Casting the Vision

I will stand at my watchpost, and station myself on the rampart; I will keep watch to see what he will say to me, and what he will answer concerning my complaint. 
Then the LORD answered me and said: 
Write the vision; make it plain on tablets, so that a runner may read it. For there is still a vision for the appointed time; it speaks of the end, and does not lie. 
If it seems to tarry, wait for it; it will surely come, it will not delay.
Habakkuk 2:1-3

Several years ago in a sermon at Annual Conference the late Bishop Dale White talked about the lonely task of the pastor, whose job it is to always take the lead and cast a vision of justice on controversial issues.

We are supposed to be ahead of the curve. 

To be a leader is to be out in front, and it is a lonely task. If Moses had waited until his vision of freedom had broad support, the Israelites would still be in Egypt.

The Rev. Dr. C. Chappell Temple, Lead Pastor of Christ Church (UMC) in Sugar Land, Texas, seemed to take a different tack on this issue in a post titled, "Fun with Math." Writing in the Juicy Ecumenism blog of the IRD (Institute on Religion and Democracy), he points out that in the recent voting for General Conference delegates the elected clergy are more progressive than the laity.

This is not surprising, if we take Bishop White’s exhortation seriously. Pastors are supposed to be out in front. 

(Just to be clear, when we speak of the division between progressives and traditionalists in the church, we are not talking about national politics. The Progressive movement in American politics grew out of the Social Gospel in the  late nineteenth century and today’s Progressives share that heritage, but they should not be confused with the progressives and centrists in the church.)

Dr. Temple argues that although 76% of the elected delegations are progressive or centrist and more than half of the Annual Conferences passed resolutions opposing the Traditional Plan, that does not accurately reflect the perspective of those who sit in the pews.

Maybe it doesn't accurately reflect the perspective of the laity, but 76% is a big number. 

And it is significant that more than half of the Annual Conferences passed resolutions against a plan that passed by a narrow majority at General Conference.

But Dr. Temple argues that if we look more closely at the numbers they tell a different story. He points out that the Texas Conference elected a mostly progressive or centrist delegation of clergy and a wholly traditionalist delegation of laity. Eight of the nine clergy from the Texas Conference are progressive or centrist, but by our system, each one required only 50% plus one vote to be elected. If we looked at the actual vote totals we would find that the real margin was closer to 5-4 than 8-1.

And then he makes an important observation:

“The point is that in a system involving multiple candidates for multiple positions each requiring a majority vote it’s simply not possible to draw conclusions as to the true mind of the whole church when it comes to controversial issues.”

If that sounds familiar it’s because Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter made that same argument several General Conferences ago when they proposed inserting a paragraph in the Book of Discipline recognizing that we were not of one mind on the issues surrounding LGBTQ inclusion. The Traditionalists narrowly defeated that proposal because they had no problem building church law on a slim majority and using that law to punish those on the other side.

He concludes with an observation and a suggestion:

“In the end, it’s pretty clear thus that at least on the question of human sexuality that we United Methodists are far more closely divided than the delegate count might imply.  What is incumbent upon us a church thus is to find a way to honor those differences and create new communities of faith that can live side by side, though with enough separation to stop our long internecine warfare.”

He is right on both counts.

We are closely divided on the issue of human sexuality and we need to find a way to honor those differences so that we can live side by side.

I agree.

Let’s do it.

We can call it the One Church Plan.



Thank you for reading. Your thoughts and comments are always welcome. Please feel free to share on social media as you wish.

Disappointing But Not Surprising

Bishop Oliveto (right) and her wife, Robin Ridenour

The LORD is a stronghold for the oppressed, 
a stronghold in times of trouble.
And those who know your name 
put their trust in you, 
for you, O LORD, 
have not forsaken those who seek you.
Psalm 9:9-10

On Thursday the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church rejected an appeal by the bishops of the Western Jurisdiction to reverse its ruling against the election and consecration of Bishop Karen Oliveto last summer (2016). The Judicial Council is our version of the Supreme Court. In matters of church law they have the final say.

The news is disappointing, but not surprising. It did not seem likely that the people who made the initial ruling earlier this spring would have a sudden Epiphany and see light where just a few months ago they had seen only darkness.

But one always hopes.

The news came to me from John Scott Lomperis, writing in the (oddly titled) “Juicy Ecumenism” blog of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. The IRD is a very conservative group that has been working hard for four decades to undermine the foundations of several Protestant denominations, most notably the United Methodist Church.

“Today,” wrote Lomperis, “I and others received official notification that our denomination’s supreme court, the Judicial Council, had unanimously decided to reject the request from the Western Jurisdiction bishops to reverse their April ruling against the attempt by this increasingly schismatic, numerically tiny region of the United Methodist Church to elevate an openly partnered lesbian activist to be bishop.”

The Western Jurisdiction is trying to live into the Kingdom of God by modeling a more inclusive ministry than what is prescribed in our United Methodist Book of Discipline. Although Lomperis sees it differently, their goal is not to cause schism, but to effect change. The traditionalists, on the other hand, seem to actually want to split the church. And they want the split to come sooner, rather than later, because they can see the movement within the UMC in the United States toward greater acceptance and affirmation of LGBTQ persons as full participants in the life of the church.

His description of Bishop Oliveto as “an openly partnered lesbian activist” is true, but it is not the whole picture. She is a gifted leader, a great preacher, an effective pastor, and an Elder who is by every measure well equipped to her new calling as a Bishop in the church.

In his second paragraph Lomperis makes an important point and then shows us an unpleasant side of this debate.

He notes that “the Judicial Council’s complex ruling ultimately took away any foundation in UMC church law for Dr. Karen Oliveto of San Francisco to indefinitely remain a bishop in good standing, and how more broadly, this ruling fundamentally reshaped our church law to remove what had previously been major barriers to defrocking clergy unwilling to abide by our denomination’s biblical standards for sexual self-control.”

He’s right that the ruling “fundamentally reshaped our church law.” It re-wrote the Discipline, something which the Judicial Council is not supposed to do. And something which traditionalists should oppose.

The unpleasant side is revealed in that last sentence about “defrocking clergy unwilling to abide by our denomination’s biblical standards for sexual self-control.”

Biblical standards for self-control? He means that gay clergy must be celibate whether they are married or not.

The rest of the post is just a series of snarky misleading half-truths about Bishop Oliveto. 

Unfortunately, he reports, “none of this appears to matter to the bishops and other leaders of the Western Jurisdiction or to anyone of whom I am aware in liberal-caucus circles. It seems they are absolutely determined to stand behind their efforts to elevate Oliveto no matter how deeply and widely she and they hurt the church, because her being a partnered lesbian evidently trumps every other consideration.”

No. 

Bishop Oliveto was not elected because she is gay and married. 

And she was not elected in spite of the fact that she is gay and married.

She was elected because the delegates saw her as the most qualified leader.

This new ruling from the Judicial Council brings us one step closer to schism. It was not unexpected, but it is deeply disappointing. 

Thank you for reading. Your thoughts and comments are always welcome. Please feel free to share on social media as you wish.