The aftertaste of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church lingers for a relatively small number of people (globally speaking). I’m a United Methodist Clergyman, and I have to admit that deliberations at the “general” level of the church are not of paramount interest to me. I vacillate between this disinterest on one hand, and the fact of my dependence upon things “general” in the church on the other – things like what I can officially teach, who I welcome into the leadership of the church, and my financial security in retirement.
Christopher Evans, Prof. of Church History at Boston University’s School of Theology, has written a piece that appears in the Religion page of the Huffington Post. Evans reflects on the recent General Conference and concludes, according to the headline, that the UM Church is “living in fear” and “looking for scapegoats”. Following the article come the “Comments” – which are often as interesting as the articles themselves.
One individual asks: Who Cares?
Another parses the hypocrisy a bit finer and comes to the conclusion that we should not walk, but run away from this church.
I’m not a life-long United Methodist; but that’s what I am now. I do believe human beings need a place to belong, and we will search until we either find such a place or have created it. For some, perhaps the best thing they could do for themselves would be to walk or run away from the UM Church. For those so inclined, one must ask the “Peter” question: To whom shall you go?[1] One of the challenges for our church is to discern how best to create that place where people who want to follow Jesus can do so safely and with integrity.
The “vote” might guarantee certain protections under some law; however, the human heart is stronger than the human mind. What we think is not as powerful a force as what we want to think. That reality seems to be lost in the heat of legislative debate. And “debate” easily becomes the snake eating its own tail. By that I simply mean that motives become mixed, and listening is hampered by the static of politics. Prof. Evans’ article is evidence of this. He claims that conservative Christians in the denomination are using the gay/lesbian community as a scapegoat for their fear of “cultural and theological relativism”. In so doing, isn’t he using the conservative Christians as scapegoats even as he shines light (rightly so, in my opinion) on the fact that the underlying issue is “cultural and theological relativism”?
The epitome of this “relativism”, it seems to me, is the simple fact that UM’s believe gathering for “holy conferencing” is the way to discern the movement of the Divine Spirit among us. We are co-opted by faith in democracy for faithful proclamation of the message of Jesus. We fail to recognize the operative utilitarian assumption behind our conferencing – that our vote will yield the greatest good for the greatest number. In this moment, regarding the language around homosexuality, the ‘liberal’ side of the denomination is on the losing side of that vote, but no liberal worth their salt would concede that General Conference has rightly discerned the Word of Truth.
With only a few exceptions (the feeding of the crowd, for example), Jesus dealt with human need one person at a time. Even in his more grand pronouncements that comprise teachings such as those contained in “The Sermon on the Mount”, each generalization had a very personal point to it. Put another way, Jesus never tried to legislate love. His command, while universal in scope, is intensely personal in practice.
While, for the life of me, I can’t understand how some people come to the conclusions they do, I have to grant them a measure of integrity. In other words, it may not make any sense to me, but that doesn’t mean it makes no sense at all. The vision of Jesus – the reign of God – cannot be legislated. A person who is L, G, B, T, Q, A, dark-skinned, culturally different from the current ‘norm’ they find themselves in – in fact, all of us have to find within ourselves the truth of our dignity, the fact of our sanctity, the reality of our deserving to be here. We also have to come to a firm place of knowing both our goodness and our badness – and our capacity to be both at the same time.
I’m not a life-long United Methodist … but that’s what I am now. I do not agree with everything that comes out of General Conference; for that matter, I don’t agree with everything that emerges from our own local congregation’s Church Council. I could walk away, or run … but to where? I don’t hold the denomination in disdain, nor do I have grandiose dreams for its future. Neither am I inclined to politic, strategize, legislate or dictate what all Christians – or most Christians – ought to believe or think.
The United Methodist Church will meet again in “General Conference” four years from now. The strategizing has already begun. The major challenges facing the delegates then are the same ones every Christ-follower faces now – will we accept the cost of loving each other … even those who are voting against us? And can we accept the irony of just how irrelevant the “vote” is when held up to the light of Christ in the world?
(Post Script: Jay Bakker of ‘Jim and Tammy’ days speaks out.)
[1] John 6:66-70.
Mark Demers' Blog 