Reconciling Ministries Network

What if I am wrong?

by Joey Heath

In a conversation I was having recently I was asked what will happen if I am wrong about sexuality and whether it is a sin. It took me a little while to mull over this and come up with a theological response. I could have said I truly believe that God has shown homosexuality to be a part of the beloved creation and not a sin, but I felt that would be a cop out response and I wanted to respond in a way that offered something to think about and chew on. After some time of praying and thinking and this is what I kept coming back to.

Romans 3: 22-24 says “For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 2:16 says “yet we know a person is justified not by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by doing the works of the law.”

Galatians 2:21 says “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.”

John 5:24 says “Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes in the one who went me has eternal life and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life.”

Mark 10:45 says “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many.”

So what does all that scripture mean? Well it means that we are all sinners and no matter how hard we try to adhere to the law we will always fail and be sinners. Gay or straight, we are all sinners. Christian or not we are all sinners. No matter how much we seek out perfection it will be just beyond our reach because have sinned and therefor fall short.

Galatians 2 speaks beautifully about the law and how our justification not from the law but is in Christ. You see redemption is the free gift offered to any who would receive it and there is no limit on it. See Christ came and gave his life so that all might believe in him and receive that redemption.

Then you turn to the gospels and see that Jesus himself says that he came to bring redemption to all who would hear and believe and for that cause was willing to go as far as to give his life for us.

So what happens if I am wrong? Well nothing, because I have placed my faith in the creator of the universe and as such have faith that redemption has been given to me because I believe. John Wesley once said“Faith, therefore, is the "necessary" condition of justification; yea, and the "only necessary" condition thereof”. This means that by faith were we are redeemed. So if I am completely wrong (though I must say I do not believe I am) that is ok because I have the assurance through faith in Jesus Christ that I will be redeemed. After all it is not about whether I sin or not but whether I accept the saving grace that comes from faith in Jesus Christ. To put it simply it is not about what we say and do but where we place our trust. I for one place my trust at the feet of Jesus and in the one who created us all and loves us all.

---

Joey Heath is a 26 year old life long United Methodist. He is currently a graduate student at Wesley Theological Seminary completing his Masters in Divinity. Once an ordained pastor, Joey hopes he will be able to bring real change to the UMC on the issues of sexuality and gender identity at the broader church level, but also with individuals, so that one day the church will truly be a place that is inclusive of all people.

From "Open Hands" to "Open Doors"

By Peter L. DeGroote

It started well. The proposal for the publicity campaign was to be “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Hands.” Asserting that an openness to religious experience results in an openness in our thinking, which then leads to an openness in our behavior.

It was good, Wesleyan theology, and it was an organic metaphor equal to those of Paul. The clarity of its logic demonstrated the connections between the three stages while leaving us to meditate on how a change in one leads to changes in others.   

It may have started well, but as Wesley might have said, it ended in a shipwreck. The final result was “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors.” What happened?  Bureaucracies are the same everywhere. Church agencies are like government agencies: they leak. The leaked details were a little fuzzy, but it seems that someone in the UMC bureaucracy noticed the magazine Open Hands, published by the Reconciling Congregation Program, the previous name of RMN.

This won't do! We need a substitute for “open hands!” The openness of our feelings to the Presence of God cannot lead to opening our minds to the acceptance of LGBT people and then to our reaching out our hands to welcome them! 

The decision was to replace “open hands” with “open doors,” thereby sabotaging purpose, clarity, and effectiveness.  Church doors were already open; the question was (and is) how people were treated once they got inside. “Open hands” dealt with human community, “open doors” with public access to a building (the corrupting influence of mixed metaphors!). 

The original theme of "open hands" would have been a gentle but effective challenge to the way local congregations greet, meet, and incorporate new and different people into their community. Instead, by substituting “open doors,” the theme became an after-the-fact theology of why nearly anyone could walk through our church doors, even if they are ignored. No longer a stimulus for change, the theme became a self-justifying explanation of the way things were. 

The rejection of “open hands” was also a rejection of Wesleyan tradition. The metaphor's origins lie in a verse from 2 Kings 10:15: "Is your heart as true to mine as mine is to yours? .... If it is, give me your hand" (NRSV).  Taken from a context of warfare, we might not use it in the same way today. However, it was the scripture for John Wesley’s seminal sermon The Catholic Spirit (Catholic meaning universal). The first line of that sermon states, "It is allowed even by those who do not pay this great debt that love is due to all mankind, the royal law."

It had already been determined that love was not due to those LGBT people who had already been invoking the Wesleyan tradition through the name of their magazine.  It then became "necessary" for the church--who was supposed to represent the Wesleyan tradition--to depart from it and to ingore what Wesley called "the royal law."  The result?  A hollow theme; a sound bite changing little.

Dialoging Difference with Deference

By Leland Spencer

One of my favorite writings of John Wesley is his sermon on the catholic spirit. Catholic, in this sense, does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. John Wesley’s catholic is spelled with a lower-case c, and means “universal.” In the sermon, Wesley addresses diversity of opinion in the life of the church. He concludes that persons of faith do not have to agree on everything in order to exist effectively in Christian community. He asks, “Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike?” Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike?

I love being a United Methodist for many reasons. Among them is the emphasis we place on open dialogue about important issues in our world. I contend that our faith should not only inform, but truly, shape, our politics. This is easier said than done. We need to resist the temptation to assume that we have the right answers all the time.

I was involved once in a discussion about peace and war. One person in the discussion quoted a theologian who wrote widely about pacifism. The facilitator asked the person how other persons of faith could read the same Bible and come to different conclusions about peace and war. To my horror, the person responded: “Well, a lot of people are wrong.”

My friends, difference of opinion does not mean one group is wrong and one group is right. Difference of opinion means that different people, through their reading the Bible, their understanding of the faith tradition, their personal experience with God, and their reasoning have come to different conclusions. While our denomination does publish social principles, our social principles are not church law; instead, they call all Christians to prayerful, studied dialogue of faith and practice.

One of my favorite metaphors for explaining this phenomenon is the road sign that indicates a deer crossing. The deer crossing sign alerts us as we drive to be aware that something unusual might be crossing the path soon. Is anyone really good at spotting deer near the side of the road? I never seem to notice them, but we really do need to be ready to respond if one is in the middle of the road. Perhaps we could learn from deer. Maybe the deer is not just some stupid animal in the middle of the road. Too often because the deer is something outside the ordinary, beyond the routine, we are impelled to be frustrated or wish it would go away. What if, instead of hitting it, or beeping at it, or swearing at it as it stares at our headlights, we just sat to watch it for a moment?

Could I learn from the deer a sense of boldness? Surely the deer is braver than I am; I wouldn’t stand in the middle of the road. Could I learn from the deer a sense of calmness? The deer is not in a hurry or a rush. Is it possible that the deer can teach me something, even though it is so different from me? Think about it. The deer and I do not speak the same language. We do not look alike at all. We probably have a different sense of what appropriate family values are. We don’t like the same foods. We are different in so many ways, yet here we are, on the road together—each crossing the other’s path—and maybe I can learn from the deer.

Friends, other people are the same way. Sometimes those who are the most different from us are the ones who can teach us the most. If we are honestly open to dialogue, to listen closely, to withhold judgment, to think about our faith and life, I do believe we can teach others and learn from others. If we set aside our insistence on total agreement in the nonessentials, we can go new places in our lives of faith and our relationship with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Because Christ has died, Christ is risen, and Christ will come again, we can be united wholeheartedly in love and purpose with our sisters and brothers in Christ across ideological boundaries. Because of the creative power of God, the redeeming love of Christ, and the sanctifying activity of the Holy Spirit, we may love alike even when we cannot think alike.

Writhing about Tithing

by Leland Spencer

I know what you're thinking: "He's totally lost his mind. He put 'tithing' in the title of a post. Who's going to read a post about tithing? That's almost as bad as listening to a sermon on the topic. I mean, sure, the rhyme is kind of cute, but seriously."

Am I right? Maybe, but if you're still reading, congratulations. Perhaps you're still reading because you're not afraid of the word "tithing" or the concept of tithing, and if that's the case, congratulations again. In my two years as a pastor, I only preached two sermons that rocked the boat enough to warrant parishioners' making enraged calls to the DS. One of those was about tithing, and it was the only money-themed sermon I preached during my pastorate. I'm fairly certain I preached the sermon lovingly and non-judgmentally, but I am also confident that the sermon was challenging; it was supposed to be. (If you're among the most insanely intrepid of our readers, you'll click here to check it out for yourself.)

After the sermon and its backlash, I had a conversation with a colleague who suggested that I frame tithing very intentionally as a healthy spiritual practice. Tithing is, in a way, a means of grace. It is a way that we grow in our relationship with God because in tithing, we give a portion of the material goods we possess to the work of God in the world.

In the Reconciling Movement, I think tithing can be tricky. Certainly, when we give to a local United Methodist Church, we support wonderful and important ministries in that congregation and community and, through our apportionments, throughout the world. Unfortunately, though, our gifts to local United Methodist congregations may also end up supporting the evil, injustice, and oppression of exclusion that we all know far too painfully.

If you've found yourself in this web of cognitive and spiritual dissonance, I want to to invite you to consider tithing to the Reconciling Ministries Network in addition to the tithing or giving you already do. No one asked me to write this, and I don't get a kickback. I'm issuing the invitation because it is important that people know they can be faithful to the vow to support the church by their prayers, presence, gifts, and services without also supporting homophobia and exclusiveness.

You can mail checks, donate online with a credit card, and even give gifts in honor or memory of a loved one. Any gift to RMN is a spiritual act of worship that invites the United Methodist Church closer to embracing the inclusive heart of God. I invite you to give generously and cheerfully.

How does the church change its mind? Or, does it?

by Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell

In the late 1930's The Christian Century magazine launched a series titled, "How My Mind Has Changed". I have been wondering for a number of years if the Church, the United Methodist Church in particular, has not perfected the art of "changing without changing"? What do I mean?

We know the racial history of the Methodist and the now United Methodist Church. There were discussions, debates, and disagreements about slavery that contributed to the establishment of separate Methodist denominations. Then in 1939 when the separated denominations held a "Unification Conference in Kansas City, there was the creation of a racially-segregated Central Jurisdiction that became the compromise that made possible unification. The Central Jurisdiction existed until 1968. Did the Church change its mind about the Biblical interpretation that for some justified slavery and then racial segregation?  Or, did it change without acknowledging the flaw in Biblical interpretation that justified its earlier practices?

What about Methodists ordaining women when the Bible specifically prohibits it? (First Timothy 2: 8 - 15). I remember the words that countered the prohibition against the ordination of women: We finally agreed that even as Scripture is primary, it must be "illuminated by tradition, vivified by personal experience and confirmed by reason". Then we were reminded of the Genesis story of God making female and male in God's image and the expectation that they work in harmonious partnership. Further, despite the words in First Timothy, we agreed that we must remember the Old Testament call for justice, and the fact that Jesus had women as friends, disciples and witnesses. If this method of understanding Scripture was appropriate enough to transcend the words in First Timothy that provided rationale for the opponents of the ordination of women,  why do we limit their appropriateness on other matters?

There was a time when divorced clergy were viewed as "unappointable" or worse. The denomination determined that Scripture was "clear" about divorce being a barrier to effective ministry and an impediment to marriage. But, in time we reached the conclusion that "when a married couple is estranged beyond reconciliation", divorce becomes an alternative. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason became helpful in response to divorce as it was in countering the prohibition against the ordination of women. The denomination "changed" but did it acknowledge that although Scripture had not changed, the denomination had?

Then there is the matter of abstinence from alcohol. The debate at the General Conference that brought about change was between those who favored continuing the Methodist policy of total abstinence and those who wanted to make it a matter for individual choice. Although it is suggested that United Methodists consider seriously the claims of total abstinence, the decision to drink is to made by the individual and not by "authoritarian attitudes." I have discovered that my memory at 74 is more fragile and less clear than it once was. I seem to remember that at one point I read following the General Conference decision these words of caution directed toward clergy, "alcohol can be consumed by ministers in their own homes". I hope that by now the reader is beginning to understand where I am going with all of this.

The mind and the practices of the United Methodist Church on some issues changed. Yet, we have been shy about admitting that we have changed because we have fooled ourselves into believing that change is anti-Scriptural. Or, we are arrogant enough to believe that going public with the fact that we have changed, somehow weakens the power of Scripture. If, rather than believing in a literal Bible, we believe in a living Bible, we have no need to worry.

I am hopeful that we as a United Methodist Church are on the brink of changing our negative and punitive Book of Discipline declarations about the practice of homosexuality "being incompatible with Christian teaching." Already state after state is acknowledging the rights of same gender couples to make public and legal commitments to each other.

My hope and prayer is that the United Methodist Church will change its mind, rather than allowing the state to lead when we should have led.

Our Theological Task

By Laura Young

“Just out of curiosity, how many of us are at least familiar with the quadrilateral?”

This question was asked by the Rev. Dr. John Fellers as he facilitated a workshop entitled, Reclaiming our Wesleyan Roots.  The workshop took place during the 2007 Texas Annual Conference and was offered in preparation for a Board of Church & Society resolution that was to be discussed during a business session the following day.
 
There were fifty-four people in the room, four of whom were workshop leaders so I won’t count them.  The remaining fifty consisted of clergy and lay delegates (mostly lay) who were representing their local congregations at annual conference - in an election year, I might add.   The comments and questions raised during our discussion led John to ask about the quadrilateral.  It was very clear that we were clueless and he just couldn’t stand it any longer.  I could sense (and shared) his concern from my seat on the back row.
 
“Just out of curiosity, how many of us are at least familiar with the quadrilateral?” he asked.
 
Eight hands were raised.  Eight hands.  Eight was disturbing enough, but we quickly determined that five of those belonged to either clergy or Christian educators so we probably shouldn't count them either.  We were down to three.  My neighbor and I leaned toward each other and asked if anyone knew CPR.
 
This random survey wasn’t a revelation.  It only confirmed our fears.  It also launched a larger concern and finally gained the attention of a group a bit larger than those eight people.  I wish I could say we’ve made some progress but I see no evidence of that.  The only hope I have is that, over a year later, some of us are still talking about that workshop and those eight raised hands.
 
I honestly don’t get it.  Why do clergy reject the quadrilateral?  What is there to reject?  This is a mature, responsible, intelligent, loving tool for theological reflection.  It is widely revered and used by many mainline protestant denominations.  It is fully explained in our Book of Discipline under a heading that reads, “OUR THEOLOGICAL TASK”.  For goodness sake, friends.  This doesn’t sound like a “take it or leave it” option.  Surely it’s not one of those “non-essential” things we’re hearing about lately.  This is “Our Theological Task” and seems rather important!  We, the United Methodist Church, are not biblical literalists.  We never have been.  And we’re not “selective literalists” either.  We just know better than that.  We love more than that.

On Monday morning of every annual conference, the parade of soon-to-be-ordained elders makes its way to the front of the sanctuary.  Our bishop asks a series of questions and they answer as a group.  It is the same series of questions they have prepared for and have already answered for the Board of Ordained Ministry.  Before they begin, the bishop turns and reminds elders already in full connection that this is a time for each of them to renew their own ordination vows.  I cringe each time we get to questions eight through eleven.

8. Have you studied the doctrines of The United Methodist Church?
9. After full examination, do you believe that our doctrines are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures?
10. Will you preach and maintain them?
11. Have you studied our form of Church discipline and polity?
12. Do you approve our Church government and polity?
13. Will you support and maintain them?

I don’t understand why a person who is called to ministry, but doesn’t agree with our theological task, would choose to be ordained in the United Methodist Church.  I don’t understand how we have raised at least one, perhaps two or more generations of United Methodists who are barely familiar with the quadrilateral.  I know far too many lifelong, active United Methodists who reached their sixties before ever hearing the term.  I don’t understand how pastors who clearly ignore the quadrilateral (not to mention their seminary education and ordination vows) are allowed to continue.  This, it seems to me, is getting to the root of our struggles as a denomination?  Shouldn’t this finally make its way to a front burner?