Moving Forward as a People

This presidential election was a surprise for some but not for all.  

It certainly calls into question relying on the polls which showed a much tighter race in the so-called "battleground states".  In many ways, this was a return to 2016.

Those who were the most surprised were those who supported Kamala Harris and this may be due in part to the algorithms used to give us our news feeds these days.  Those who supported Harris likely didn't see a lot of links to negative stories about her emerge as possibilities for reading.  Conversely, those who supported Donald Trump likely did see more negative stories around Harris pop up.  Hence, they were not as surprised (in spite of the poll numbers) to see America put their candidate back into office.

This bubble effect is disturbing in that it is creating alternate narratives of reality for people living in the same neighborhoods.

As a pastor, I am praying for healing for those who are disappointed and temperance for those who are delighted.  I do believe that in spite of our divergent realities, we can move forward as a people in many ways.

But for those who find the outcome not to their liking, it may be that many will experience all the symptoms of grief.  They are grieving the loss of their expected future.  

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross lined out the five stages as denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.  A grieving person may not experience these in this order, and they may revisit them after their initial touch.  Some may also find themselves stuck in one particular stage.   

For those who claim the Christian faith, especially of the Wesleyan variety as I do, we are called to comfort people in their grief.  When someone loses a spouse, we know how to respond with compassion.  In this instance where the sides have been drastically opposed to one another, it may be harder to initially show any kindness.  A victory lap may be more satisfying in the short term.

That didn't work so well for the Democrats in 2020.  Supporters of Donald Trump stayed fixated in their denial and anger.  They tried to bargain with the vice-president to prevent the certification of the election.  Could there have been a different result on January 6th if their opponents had offered less smugness?   

The temptation in the moment for conservative voters is to "feast on liberal tears".  This would not be a surprising response and is very much in line with human nature.  But when we revel in another's loss, we can recognize that this is not a Christian stance.  We are reminded in the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus tells us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.

This is certainly a counter-cultural stance. 

But maybe if we were to do so, those on both sides of the aisle, we could forge our own reality that would be shared by all.

Wouldn't that be a nice surprise?

That's my prayer for our country today.

Photo by liz west via Flickr.com.  Used under the Creative Commons license.

  

Committing to Wesleyan Ideals on Voting

The high polarization in our country has created a lot of political anxiety these days. Polls seem to show a toss-up in key battleground states. If one listens to the political ads, our country will be doomed if the candidate you don’t favor prevails.

I would be lying if I said that I’ve been immune to the angst.

Unfortunately, this high tension led to political violence during the last presidential election with four of the rioters dying during the breach of our nation’s Capitol Building. A police officer also died the next day after being injured in the riot. In the days and months following the riot, four police officers who participated in the defense of the U.S. Capitol died by suicide.

Part of my current anxiety revolves around whether we can avoid this kind of extremism in this election cycle.

As a person of faith, my prayer is that we can return to a higher discourse in our country. In disagreement, we can solve our differences through deliberation rather than violence. As a person of faith, I also believe that human beings have a responsibility to act in order to bring our prayers to fruition.

John Wesley, Anglican clergyman and originator of Methodism, lived in England in the 18th century. Stakes in British elections were high in 1774 with political tension concerning how to manage the American colonies. There were different sides then as well, and Wesley had some advice for the Methodists of his day that were recorded in his Oct. 6 journal entry.

His first admonition was “To vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy.”

This is low-hanging fruit for us to reach, although American politicians do tend to put forth policies that give the appearance of being financially advantageous to voters today.

Wesley’s second piece of advice was “To speak no evil of the person they voted against,” which is a much harder task in today’s climate.

Wesley’s time and culture didn’t feature algorithms designed to feed him news that reinforced all his biases about the other candidate. But it does seem that there was a time not so long ago where we heard the advice growing up, “if you can’t say something nice about someone, don’t say anything at all.”

We could actually shorten debate times quite a bit if we still lived by this. It also might lessen our time on social media scrolls.

Wesley’s third recommendation was “To take care their spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side.” The fact that Wesley had to mention this means that there were many who failed in their sense of unity in his day.

If this seems like an impossibility at this point, it may be that we need to examine how we see our fellow citizens.

If you are already planning on avoiding Thanksgiving with relatives who may have a different political perspective, then polarization has come to roost in your extended family. We often admonish our politicians for not getting more done by working across the aisle. Their inability may flow from us more than we realize.

I would never participate in a Capitol riot no matter how frustrated I became. But do my own attitudes, comments and enmity help to shape an environment where this is possible?

It may be that I need to reexamine and recommit to Wesley’s ideals concerning voting and elections. It would be nice to take an active hand in lessening polarization this year. Maybe my commitment to do so can go hand in hand with my prayer.

This article was originally published in the Tulsa World on October 24, 2024.

Photo taken by Brett Davis and used under the Creative Commons license.

The Theology of LGBTQIA+ Inclusion

Our staff is gearing up for Pride on Sunday!

As Tulsa Pride is coming this weekend to celebrate the queer community in our midst, Boston Avenue United Methodist Church has been involved for quite a while behind the scenes.  After The United Methodist Church went through its decades-long deliberations regarding inclusion, there are still many churches who do not support full inclusion of the LGBTQIA+ community.  Some of these left our denomination and some are still part of the Oklahoma Conference.  There are individuals within Boston Avenue UMC where I serve who may not agree with inclusion or even understand why we would support it.

I will be hosting a Bible Study later this month entitled, "Clobbered: How Does an Inclusive Church Interpret 'Certain' Passages of the Bible" which will deal with a scriptural apologetic of inclusion.  It will also be available by zoom if you would like to join us by clicking the link above.

But as a Wesleyan who seeks to be consistent theologically, I also wanted to lift up the theological rationale for why Christians would support Pride.

We begin with the idea of God as Creator.  In the beginning, everything that is created, God declares to be good.  As science continues to support that people are created with their sexual identities rather than choosing them like at a buffet, we posit that if God were to create someone outside of the statistical majority, who are we to call their difference something other than good?

As Wesleyans, we also believe in God’s prevenient or preceding grace.  This is the idea that God loves all of creation and is reaching out in love to every human being on the planet.  Is there a child that God would not love?  We find the concept that God wouldn’t love someone ridiculous if not cruel.  As God seeks each person for relationship, human beings are often the most obvious vehicle for God to utilize in expressing this truth.

Jesus shares many times in the gospels that God is seeking to reach those on the outside looking in.  This includes people that the religious institutions of Jesus’ day would ostracize.  Jesus even goes on to identify himself with them in the example of the sheep and the goats.  Can you think of any groups of people that may not feel embraced in the church today?  How would this person not qualify as the stranger that Jesus lifts up for welcome?

As we support Pride this week, we do so in a way that connects us to the living Christ.  May our smiles and words of welcome be like a cup of cold water on a hot day!  We offer love because we are vessels of God’s grace, partnering with our Creator to declare, “You are a beloved child of God and you are good!”

South Central Jurisdictional Conference Review

I've just returned to Tulsa from Rogers, Arkansas, where I was privileged to serve as a delegate from the Oklahoma Conference to the South Central Jurisdictional Conference.  Normally, jurisdictional conference occurs only once every four years following General Conference and usually in July.  Pandemic related difficulties pushed the 2020 JC to November of 2022.

Within the polity of The United Methodist Church, we have jurisdictions within the United States which are geographic boundaries aligning conferences of similar cultural regions.  Currently, the Oklahoma Conference (where my appointment Boston Avenue resides) is a part of the South Central Jurisdiction.  Our jurisdiction contains the following annual conferences: Great Plains (Nebraska and Kansas), Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Indian Missionary (OIMC), North Texas (Dallas area), Central Texas (Ft Worth area), Northwest Texas (Lubbock area), Rio Texas (San Antonio area), Texas (Houston area) and New Mexico (which also includes parts of Texas just to the south of the state). 

At Jurisdictional Conference, we elect bishops from any of the active elders within The United Methodist Church.  While any elder is eligible for election, the South Central Jurisdiction has only elected bishops from within its own conferences (rather than lifting up elders from other jurisdictions).  This year, because of disaffiliation-related losses, we did not elect any bishops and rather reassigned episcopal areas.  The new areas of coverage were announced at jurisdictional conference.

Bishop Nunn

The Oklahoma Conference is currently served by Bishop Jimmy Nunn until the end of August which is when his retirement will take effect.  His episcopal area includes the Oklahoma Conference, the Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference and the Northwest Texas Conference.  I have appreciated Bishop Nunn’s leadership, serving with him on the cabinet through the difficult disaffiliation period of our denomination.  He has earned his retirement as much as any bishop in The United Methodist Church!  Bishop Robert Schnase also retired at this conference.  He serves until September, the Rio Texas and New Mexico conferences and may be best known as an author who wrote books such as Five Practices of Fruitful Congregations.

Bishop Merrill

Starting September 1, Boston Avenue will have new episcopal leadership in Bishop Laura Merrill.  Bishop Merrill will be the first female bishop to serve the Oklahoma Conference!  I am excited to have Bishop Merrill serve in this capacity and supported her election in November of 2022.  We have known each other for just a little while as we went to seminary together at Candler School of Theology only a few short years ago.  Bishop Merrill has the qualities to excel as our bishop.

Her episcopal area will include Arkansas, Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference.  These three will remain separate conferences and each have their own leadership with Bishop Merrill giving oversight to each.  While Oklahoma was previously paired with OIMC and Northwest Texas, we will now be paired with OIMC and Arkansas. 

Other changes in the jurisdiction are that Northwest Texas, Central Texas and North Texas will combine into one conference (instead of remaining as three separate annual conferences) named as the Horizon Texas Conference starting September 1.  Bishop Ruben Saenz will serve this new conference.

New Mexico was left unassigned regarding episcopal coverage.  While it was not announced, my understanding is that they will likely be paired with the Desert Southwest Conference in the Western Jurisdiction.  A Western Jurisdiction bishop will be offering oversight to New Mexico.  Years ago (long before I became a pastor), Oklahoma was paired with New Mexico as an episcopal area.

Bishop Wilson

Bishop David Wilson will continue to serve the Great Plains Conference and is near and dear to our hearts being elected as the first Native American bishop in the denomination out of the Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference.  Others maintaining their areas include Bishop Delores Williamston who will continue to serve the Louisiana Conference and Bishop Bob Farr who will continue to serve the Missouri Conference.

Bishop Cynthia Harvey will serve a new episcopal area consisting of the Texas Conference (where she's been serving) and the Rio Texas Conference. 

The challenges of episcopal leadership in this day and age loom large.  Churches are still recovering from both COVID and disaffiliation and many haven’t been financially sound enough to pay their apportionments to the denomination.  Pastors are less willing to itinerate than in the past.  Conference budgets have shifted downwards due to the recent losses.

But the possibilities and potential also loom large.  We are more united than we have been in my history as a pastor (I was ordained in 1996 and began to serve on the delegation in 2004).  When churches and clergy are able to trust each other more fully, there is a greater sense of mission and purpose.  This also means that less time and resources will be spent dealing with charges brought upon our clergy and laity (which represents in-fighting and takes a lot of energy). 

I would invite you to be in prayer for Bishop Merrill as she prepares herself spiritually to lead this new episcopal area.  Bishop Nunn reminded us in his excellent sermon in closing worship that God is not yet through with The United Methodist Church!  It is definitely worth watching.  I believe that United Methodists will face the overall decline in Christianity in the United States with new vigor.  As we lead with grace, may God grant us new momentum in the years to come!

Language Removal in The United Methodist Church

The United Methodist Church’s postponed 2020 General Conference finally met and removed the language around the allowance of same-gender weddings and LGBTQ+ ordination.  It also removed the language citing that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching that’s been in the denomination’s Book of Discipline since 1972.

Reserve Lay Delegate Corey Shirey, Oklahoma

People who favor full-inclusion see this as a step in the right direction while those of a more traditionalist mindset may find themselves uneasy toward what the future may hold for their church.

What the General Conference did was move to a neutral position.  It is important to understand that removal does not equate approval from the standpoint of United Methodist polity or doctrine.  

This movement gives more autonomy and tries to recognize and honor differences throughout the various regions of the world where The United Methodist Church lives out its mission.  We’ve moved to a more libertarian understanding of human sexuality.

Ordination of clergy has always had its authority within the annual conference (geographic region under the authority of a bishop).  Clergy have their membership in the conference and not the local church.  Within the constitution of the Book of Discipline, paragraph 33 defines the annual conference as the basic body of the church.  This fits within our polity to grant individual conferences the authority to determine who they will or will not ordain.  The removal of the language places this authority back into the hands of the annual conference district committees on ordained ministry, conference boards of ordained ministry and the clergy executive sessions of our annual conferences. 

Those of a traditionalist mindset have often expressed that they are fearful of receiving a gay pastor.  When the cabinet seeks to appoint a pastor to a church, the superintendents look at the church’s profile which lines out their identity and is updated by the church annually.  We look at the staff parish relations (personnel) committee’s review of the pastor to see what kind of pastor they would like to receive at this point in time.  The superintendent often meets with this committee prior to setting the appointment to see what may have changed.   Through all of these channels, the local church expresses their preferences on a wide variety of options.  We have always taken into account theological preference.  The cabinet does its best not to appoint a conservative pastor to a progressive congregation or a progressive pastor to a conservative congregation.  We want the best fit possible in order to allow the congregational leadership to thrive without clashing with the pastor and for the pastor to avoid burnout from repeatedly stepping into trouble in a mismatched context.  We seek to do no harm to church or pastor.

Churches will continue to have the autonomy to decide wedding policies.  They will not get into trouble or be forced to conduct same-gender weddings by the state of from private individuals (separation of church and state).  The Judicial Council (the United Methodist equivalent of the Supreme Court) ruled earlier this week that the church may develop wedding policies that prohibit same-gender weddings in their sanctuaries.  However, one question I have asked churches is “When was the last time you had a wedding in your sanctuary?”  We find that most young people are preferring venues outside the church for their weddings these days and this may have more to do with the church’s no-alcohol policy than anything else.  I would caution churches on immediately jumping into a wedding policy just as I would caution a couple into jumping into marriage too suddenly.  It would be better for a church to do a study to see where they align across their membership if they haven’t already done so.  I never like to invite trouble unnecessarily.

This is not the first time in our history that the church has varied on biblical interpretation.  From our origins coming out of Judea, the early church had difficulty surrounding the issue of circumcision.  In Genesis 17:14,  God states rather clearly, “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Paul reinterprets this as he begins to share the Good News of Jesus Christ to people outside the Jewish faith in the Mediterranean world.  He states in Romans chapter two, “Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not the written code.”  He goes on to share in Galatians 5:6 to say, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.”

This was well-received by the multitudes as the church spread.  But it was received as heresy by many and Paul was beaten up and run out of multiple synagogues for preaching this message.  Some of the violence done to Paul was likely by Christians who believed in strictly following the law. 

And of course, Paul also states in 1 Corinthians 9 that he follows the law to reach those who claim it for their lives while also operating outside the law to reach those who are foreign to it.  He was all things to all people so that some might be saved.  The salvation we find in Christ Jesus was of higher priority than other scripture.

As United Methodists today, we understand that, like Paul, we seek to be contextual in our ministry.  The language surrounding our LGBTQ siblings has been controversial and been the cause of many an argument in the church.  While we don’t think the language removal will end debate, we do think that it might center our mission more around making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.  I’ve often seen people on mission trips form solid friendships with those who vote very differently at the polls.  They rallied around helping others.  This sounds like faith working through love.

And while some believe that the church should speak more universally around LGBTQ+ issues, Wesleyans have always allowed people to think for themselves.  John Wesley states in his sermon, Catholic Spirit, “Every wise man, therefore, will allow others the same liberty of thinking which he desires they should allow him; and will no more insist on their embracing his opinions, than he would have them to insist on his embracing theirs. He bears with those who differ from him..."  Wesley asks more famously within this sermon, "Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike?  May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion?  Without all doubt, we may."

As we seek to continue as a denomination to love one another through our differences, I like to think about this as I would Thanksgiving dinner.  Most extended families do not all think alike or act alike.  There are some who come to Thanksgiving that you would likely seat at opposite ends of the table to preserve the peace.  There may, in fact, be people that you tend to avoid at these gatherings.  But most people would never deny them entrance to the family gathering.  Bonds of genetics and covenant and family history tie us together.  This may be a good metaphor for the body of Christ.  We may not all agree on a variety of things but in the church, we all declare that we bind ourselves under the lordship of Jesus Christ.  This lordship calls us to forgive and seek reconciliation.  It calls us to love – not out of feelings of closeness – but out of action that seeks to convey who God is to the world. 

The General Conference’s decisions line up with our belief in God’s prevenient grace.  God loves all people and wants them to know this.  We believe that the removal of the LGBTQ+ language furthers this love and allows contextualization over how the church lives out this love.   

For many in our church, this is a welcome change that allows them to live and serve in our church without being labeled as “unclean.”  For others, it is a challenge to their faith or their interpretation of scripture.  I would invite all of us to center ourselves around the faith of Jesus Christ who calls us to love God with all our being and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.  Jesus names this as primary even over other scriptures.  At times it is challenging.  But if we love through the challenge, we often find that blessing awaits on the other side. 

I pray this is so for our church.