterlife where the sins of the world will be sorted out. And yet we still find ourselves quite often in the position of Job’s friends giving out “proverbs of ashes” to the world. Quite often Christians will still try to defend God when bad things happen. God does not need our defense. God can take care of himself. Let’s face it, we really do not know why bad things happen at all. We can come up with some wonderfully intricate theories of why people’s free will allows bad things to happen, but that only succeeds in explaining people’s conscious choices to commit bad actions. Those theories do nothing to explain why accidents happen that kill small children or why natural disasters occur that wipe out entire regions.

Despite all the insight God has given us, we still do not know a whole lot about the world and why things happen. We know we live in a fallen world, but are the evil events around us tests? Are they spiritual warfare affecting the physical world? Do they have some greater good? Are they random and senseless? Does God allow them? Does God create them? Are they acts of rebellion? We don’t know.

What we do know is that God is just and loving and perfect. We know that life extends beyond death; that just because the body wears out doesn’t mean we stop living. And we know that justice will ultimately be had for all of creation. Why do bad things happen? We don’t know. What we do know is that Jesus endured evil all around him, culminating in his execution, and he is the one who will be by our sides, through the evil in this life and during the judgment of the next.

God can redeem any evil situation, it’s just that the redemption does not always happen in this life. God willing, we Christians will stop playing the role of Job’s friends to the world trying to defend God. Let us boldly proclaim what we know with certainty: Jesus Christ overcame the evil of the world and offers us the opportunity to share in his victory by becoming one with him in his sufferings and in his eternal life. Why the sufferings? I don’t know. So I’ll stop pretending I do.

Complicated Church Problems (and Solutions)

I just finished reading 7 Myths of the United Methodist Church by Craig Miller. It was an interesting read and full of a lot of information that many, many people in leadership in the denomination need to have, both clergy and laity.

I’m not going to go through each of them, but I will say that, while Miller does a very good job of laying out many problems we face, the solutions were, in my humble opinion, too complicated. I’ll let you read the book and make your own conclusions. Let me just say this:

Perhaps I’ve been exceptionally blessed in my appointments, but I don’t think things have to be as dire or complicated as they are made out to be. Each of the churches I have served have had good points and bad points to them, and they all very easily could have slipped into a pattern of slow death because of their bad points. And yet, each of them has seen tremendous growth and lots of new people brought to Christ. Why? Let me tell you, it really didn’t have a whole lot to do with me. I have found that, if you remind people enough why the church exists, they remember why they are there.

In other words, tell people that Jesus created the church to go and make disciples, that his followers are to be witnesses in their own neighborhoods and around the world, that we are to love God with all we have and others as well, and you say it long enough and in enough venues in the life of the church, and they remember that this is what they were created for, this is why this particular congregation was formed however many years ago…and they start living it out.

It’s really that simple. Let the Holy Spirit remind us of all that Jesus taught and guide us into all truth. And Bang! Transformation. And while I would like to take credit for it, I really can’t. I was called to preach and teach the Gospel. That’s what I do. God reminds (and convicts) people that the Gospel is true and God encourages and empowers them to live it out.

Yes, as a denomination we have a lot of problems. Yes, the future does have dark clouds in it. But really, if we remind ourselves why we exist as a church in the first place, we may just see the Son come out!

Church Council Revisited

I made a post two weeks ago about a church council meeting that focused on visitors and intentionally organizing our church to be visitor-friendly (i.e. signage, maps and the like). We also talked about a comprehensive lifestyle of evangelism and the purpose of the church to intentionally reach out to those in the community around us, all 12,600 of them that do not regularly go to church.

As we left this meeting, the result was that the members were to think and pray about the information shared, come back in two weeks, and decide what we were going to do about it.

I am extremely proud and happy to say that when we met tonight, the issue of reaching out was a given. The question was “How?”

We spend well over an hour brainstorming steps to take to make the facility more visitor-friendly, how to intentionally recognize and receive visitors and guests, how to follow up with them, and what kind of evangelistic events we could and should offer to reach our community in the Name of Jesus Christ.

It was one of the most pleasant church council meetings I have ever attended in my life!

Separation of Church and State?

I just read an article that made me sick. NPR has carried a story (find it here) about several instances of same-sex couples bringing lawsuits against various institutions and/or individuals because of discrimination.

I can’t really comment on some of the instances addressed in this report, but the primary instance I do have to deal with. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is Methodist-owned and operated, has been sued over not allowing a civil union for two women in one of its pavilions. This is problematic because Methodist Church governance laws specifically prohibit the celebration of same-sex unions (call them what you will) by its clergy or in its facilities. This is not an ambiguous position that is open to interpretation; it is extremely transparent.

And yet the couple who brought suit against Ocean Grove won and, because the pavilion is open to everyone, they have to accommodate everyone.

That has some serious implications for all religions, not just the Methodist variety of Christianity. There are not too many churches in America that would even insinuate that they are not open to everyone, so does this mean that these churches, since everyone can come in their facilities, have to accommodate the belief systems and lifestyles of everyone who does come in their facilities? First a Methodist-owned campground, next a Baptist-owned church? After all, they open their building to everyone!

Now I am not simplistic, nor was I born yesterday, but when did the separation of church and state disintegrate to such an extent that the state can decide against and fine a church for simply adhering to its beliefs? This is especially problematic when you consider that the particular belief in question is a 2000 year historic position of the church, and it is a belief whose contrary view (the state’s position in this case) is not universally agreed upon by all states.

Call me crazy, but I don’t think this bodes well for any religion.

Feminization of the Church–Really?

I’ve got to tell you, I’ve heard and read a lot about the ‘feminization’ of the Church lately. There is this idea that men have recently disappeared from the pews (or comfortable chairs) and it is leaving the Church with a leadership vacuum because of a variety of reasons (most of which I think are simply ideas people come up with to try and cover over the fact that, inherent in that statement is the idea that women are not leaders).

At any rate, whoever is doing the research or study or presentation almost always seems to paint this in a recent light. It is usually blamed on the baby boomers for the mass exodus of men from the Church. One commentator I read went further back to the turn of the last millennium and the theology that came into vogue in the West about how the Church is the Bride of Christ as dominant imagery that consciously or unconsciously turns men off.

That’s why I found this passage in Robert Tuttle’s The Story of Evangelism: A History of the Witness to the Gospel so interesting. Tuttle, speaking of the spread (and persecution) of the early Church prior to Constantine making it legal, writes:

“A catalog of goods confiscated from church members at Cirta in North Africa lists thirty-eight women’s veils, eighty-two ladies’ tunics, and forty-seven pairs of women’s slippers, but only sixteen men’s tunics.”

Now, either someone is going to have to make the case that the women in this Church had a whole lot more clothing than the men, or there were a whole lot more women than men in this Church. And while I may tease my wife about the amount of clothing and shoes we have in our closet, I doubt very much that the majority of Christians in North Africa prior to the Empire becoming Christian were in a position economically to afford multiple sets of clothes.

Perhaps the demographic imbalance within the Church with regards to gender is not a recent phenomenon, nor is it inherently bad. Perhaps it has just been pretty much a constant throughout the ages that women tend to respond to the Gospel message more readily than men do.

God’s not dumb

That’s the bedrock core of my theology. And every time I read the Bible, I’m reminded of that fact. No matter how many rules we have, no matter how rigid something is, God will work around it to bring His desired effect: transformation of people.

Take, for instance, 2 Chronicles 30, Hezekiah’s re-institution of Passover. He wants the whole Israelite people to be able to participate, so he sends messengers even into the remnants of the Northern Kingdom to invite them to Jerusalem to celebrate the Festival. Now what is amazing is that there are people that actually come. Beyond that, two things of note take place.

First, the Festival has to take place in the second month of the year instead of the first. The reason for this is that not enough priests and Levites were ritually pure in the first month to celebrate, even though it was commanded to be celebrated in the first month of the year. Second, the people who attended from the northern tribes were not ritually pure, but they were allowed to participate anyway.

What does this say about God? Even when God sets the rules (who can participate and when it should be), if it means extending grace to people and further them along in their transformation into who God wants them to be, even God Himself will allow for bending the rules. Does this mean we have license to do whatever we want? No…but it does mean we ought to be a little less rigid in our own interpretations of our rules if it means people can receive more of God’s transforming power in their lives.

You know what the outcome was of allowing the northern peoples to participate in the Passover celebration, even though they were unclean and should have been excluded? They went home and tore down the altars and Asherah poles and destroyed the high places around their homes. Worship, even though it was not “according to the rules of the sanctuary,” led to right action and greater transformation in these peoples’ lives.

Belief matters, but so does action

I’m currently rereading Surprising Insights from the Unchurched by Thom Rainer and ran across a part of the research I had forgotten.  According to Rainer’s interviews with formerly unchurched people (those who recently made a profession of faith and joined a church), 91% of those who are unchurched believe doctrine matters.  Rainer states:

“The formerly unchurched, however, were not just interested in the facts of doctrine; they were insistent that the churches should be uncompromising in their stand.  These facts fly in the face of any incresingly pluralistic and theologcially tolerant culture.  It seems as if, when one takes the step from being firmly unchurched to at least being an inquirer, attitudes change.  The seeker desires to discover truth and the conviction among Chrisitians about the reality of God, Jesus, and the entire supernatural realm.  Jorge C. spoke rather bluntly about the issue: ‘I visited a few churches before I became a Chrisitian.  Man, some of them made me want to vomit!  They didn’t show any more conviction about their beliefs than I did.  And I was lost and going to hell!’”

Isn’t this interesting?  I am especially intrigued by these findings since I belong to a denomination whose ad slogan is Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors.  Perhaps this one, simple fact, that if you have a particular belief system (historic Christianity) people think you ought to actually believe it to be true, could account for why much of United Methodism is seeing decreases in attendance and membership in North America.  When you try to validate all belief systems, you invalidate them all.  That is because the majority of religions have mutually exclusive beliefs that cannot be reconciled.  For example, either Jesus is God incarnate or he is solely a human prophet.  Christianity says the first, Islam says the second.  The two cannot be brought together and be true.

In this postmodern age, when all knowledge is suspect and every belief is challenged, when most people give lipservice to the idea that there is no absolute truth and no one can have an exclusive position on God, more than ever people are looking for some solid rock on which to build the houses of their lives.  I see it kind of like a teenager who pushes the boundaries just to see if his parents still love him.  Our society is pushing the boundaries to see if we really do believe what we say we believe, or if we will give up 2000 years of faith and say, “Yep, you’re right.  We can’t know anything and our history has only been about gaining money and power at the expense of others.”

So the fact that we believe something and will not compromise on those beliefs counts for something.  But, I can say I believe anything I want; my actions will prove what I believe.  If I am not prepared to live out my belief system even if it means people calling me narrow-minded, backward, anti-intellectual, or any other slur, my beliefs mean nothing.  If I am not prepared to live out my belief system even if it means costing me position or influence in my denomination, my beliefs mean nothing.  If I am not prepare to live out my belief system even if it means it will cause a major disagreement with someone else (even if it is family), and the rift because of that disagreement may never be healed, my beliefs mean nothing.

To be uncompromising in our beliefs means, not condemning others who do not share them, but relentlessly living them out in my own life.  In that way I can truly show the world what I believe and in whom I believe.  St. Francis of Assisi said it best when he sent his monks into the world: “Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.”

Gardening and the Gospel

I was preparing some of our yard yesterday morning for our garden. This is the first time we are planting in this area, so there was a lot of prep work needed to clear it out for the tomatoes and other veggies.

As I was tilling the ground, I began thinking about the Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13.3-9). What can I say? I’m a pastor.

Anyway, I realized that often I get this image of a sower whipping his or her arms around in circles, throwing seed any which way possible. Some lands here; some lands there; some lands everywhere. I always focused on how irresponsible the sower was and thought that was Jesus’ shock point for the parable, how all-pervasive and universal God’s grace is and evangelism ought to be.

But as I was clearing land to have some good soil for our garden, I began to also realize that the path, rocks, and thorns/weeds are all the natural state of a piece of ground prior to someone tilling it under to prepare it for a crop. Someone has to define the field to be planted, as opposed to the rest of the land that is still available to travel upon. Someone has to clear out the rocks from that field so the ground can be plowed under. And someone has to weed the field so that there is nothing but open, good dirt for the seed to take hold and grow.

And then it hit me: in the parable, that someone is God. This parable is as much about prevenient grace as it is about the abundance of salvation. God’s grace has to clear the way and prepare the field of every human soul to receive the seed of God’s word. The Holy Spirit, either through other people or through Divine intervention, has to clear out the weeds, the rocks, and plow up the field so the word can take root and grow. And the only way the Spirit can do this is through an individual’s cooperation.

God does not force Himself on anyone, so we have to favorably respond to God’s grace from the get-go in order for us to even be receptive to the universal scope of salvation. I think this parable is not only about a reckless sower, but also a commentary on how prepared people are to receive the seed. Seen in this light, it puts our cooperation back into the parable. Before, I always (implicitly, because I do believe in free will) thought of this as “just the way it is…some people receive, some don’t and oh, well.” Now I see more of our need, not only to respond to the Word being spread, but to God’s grace even prior to the proclamation of the Word so that we may be ready to receive it when it falls on us.