Away to Whaleyville

The United Methodist Church is preparing for 2008 General Conference (the gathering of our denomination’s leadership that meets every 4 years), occurring this coming spring.

As United Methodists prepare for this significant event in the life of our Church, there are some perennial issues that are already arising. Let me explain:

I received a letter recently urging me to work with my congregations and draft petitions to General Conference that get really tough on a certain topic: homosexuality. In short, what they want is that I would rally my people to stand firm in saying that homosexual persons who won’t repent of the lifestyle are not fit for membership in the Church.

I haven’t received any letters from “the other side” but I imagine they’re making similar efforts in similar avenues.

Homosexuality has been a contentious issue in our church, and present at every General Conference since 1972. As the UMC came into existence in 1968, it should be plain that we’ve been wrangling on this since we’ve been born.

You’re probably wondering: what has happened in the last 36 years of debate about this issue?

Not much. True, denominational policies have slowly swung to a more conservative position — but overall, roughly the same proportions of votes for or against, every time. Neither side is gaining any ground.

In other words, my friends, it’s a stalemate.

How does one resolve a stalemate? Quit fighting, and find a different way to confront the problem!

So am I going to lobby on this one? YOU BET!

But I’m going to lobby differently than the manner in which the activists want me to lobby: It’s really very simple: I would really appreciate it if my brother and sister United Methodists would arise and tell both sides very firmly , “ENOUGH ALREADY!”

Do I have an opinion on homosexuality? Of course I do, and I am sure that you do, too. I arrived at my conclusions after a great deal of prayer, study of scripture, and consultation of historic church tradition, as well as current thought on the issue. As I am sure that you did as well.

So please don’t think me disrespectful in saying that a lot of people have gotten so focused on this issue that they are missing the real point behind all of this struggle.

My opinion on this one issue of homosexuality is not a primary point. I don’t think yours is, either.

In this commentary, I am deliberately not expressing my conclusions on this issue because I believe it would only obscure the bigger (and most important) issue: we are losing all ability to work together for the greater glory of God’s Kingdom because we’ve gotten so divided and distracted on ONE issue.

If you really want to know my position, ask me (privately), and I will tell you (privately). If you and I don’t agree, I’m fine with that. I love you even when we aren’t eye to eye on something! Isn’t that part of the nature of the true church?

I would think that the United Methodist Church’s loss of membership from 1968 to today might be a glaring warning that we need to do some serious “getting together.” If we are to do that, we need to lower our swords and let them be plowshares.

I do not believe the right answer to the question of homosexuality is to simply deny persons of homosexual orientation membership in the Church. Or, put another way, here’s why I am not for tossing out gays from my churches because they’re “unfit” for membership:

It’s not godly or fair. If I toss out gay people because of their unrepentant attitude, there are a number of unrepentant persons that, in all fairness, I should also excommunicate:

· Members who gamble or won’t stand against gambling, though they know full well what The United Methodist Church teaches on the practice

· Members who use tobacco (our Discipline says that use of tobacco is not a morally indifferent issue) or alcohol (after all, we DID start Prohibition)

· Members who recite their membership vows (a promise made in the presence of God to support your church with your prayers, presence, gifts, and service) yet never show up in worship or contribute in any way to the life of their congregation – and still expect the church to be always available to them. If you ask me, you’ve uttered a rather potent untruth in doing this.

This could become a very long list, but I think you get the point.

I’m a pastor. What shall I do with all these sinners?

Oh, hold on a moment: I forgot that I should also give myself the old heave-ho since I wrestle with sin as much as anyone and I’m never 100% successful in resisting it.

Please don’t misunderstand what I am saying. I am not attempting to make sin less important. The Bible is very clear about sin, and that “… all have sinned and fall(en) short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23 NIV)

Have we forgotten that the absolute, God-given truth that sin is sin? Whether you cheat on your spouse, murder your neighbor, or steal from someone — it’s all sin. Sin is sin. Period. If we are going to “get tough” on the practice of homosexuality because, as the Discipline states, it is “…incompatible with Christian teaching,” perhaps we should, in all fairness, get a lot more specific (and tough) on all sin, whether controversial or not.

It’s also a clear, God-given truth that if you want to receive God’s salvation, you must repent of your sins, devote your life to following the Lord Jesus Christ and give up conscious sin. There is no salvation apart from Christ and His Church, and a place of eternal misery awaits those who will not accept Jesus as Lord.

But it’s also an absolute, God-given truth that there is grace for those who truly seek transformation. As the “children” of John Wesley, we understand this to be the process of perfection in grace: how God, by His grace, transforms us into the persons He always meant for us to be.

The Church is an instrument of God’s grace. No one should be deprived of the place where it’s most likely that you will be influenced to turn to Christ and live for Christ. The final judgment of the condition of our souls will be well-handled by God on Judgment Day. Let Him handle this one!

This doesn’t mean unrepentant sinners should be able to go anywhere or do anything in the church. A person who’s unwilling to repent of clearly identified sin should not be a leader in the Body (the Bible’s clear on this, too). But why on earth should we shut him or her out and away from what is needed the most?

Expelling people because they’re stuck in sin denies them the opportunity to truly experience a holy transformation they won’t find elsewhere.

As I said, this debate is going nowhere in the Church, nationally or locally, despite all of the “politicking” on both sides. We’re stalemated. It is time to consider a different tack.

The Apostle Paul wrote in Second Corinthians about a thorn in his flesh that God would not take away, no matter how much Paul asked Him (see 2 Co 12:7-9). Perhaps it’s time we United Methodists ask ourselves, “Why isn’t God removing this thorn from our flesh?”

It seems a valid question to ask!

Perhaps its time that we work for peace in our “valley” by first celebrating what we hold in common: the foundation of our unity — the salvation of Jesus Christ.

The next step is that we do ministry and bring glory to God instead of giving the media ammunition to report on “who attacked whom at the General Conference.”

We may never reach consensus on this issue. Why not use all of this energy differently — and create peace instead of division? We will surely bring more glory to the Father in this way, than by breaking the Body.

This is my hope and prayer. Peace, my friends!

Long-standing Baptist icon and well-publicized  activist Jerry Falwell died May 15, 2007.  News reports have said that the likely cause of death was related to heart problems.

I am not a Falwell fan.  But I’m not a Falwell-hater, either.  I don’t agree with everything has said or done in life, but I also don’t think he “got it all wrong.”  I respect him for having the strength to stand firm in his convictions about life and faith, and I hope he finds the eternity he so strongly believed in and dedicated his life to telling others about.

I’m not writing today to talk much about the late Rev. Falwell.  That’s being done, and quite well, by many others. 

I did note this morning, though, that the folks of Westboro Baptist Church are going to be present at and disrupting Jerry Falwell’s funeral.

If you want to find an example of evil using Christianity to give the faith a bad name, you really need go no further than WBC.  There’s nothing wrong with protesting what you disagree with, but come on!  I think even a fast read of the Bible and Jesus’ teachings on grace and mercy command that even the ones we don’t agree with, the ones who are far from us in belief and practice, and the ones who won’t accept us are still deserving of respect.

All I hear from WBC is hate-fueled controversy that seems not to have much at all to do with the Bible — just their own desire for continued publicity (and revenue to keep their campaign going).

I hope God will bring them around to the real truth — and soon.  They need some deliverance.  Badly.

The title of my post may seem a little flip, and guess it is.  I don’t mean any disrespect to my brother and sister Christians who are raising Cain over Starbucks’ “philosophical” coffee cups.  Yet, hearing all of this fuss gives me a sense of concern.

I can’t say that I like it when someone denigrates the Christian faith, or those who claim it, because I do not.  On the other hand, have we become so thin-skinned that we only react with outrage at things that are so very obviously designed to stir the pot?

What ever happened to the art of apologetics — the reasoned, intelligent defense of your beliefs?  Have we slid so far down the slope into hopeless reactivity that we will never see the light of day again?

 Renew your minds, people (Romans 12:2ff).  Why not approach Starbucks (or any other entity that if offensive) and find some way to get “equal time” with another point of view?  After all, if they are truly about “diversity” and “inclusiveness” then surely they can stand to add another viewpoint?

 For once, let’s not feed the frenzy with worldly passion.

I read an article today about changes that are occurring in the arena of state-owned lotteries.  In summary, many states are considering switching (or have switched) to allowing their lotteries to be run by private entities.

I have consistently advocated for the point of view that gambling is not healthy for our society, and that encouraging its growth is only leading us down a thorny path.  It is not a “victimless crime” as some would contend; an review of social trends in any place that has introduced a lottery or similar gaming apparatus will clearly show you this.  The National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling is a good place to start reading.

Essentially, this is what this comes down to: The states who were sucked into the lottery “game” are now discovering that they have to spend more and more money to make this “easy money” for education, or whatever else they claim it’s for.  Now, as the profits keep dropping, they are looking for a way to bring their profits back up.

Barrett Duke, the vice-president of the Southern Baptist Covention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission said, “The typical selling feature was that lottery income would bridge state budget gaps, provide college educations for [everyone] and create significant cash infusions.”  “The results are much less rosy,” Duke added. “Lottery states have found it necessary to offer greater incentives to keep people buying lottery tickets.”

Where’s this going to end?  When are the thinking people of our country going to quit thinking with their greed and/or apathy, and see how much this is really costing us?

I remember a game that was popular among young boys when I was in my pre-teen years.  I imagine that it still exists, and probably will for all time.  If you look carefully, you can see this game played out amongst the females of the species, too.  

What’s the game?  “Scaredy-cat.”  You may know it by another name, but regardless of name, the content is very simple:  for one to be acknowledged as “accepted” by a group of people, you  have to do “something.”  Like being hazed before you can be admitted to the ranks of a fraternity (yeah, I know, that doesn’t happen any more — or so it’s said). 

If you don’t do this certain “something,” you’re a “scaredy-cat,” and you will not be accorded status with the group. 

I suppose we can rant and rave about the unfairness of it all, but if you get right down to it, the human process of socialization is essentially the same process.  As we grow from infancy to adulthood, we learn from the pressures of our social group how to play well together, to build and be part of community relationships, and to discover the potentials of working together instead of spending our days in isolation.

Back to “scaredy-cat.”  I’d like to think that we outgrow this as we move into our adult years, but it’s a truth that the rules that helped us survive on the playground follow us, and these rules frequently dictate the actualization and application of political process.  You guessed it, if you want to fit in with the “right” political group, you have to prove you’re not a “scaredy-cat.”

Which leads me to the question du jour: are you “inclusive” or “phobic?”

In case you are not clear on what I am referring to, I’m specifically referring to those persons who say that if you are not 110% in favor of homosexuals and homosexuality, you are “homophobic.”  The preferred (and expected) condition for heterosexuals is that you be “inclusive.”

What exactly is “inclusive,” anyway?

To me, the word means that you can be you, and I can be me, and we are able to appreciate one another even though we may deeply disagree on an idea, a principle, or a deeply-held belief.

To much of the “inclusive” crowd, if you’re not in their corner, you’re “phobic,” a more “educated” way to call someone “scaredy-cat.”  If you can’t accept it, you must be afraid of it (and you can’t be part of the club).

Bull. (Oh, I’m sorry — that’s “ridiculous.”)

Whatever happened to being able to respectfully disagree with someone about an important issue,  but still respect each other in the morning?  I have friends at all points of the political and social spectrum — from “liberal” to “conservative,” from “rich” to “poor.”  Even when we don’t see eye to eye, we are still friends, still appreciative of one another, even though we may have differences.

If you ask me, the whole “inclusiveness” movement is just a well-dressed version of “scaredy-cat” that plays out in reality as exclusion — if you won’t think that way, stay away.

Well, I’ll tell you this:  We may not be in agreement, but you’re still welcome here.  I’ll include you. Even if you’re gay and I disagree with you.

Now go lower the drawbridge and let some people in.

Mac

Talk about the dichotomy of life — or maybe instead, this should be about the head-on collision between ideals and reality.  But first, a small (hopefully) digression.

I’m sitting here typing, loaded with a goodly-spiced rant about how people have principles until it involves them or theirs… and I am getting a massage from the shiatsu massager doohickey we purchased tonight.  Ye gods, this thing could be addictive.  It is certainly doing a great job of reducing my cranky factor.

Back to the ranting and raving before I am shiatsu-ed into submission.  Best $64 I’ve spent in months.  I wonder if it works on overactive children under the age of five.  Never mind.

Dichotomy: How people who are ostensibly God-fearing, committed to the high ideals of their faith and treating their fellow man or woman well, as their faith teaches…  but if they have  a complaint about same, will tell everyone in town about it — except  the person with whom they have a complaint.

Dichotomy: An (allegedly) Christian nation who, though claiming Jesus the Christ as Lord and Savior, can’t (or won’t) hold their elected officials to the high stands of their faith — unless for some reason it is politically exigent to do so.

Dichotomy: An (allegedly) Christian president who, though claiming Jesus the Christ as his Lord and Savior, violates his marriage vows REPEATEDLY and seems to think his philandering and what-have-you don’t have a thing to do with the rest of his life. 

Dichotomy: An (allegedly) Christian president who, though claiming Jesus the Christ as his Lord and Savior can’t (or won’t) listen to the reports from his proctologist noting that they have finally found his head, and the war he has started needs to stop.

You see, I AM picking on both parties — “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God…”

This kvetching could go on for a long time, but I think you get the point:  there is perpetually such a divide between what we preach and what we practice that it makes me wonder what the point of having faith is.  Why not just throw the towel in, and join the rest of the sharks?

The point of faith is that we are committed to trying to somehow hold the line of  righteousness even though the rest of the world doesn’t seem to give a tinker’s damn about the higher principles of living.

Steven Tyler of Aerosmith once said (in an interview on VH-1 or MTV, don’t remember) that “humans are animals that shtup.” (Grab a Yiddish dictionary, I don’t feel like explaining). Yes, we are… but we are not centred from our gonads.  We also have a mind and a soul that have a part to play, and we should be striving for balance, not the lowest common denominator.

Enough.  My back is mush and my brain isn’t far behind.

 Slainte!