Bandits No More

A United Methodist elder currently pastoring in another denomination reflects on the Beth Stroud case:

Further, the message sounded out from the UMC after the Beth mess is this — you can’t be a practicing lesbian and be a United Methodist pastor at the same time, but as a lesbian who is in a committed relationship with another female it is quite acceptable to be an active and involved lay member of the UMC — which means you can serve on committees in any capacity, including serving as a chairperson! And as previously mentioned, Beth Stroud will likely be a paid staff member at Germantown United Methodist Church.

I’m not surprised that some find this odd. We have discipline for the ordained, but not for the unordained. Originally, Methodists were known as a disciplined people. Under Wesley, continued membership in the Methodist Societies required discipline – recognized by the leaders of the movement. In the past couple of generations, however, discipline has been watered down. We have standards, but they are selectively enforced, if at all.

As to homosexuality, the Book of Discipline declares that its practice is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” It doesn’t say this is the case only for clergy, but for all. At the same time that same Book of Discipline declares that homosexuals are “people of sacred worth”, fully deserving of civil rights.

What we are lacking, is the ability to discern sin and what to do with sinners. Our culture generally offers us two options. First, there is violent condemnation – the like of which we see in Fred Phelps’s crowd. Second, there is tolerance. Now which would any morally upstanding person choose? Which position seems more loving? Which is more like Jesus? Most people have trouble imaging Jesus shouting “God hates fags.” He instead would be tolerant. If these are our only two options the UM position on homosexuality, especially as acted out toward the clergy, is manifestly unfair and unChristlike.

But are these the only two options? I don’t have time to look at this in great detail now, but I have one suggestion. Are there any activities that those who emphasize tolerance in relation to the practice of homosexuality think ought not to be tolerated? How ought one to respond to those non-tolerated activities? We’ve already ruled out the second option – the “nice” option. But do we then take up violent condemnation? “God hates pedophiles!” “God hates embezzlers!” “God hates gossips!” ???? I confess that I haven’t seen that option taken up by the tolerant crowd (except by some caught up in PC issues).

As I was putting my youngest daughter to bed tonight we were listening (as is our habit) to an episode of Adventures in Odyssey. In the story Nick, a worker at Whit’s End (a ice cream shop & hang out for kids), is confronted about where he was when a certain object was stolen. He wasn’t where he was supposed to be, so out of fear he lied. Trying help my daughter learn from the story, we talked for a bit about his motivation for acting.

Fear is a powerful motivator. Almost everyone acts out of fear at least some of the time. But fear is a terrible motivator – it so often leads us wrong. If we are in a position of leadership, i.e., in a position where we need to motivate people, we’re often tempted to use fear: “I’ll shoot!”, ” You’ll get an F”, etc. Many times this strategy works. But only in the short term, and often with negative consequences.

Hannah thought it would be much better to motivate with a lollipop. Instead of, “If you don’t do your work, I’ll give you an F,” try “When you do your work I’ll give you a lollipop.” This kind of motivation is also quite common. It’s better than fear, but I wouldn’t rank it too high either.

While on our post-Christmas trip this week I had opportunity to speak with the pastor of a church that has a million dollars in the bank and receives $14k a month in oil, gas & coal revenues. They’re surrounded by available land and the pastor has a vision for expanding so they can reach the community better.

But many of the members want nothing to do with it. They want to keep the money in the bank – “for a rainy day.”

I’d rather have my congregation that is in debt, struggling with money than one that has too much. On the surface, it would appear that the church has no money problems. But it does. The security of money has blinded them to the mission God has given them and to the opportunities before them.

We have three great children. I enjoy being with them and doing things with them. But it also necessary to have some times away from them, just with my wife. Each year at this time (close to out anniversary, and at a slow church time), we try to take a couple of days off and go somewhere. We don’t usually do anything fancy or expensive. In years past we’ve gone to places like Goliad, Austin, Natchitoches, Shreveport, and Tyler. This year we went to Dallas.

The main reason we picked Dallas this year was because they had some restaurants we don’t have where we now live. Our favorite non-local place is Fadi’s. I haven’t eaten at many Mediterranean restaurants (due to lack of availability, not lack of desire), but Fadi’s is awesome. Our favorite dish there is eggplant. When we lived near a Fadi’s in Houston, I once ordered the vegetarian sampler. I couldn’t believe that the tasty dark mass on the plate turned out to be eggplant. I’d never in my life had eggplant I liked (though I had had some worthy of toleration). Fadi’s hummus is also the best I’ve had. Fadi’s also has many meat dishes, though I have less experience with them. I’ve liked the vegetables so much, that I couldn’t bring myself to not order the sampler.

Another stop on our trip this year was the Dallas Arboretum. The weather was beautiful and we like to walk (and after all the eating we needed some exercise), so off to the park. As far as variety of trees goes, the Dallas Arboretum is well behind others we’ve been to – the LA Arboretum has the greatest variety; even Zilker Park in Austin seemed to have more. Dallas seems to specialize more in flowers (though this is not the ideal time of year for flowers). They also seem to be developing their collection and to have much work ahead of them. The highlight of our visit (other than walking and enjoying the out-of-doors) was the display of Nativity scenes in the DeGolyer house. The display featured over 500 from all over the world.

As a city, Dallas continues to leave me unimpressed. There is obviously great wealth there. There are also many large churches. But the city as a whole seems dingy and morally decayed. But then maybe the men’s clubs just advertise more there than in other cities.

You have to read this story to believe it. A Nigerian pastors perhaps the largest church in Europe – in the city of Kiev.

Americans are just a bunch of softies these days. We offend easily and expect everyone else to offend easily. Consider the dispute over Christmas.

Christians have celebrated Christmas with gusto for some years. Over the past century Americans have gone all out in their celebration of Christmas, commercializing it in the process. But then we got sensitive. What about the Jews? How can we celebrate Christmas when they don’t? We’ll celebrate Hannukah just like we celebrate Christmas. So we start commercializing another holiday.

But in the past few years we’ve discovered there are people who neither celebrate Christmas nor Hannukah. What can we do? Well, for Muslims, we’ll “Christmas-ize” Eid, the festival at the end of Ramadan (sometimes it can happen in December), for some African Americans we’ll Christmas-ize Kwanzaa. Maybe we’ll keep everyone happy.

But maybe not. What about all the people who vociferously believe nothing – or nothing like any other large organized groups of people believe?

We are now seeing in increasing amounts, not only the commercialization of Christmas, but the de-Christmas-ing of Christmas. It used to be when we said we needed to “put Christ in Christmas” we meant that in the midst of shopping and partying we needed to remember Jesus too. Now when we say “put Christ in Christmas” we’re speaking up for even the bare mention of his name. “Winter holiday” is ok. “Happy Holidays” is ok. Hannukah and Kwanzaa and Eid are still ok. But in more and more places, “Christmas” is out. Somebody might be offended.

How painful is this offense? How does it work? Does it cause broken bones? Ulcers? Fear of hellfire? How can the fact that many Americans celebrate Christmas – whether sentimentally as the season of snow, santa and baby Jesus, or more devotionally as the birthday of their Lord and Savior – be so dangerous? Are they afraid that in our celebratory orgies we’ll kidnap some children and cook them for our Christmas feast? That’s what some of the ancient Romans feared about the early Christians – and what some medieval Christians feared about the Jews. Utter nonsense.

But being offended at Christmas – or any other display of a particular religion – is only one instance of our tendency to be offended. I have seen many situations of late where we disallow saying something good about someone (individual or group) because people take our affirmation to also include a condemnation of those NOT mentioned, our outside the group mentioned. How did we ever get to this place?

This survey demonstrates that a highly educated segment of the population who daily close to life and death issues tends to not only believe in God, but have a high incidence of seeing that God in action.

Not surprisingly, some UM leaders thought (they probably still do but I’m sticking to the evidence at hand) doctrine to be irrelevant – as long as growth (and positive publicity?) could be had. Consider this observation in the San Francisco Examiner on Cecil Williams & Glide Memorial:

Highers-up from the United Methodist Church visited with Williams in 2000, hoping to increase membership by taking some of Williams’ ideas back to their own communities, even though many of those ideas conflict with official Methodist doctrine. For instance, the United Methodist Church has adopted a kind of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for its members, banning the ordaining of gay ministers and the sanctioning of same-sex unions.

Not surprisingly, some UM leaders thought (they probably still do but I’m sticking to the evidence at hand) doctrine to be irrelevant – as long as growth (and positive publicity?) could be had. Consider this observation in the San Francisco Examiner on Cecil Williams & Glide Memorial:

Highers-up from the United Methodist Church visited with Williams in 2000, hoping to increase membership by taking some of Williams’ ideas back to their own communities, even though many of those ideas conflict with official Methodist doctrine. For instance, the United Methodist Church has adopted a kind of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for its members, banning the ordaining of gay ministers and the sanctioning of same-sex unions.

With all the fuss over the major network’s non-acceptance of the United Church of Christ ad, one of their mottos has been receiving attention as well. I think it may be nearly as unhelpful a motto as our UM motto “OPen Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors.” Theirs is adapted from Gracie Allen: “Never place a period where God has placed a comma” Sounds ok – but it depends on how you take it. Their particular take on it seems to be as a claim that Christianity is fundamentally open. No doctrines, beliefs or practices are consitutive of Christianity for all time. “God is still speaking,” they say, non-controversial as it goes, but in this case it appears to mean something like, ‘The bible is an old outdated book, but fortunately God keeps tells us new stuff to supercede that archaic stuff.”

Susan Ager is right to see this as illustrative of two very different approaches to Christainity. Though I don’t think that “fundamentalism” is the best term to oppose to the apparently always open to major reformulation view she and the UCC seem to advocate (unless all evangelicals and the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Third World mainstream are all fundamentalists), but I won’t quibble.

I don’t think they really want this “comma” theology, however. Does it mean that everything Christians have said about God or God’s commands are always up for correction? It is certainly popular to say that the scriptural teaching on certain topics (the most popular today are those dealing with sex) are merely expressions of ancient culture, before our current age of enlightenment. But what about the other teachings? Is God’s teaching on faithfhulness, forgiveness, generosity, etc., to be treated with a comma also?

One gets the idea from Susan Ager, and I don’t know if she is a member of the UCC or simply a commmentator, that the driving force is not so much what God says or doesn’t say, but what we like. She says,

When I was a child, our Catholic priest insisted only Catholics would enter heaven. That made me sad, because my friend Beth Ann was Protestant, and it didn’t seem fair.

I’ve had trouble ever since with churches that insist theirs is the only way. The God I know in my heart would not condemn good people who prayed in different ways, even to gods with different names.

“God is love.” We like that. We’ll put a period on that. “Don’t lay with a man as with a woman.” Oooh – that’s mean spirited. We don’t like that. Let’s put a comma there.

Or do they really mean to put a comma there? Do they want to claim that God said those nasty things but has now come to be of a different opinion? Or do they want to claim that God never actually said any such thing? I could be wrong, but I think they’d be more likely to claim the latter. Ludwig Feuerbach could look at this kind of theology and think his projection theory has been confirmed.