Kansas and United Methodist Politics

“I anticipated we were going to have a grueling debate..., but it’s been far worse than I even thought it could have been. I think it truly has poisoned the ability...to deal with other major issues on the table.”

Could be a quote from General Conference, couldn't it? Instead it was from Kansas House Minority Leader Paul Davis from Lawrence. He was talking about the debate in the Kansas Legislature over redistricting, the process where new voting boundaries are drawn. After a 99 day session (that was only supposed to be 90 days long) the Senate and House never agreed to a plan and now the courts will decide the boundaries. This was such a mess it made the budget process (which included sending two budget bills to the Governor's desk including one widely expected to result in a deficit in the billions by 2018) reasonable.

Such is the state of Kansas politics, where "conservative" Republicans and "moderate" Republicans fight for dominance and Democrats are mostly irrelevant. If you're not from Kansas you may not know that this traditional Republican stronghold has not historically been run by what we think of as today's Republican party. Kansans get along. Kansans believe in reasonably conservative fiscal constraint and somewhat libertarian social norms. Kansas has been on the right side of history in a large number of movements. It's a great place that now is being torn apart by extremes that have now "poisoned the ability" to deal with the real issues of governance.

Sound familiar? The "think and let think" state is no longer acting like itself. Just like the "think and let think" denomination that I'm pretty sure is the largest protestant group in the state. As I said in my last post, the United Methodist Church has indeed given in to the culture. We have become just as combative, polarized, and intolerant of different beliefs as the Kansas State Legislature.

Giving In

In the debate on homosexuality at General Conference, one delegate commented that altering our denomination's position would be caving in to society. The Church should not accept society's standards, but stand with God even when opposed to societal norms. It's a common argument. I absolutely agree with the premise (that we should always stand with God) and I absolutely agree that we have violated the premise. I disagree with the way in which we have gone astray.

While following General Conference on twitter I made the mistake of engaging someone with whom I disagreed. He said we had different religions. I said we may have different opinions, but we are still all Christians. He responded "'Christian' is a term in the hist of religions designating a particular one. Too many differences to be the 'same.'" Really? Not only can we not share the same denomination, but we can't even share the same religion? This is from someone who describes himself includes "writer, speaker, and church consultant, ... draws upon 30 years of professional experience as a Methodist minister..."

Then there's Mark Tooley, president of IRD. What I love about Mr. Tooley is that you never have to guess where he stands. He writes "United Methodist liberals always assumed their church would follow American culture on sexual permissiveness, just as the church had followed on so much else across the 20th century, starting with divorce and contraception. They always consoled themselves, "If not this time, then next time!" Sounding like deterministic Marxist Hegelians, they believed history sided with sexual inclusion." Really? Marxist Hegelians? I would hope he could at least call on a deterministic theologian instead of two atheists.

Yes, we have given in to societal norms. We are as brutal to each other, as argumentative, as unfair and unforgiving, as any political race.  We must "win" each point for our "side" no matter what the means are. We have so given in to the polarization that we face in society that we could only narrowly pass a petition that included a scriptural reference to God's irresistible love. Really? What happened to "in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty and in all things charity"? What happened to "if your heart is as my heart take my hand"? Are we really so divided that we have to resort to ad hominem attacks and name-calling?

Our problem as a denomination is not with our stance on homosexuality. Our problem is that we value our position over our relationship. I tell couples in premarital counseling that sometimes it's more important to stay in relationship than to be right. Disagreements have to be talked out, but the relationship has to take priority over whether you "win" the argument. Otherwise it doesn't really matter if you win the argument or not. I'm hopeful that the #dreamumc effort some younger adults are beginning may be part of the solution. I'm hopeful that we can find ways to engage each other, learn from each other, and grow with each other instead of just hurting each other. If we can't our relationship may not be salvageable. But don't get me started on our issues with divorce...

A Brief Reflection on General Conference

The United Methodist Church's General Conference finishes their work in Tampa tomorrow. General Conference gathers clergy and laity from around the world to set our denominational direction for the next four years. I'm grateful for the commitment the delegates have all made, but disappointed by many of the decisions. First and foremost is the decision to retain our current lanuage that hurts the LGBT community and those of us seeking full inclusion.

The most discussed statement that the UMC makes is in paragraph 161.f. of the Social Principles, which states "The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers the practice incompatible with Christian teaching." Roughly 60 percent of the delegates voted to retain this language. That means that roughly 40 percent want to see change. We are not of one mind. As a denomination, we have not yet found a way to include language acknowledging our differences in theology and biblical interpretation.

This continues to be frustrating and painful. I am grateful, though, that historically the Social Principles have been a guide to conversation and not a binding document. As a United Methodist Pastor I will uphold those parts of church law that I am obligated to uphold. But in those areas, like the Social Principles, where the words are not binding I will follow what I believe is God's will. Despite the outcome of this vote, St. Paul's will continue to be a place where conversation is welcome. We will also be a place that continues to live out our welcome statement, "We welcome all people, regardless of gender, race, age, cultural or religious heritage, ethnic background, sexual orientation, economic circumstances family configuration or difference of ability." You will always be included in our part of the Body of Christ, whoever you are. You will always be loved and encouraged to love. I hope you will join me in praying for the greater church and that St. Paul's can be an agent of change not only in our community but in the worldwide church.