Reflections a week after General Conference… #umcgc

As Psalm 146 reminds us: human leaders and human institutions aren’t everything.  They won’t save us.

We are finite and we make mistakes.

Only God is forever faithful.

Yet, any denomination or tradition comes from God’s followers attempting to live out their faith and their discipleship together.

Fully knowing that we are not perfect, we nevertheless seek to do the best we can to respond to God’s movement and calling in the world in a given place and time… based on where our forefathers and mothers have led us and based on where the Holy Spirit is calling us anew.

That is what we tried to do at General Conference.  Over 10 days, we attempted to be faithful to God’s leading and yet we are not God and our plans are just that… ours.

Over these last two weeks, we very nearly split our denomination into pieces.  Our differences are stark. Our life together is marred by conflict as much as collaboration.  And I’m going to be honest… I’m not quite sure yet what comes after General Conference.

We asked our Bishops to help us find a way forward out of our predicament and that way forward is still vague.

So rather than making predictions, maybe it would be better to share who we are and how we got to this place.  I think fundamentally, there are three key things to keep in mind as we wrestle with what it means to be the United Methodist Church.

 

First, I think it is helpful to understand that the United Methodist Church is a global church. 

We are the only protestant denomination that is worldwide.  Our churches span from Manila to Legos to Moscow. And, while the church in the U.S. has been declining, the global church is growing exponentially.

In the last ten years, the U.S. has declined in membership by 11%, while the church in the Africa Central Conference grew by 329%!

42% of United Methodists now live outside of the United States.

One of the most important things we do at General Conference is listen to one another, try to understand more about our contexts, and find ways to help ministry flourish all across the world.  And that is not an easy task.

But because of our global partnerships, we can do amazing things like Imagine No Malaria and our United Methodist Committee on Relief is the first to arrive on the scene of disaster and the last to leave.

And we can learn from one another.

I remember listening to a committee four years ago debate the process for closing a church.  A woman from Liberia stood and said that she was extremely confused as to what we were talking about… not because of a language barrier, but because she simply couldn’t comprehend why we would close a church. The church in the United States needs that passion for the gospel that is growing so fast we can’t build enough churches!

As we continue to debate the inclusion of LGBTQI people in the life of our church, I also heard clearly from our African delegates, like my new friend Pastor Adilson, that their contextual struggle is not with homosexuality, but with polygamy. Rather than asking if same-gender marriages are allowed in their churches, they are struggling with how to welcome and include a man who has four or five wives.  Does the church ask him to divorce all but one?  What happens to the other wives?  Or the children?  How is the entire family welcomed?

We are also learning to reframe our conversations to be more global than United States centric.  One of our debates this year was about a resolution for health care that referenced the Affordable Care Act.  When 42% of United Methodists live outside the United States, these kinds of statements need to be broader in scope.  It was hard to be talking about a system that only applies to some of us, when so many people in that room had little to no access to care, much less health insurance.

One of the realities of being a global church is that multiple languages play a role in all of our meetings. While we have four official languages as the UMC: French, English, Portuguese and Kiswahili, we had simultaneous interpretation in Russian, German, Spanish, and many others.

An ever present reality is also that in many of these global areas Christianity arrived along with colonialism.  “Most Africans teach their children that Jesus and other biblical characters are muzungu (Kiswahili, “white”) notwithstanding the fact that Jesus would likely have been dark complexioned because he was born in the Middle East.”  (http://unitedmethodistreporter.com/2016/05/11/are-africans-grown-a-response-to-bishop-minerva-carcano-dealing-with-wounded-united-methodist-church/)

We, as a church, have tried to combat colonial impulses by allowing the conferences outside of the United States to adapt our Book of Discipline to their local contexts.  However, that means that 42% of the church doesn’t have to abide by all of what we vote on… and that we need their votes in order to make changes to the rules only we follow.

 

Second, it is helpful to know how we make decisions.  

The roots of our church lie in England, but we were born during the American Revolution.  And our polity, our government is modeled upon our national government.

Just like the government, we have a judicial branch and a Judicial Council.

Our Bishops function as the executive branch.

And the General Conference itself is the legislative branch… just like Congress.

864 of us were elected as voting delegates to represent the worldwide church and we were half clergy and half laity.

The General Conference is the only body that can speak for the United Methodist Church and everyday people like you and me are the ones who make the decisions.

So those of us gathered there had the responsibility of pouring over legislation and making changes to our structure, rules, and positions… four years worth of work condensed into two weeks.

I believe that to discern the Holy Spirit, one has to be humble, empty yourself, and allow other voices to influence you.

The first week of conference is largely spent in legislative committees and in those smaller groups some of that discernment could happen.  I had truly transformative experiences in my committee and the work felt good and holy.

But all of those relationships and trust falls apart when an item comes to the floor of the plenary session.  There, the decision making process moves away from consensus building and instead creates winners and losers.

On the FIRST DAY of conference… we spent hours debating the rules that we would use in order to debate. We used and we abused Robert’s Rules of Order.

And when we were presented with an alternative decision making process (what you might have heard as Rule 44) to use for particularly contentious issues, we debated it for two days and then voted not to use it.

But we did accomplish some things.  We approved the creation of a new hymnal for our church.  We strengthened our process for the affirmation of clergy.  We created new pathways for licensed local pastors.  And we added gender, age, ability, and marital status to the protected classes in our constitution.

 

Third, it is helpful to understand that while it appears that our conflict as a church is centered around the inclusion of LGBTQI people, our division is deeper.

Our church is a very broad tent and the likes of both Dick Cheney and Hilary Clinton call our church home.  This is one of the things that I love about the United Methodist Church.

But I think what came into focus for many of us at this General Conference is that our disagreements may no longer be sustainable.

Perhaps fundamental to our conflict is how we interpret scripture. For some, scripture is absolutely central and the only tradition, reason, or experience that matters is that which scripture can confirm.  For others, scripture is absolutely central and yet we have to interpret scripture through the lenses of our tradition, reason, and experience.  That shift might seem subtle, but it can make the difference between allowing women to be ordained or not in our church.

We also fundamentally disagree about whether we are a church of personal piety or social holiness. Of course, John Wesley thought it had to be both… but where we place our emphasis determines how we engage with the world and the moral stances we choose to take.

All of this difference is floating beneath the surface of any conversation about how LGBTQI people are included or not in the life of our church.

 

If you asked me a month ago what was going to happen at General Conference I would have been full of optimism. You see, I’m a bridge builder.

And so I went to General Conference with all kinds of hopes about how we would make decisions to benefit the church all over the world and how in spite of our differences we would find a way forward together.

I don’t think it was naïve to believe this going in.

But in the midst of our gathering in Portland, something shifted. Something shifted in my own life and in the hearts and minds of countless other delegates.

We realized that we could no longer keep doing what we have been doing together as a denomination.

We realized that our differences were tearing us apart.

And in Portland, we made a very conscious choice to avoid the end of our denomination through our votes.  We voted to seek unity, to try to find a way to remain together for the sake of God’s mission in the world. But there is a phrase we kept using that I think is important.  Unity does not mean unanimity.

As we look at our differences, particularly in the three areas I named, for many, we avoided the end, but are only delaying the inevitable.

Maybe our global structure is unsustainable.

Maybe our decision making process has to change.

Maybe  our fundamental disagreements will only continue to allow conflict to rule our work together and we would be better to split amicably and allow each part of our church to be the most faithful it can be to God’s will.

The next four years as United Methodists will not be easy.  We have asked the Bishops of our church to lead us in discerning a way forward and that might mean that in the next two or three years we will call a special gathering to decide how to move forward… on what it means to be a global church, on our structure, on our polity, and on our stances regarding human sexuality.

I have about 45 more minutes of things I could share with you and I’m happy to continue to have conversations about our work.  But I want to leave you with this one request.

Pray for our church.

Pray for God’s will to be done.

Pray that we might follow the one who is faithful forever, who as Psalm 146 reminds us…

defends the wronged,     and feeds the hungry. God frees prisoners—     God gives sight to the blind,     and lifts up the fallen. God loves good people, protects strangers,     takes the side of orphans and widows,     but makes short work of the wicked.

In spite of all the good and all of the mistakes that we made at this past General Conference, I take comfort in the knowledge that God’s in charge—always.

Empty. #umcgc

So far at this conference I’ve been given a few nicknames.

Mama-Pastor.
Interloper.
Bridge-builder.

I feel called to be United Methodist and I have always felt called to hang out in the middle and help various sides hear one another.

Maybe that is why my subcommittee experience was so powerful.

We connected across cultures.
We shared from our contexts.
We listened more than we talked.

And maybe that is why today has been so terribly hard.

Yesterday evening, word started spreading about conversations between the Council of Bishops and various caucuses. They are trying to help us find a way forward and viable separation was on the table. As Bishop Ough said this morning (and this is a paraphrase): we risked being vulnerable enough to go there.

Last night was full of denial and shock.

We began worship with the room buzzing and a whole host of ecumenical guests.

Unity. Oneness. Unity. Oneness.

Oh, and an absolutely incredible and challenging sermon by Ivan Abrahams of the World Methodist Council.

I wept through most of worship.

My heart was broken.

The bridges seemed to be disintegrating.

And yet we were singing “I need you to survive.”

Bishop Ough came to the mic after worship and shared with us a letter from the Bishops. A word that they were committed to unity. And yet, it felt to me like they were also saying… whatever you decide to do, we’ll help you navigate through.

Except, we don’t know what to do.

Friends, our conflict is not about the lives of LGBTQI people. At this moment, their value, calls, and relationships are at the center of our conflict, but the church needs to grow up and say to our children: it is not your fault that we are so divided and torn.

My siblings are not issues and they are not the cause of our pain… although we are causing them pain.

Our conflict is that we have radically different ways of understanding what it means to be United Methodist. Across the connection, we view the primacy of scripture differently. Some of us see the Discipline as gospel and some of us see it as a living breathing document that helps us adapt to changing context. Some of our conferences are lay led, others clergy, other focus their power in the episcopacy. Some of us are in cultures that have forgotten the Christian tradition, others in places where the way of Jesus is barely taking root and trying to create space for Christianity. Some of are studying liberation theology and some of us can’t see our privilege when we look at ourselves in the mirror. Some of us have the freedom to make choices and others face scrutiny from their governments. Some of us are worried about kids spending too much time and energy on soccer camp and others are just praying for their five year old not to die from malaria.

We’ve found a way together before.

What I love about our tradition is that we hold together all sorts of both/ands… personal piety AND social holiness… making disciples AND transforming the world… potlucks AND fasting…

So I came to General Conference committed to finding a way forward… together.

I have to admit, however, that I need the church to change. Yes, to be more inclusive. Yes, to end the pain upon our LGBTQI siblings. But even more, I need the church to change because the Holy Spirit is calling and pushing and challenging us to step to the margins and let go of our rules and power and privilege and actually go do the things Jesus freaking asked us to do!

If the church refuses to change and adapt… well…  I have started to feel like maybe we can each be more faithful on our own.

Watching us celebrate the 200th anniversary of the AME Church, we lifted up how they thrived a part from us. We pushed out our siblings (in horrendous acts of racism) and they are  fine. God continues to move and work in both of our traditions. God is bigger than our denominations and conflicts. God can unite us even if we have different names for our churches.

So, friends, tomorrow we start the conversation again.

The Bishops might come back with a proposal. We might discuss it.

Only God knows what our future holds.

And tomorrow, having heard the pain and frustration, I don’t know where we’ll end up.

All I know is that I’m letting go of any desire to stay together at all cost, any stubborn clinging to unity in name only.

There is a way forward but I no longer pretend to have a “right answer.”

Lord, put us to what thou wilt… let us be employed for thee or laid aside for thee… let us have all things, let us have nothing… thy will be done.

Untitled

Format Image

Some highlights from today…

image
All are welcome at the wedding banquet!
image
Voodoo Donuts!
image
Let your light shine: Four Areas of Focus
image
Celebrating 150 years of United Methodist Women
image
#blacklivesmatter, intersectionality, protest
image
Gender Justice! Such an important amendment ehen so many places where our church exists do not value the lives of women and girls.
image
Creating a culture of call: start asking at a young age... What are you called to?
image
Ministry and Higher Ed night...
image
Ministry and Higher Ed night... Part 2

Holy Pockets of Grace #umcgc

As I came out of my subcommittee meeting in Faith and Order tonight, I felt like we were finally doing it. We were finally embodying what it meant to hear one another, to seek understanding, to seek God’s will, and to serve God in this capacity.

We were reminded by our vice chair at the start of the afternoon, as he read Psalm 23, that we serve a dual purpose.

We look to our Shepherd who guides and sustains us.

But we are also called in this role to Shepherd and lead the church.

My subcommittee took intentional time today to listen deeply, ask questions of context, and to bring scripture to bear on our conversation. We brainstormed. We were honest. We asked about the Holy Spirit. We didn’t let parliamentary rules interfere. I believe every person around the table in our group of 30, save one or two, spoke and shared.

In particular we looked today at Paragraph 304.3 under the qualifications for ordination. While paragraph two lays out the high standards of expectation for clergy persons, paragraph three specifically names that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching and “self-avowed, practicing homosexuals” can’t be ordained.

So, not an easy topic.

But we did so with grace and faithfulness, recognizing that scripture speaks from a context to a context, and trying to help us stay united while at the same time not hindering the mission of the church and helping the church make disciples.

It was awesome.

I am also aware that our experience was extra ordinary. That other groups did not have such a holy and grace filled experience.

And I’m apprehensive, coming out of the bubble, about what comes next in our larger committee and the plenary. How on earth do you convey the spirit or translate our profound understanding of one another?

Keep praying, friends…

A (mostly) unbiased, detailed explanation #Rule44 #umcgc

Tonight, I was trained to be a small group leader if Rule #44 passes and I had a lot of questions answered. I shared my perspective in another post, but thought it might be helpful to share the process as taught tonight by Terrance

This is the process we would actually use if Rule #44 is approved (pending changes brought to the floor after the referral back to Rules of Order)

We vote on approving Rule 44 (or not… the body decides)

We vote on whether or not to use the process this year for any given piece of legislation

If we choose to use it (no matter the legislation… although the materials are prepared for our conversations around human sexuality and the church) the following process will begin:

1) There will be an orientation to the process for all delegates in a plenary session

2) We will move into our small groups on Saturday and work the process.  And guess what… for many, the small groups are the exact same small groups you were in for the conversation on the worldwide nature of the church (some were better organized than others,  utilizing the group assignments, but that is a separate issue), which means that for many there has already been the establishment of a relationship and the beginning of trust.

3) Small groups are assigned based on a) legislative committee assignment, b) seeking diversity of cultural , geographic, gender, clergy/lay, etc. experiences,  while at the same time c) grouping  participants together so that ideally there are no more than two languages in each group (to allow for better use of translation).

The small group process (what I’m calling phase 1):

1) Centering with 2 questions: 1) As you come into this discussion how are you feeling? 2) What are your hopes for the UMC as it makes decisions about _______ (in this case, LGBT people in the life of the church)?

2) Here, we have conversation, but do not record answers. If instead of speaking you want to signal that you agree with what someone else has said, you can indicate that by raising a card.

The small group process (phase 2):

1) We examine a group of petitions about the same subject (or paragraph in the Book of Discipline) by focusing on ONE petition in that grouping that has been chosen as a focus petition. It was selected because it represented the most changes or issues to discuss given the varying petitions. Everyone begins with the same grouping/topic

2) Three questions are asked: 1) as you consider this petition, what is important to you and why? 2) Does this petition express what the church needs to say at this time? 3) At this stage, can you see anything that needs changed to make this more helpful for the church? We have conversation, but do not record answers and can again indicate that we feel the same as someone by raising a card.

The small group process (phase 3):

1) For each proposed change in the petition (deletion or addition) we ask the following two questions and answers are recorded: 1) Do you support the change? (no spoken answer, simply raise card to indicate yes,no, or abstain… the results are recorded), 2) Do you have an alternative to what is suggested? (this is where amendments can be made… and each is suggested and then the group records support via: yes, no, abstain).

2) This is done for each portion of the petition, then there is a final question: Is there anything that would be helpful for the GC to say to the church on this subject? Suggestions are recorded and we discuss and take votes of support: yes, no, abstain).

3) The report contains the record of yes, no, abstensions for every piece of the legislation as well as suggestions and their support. This is what is reviewed and turned in.

When the first topic/group is complete, the group decides which topic/grouping of petitions to address next and repeats phases 2 and 3.

Facilitation Process:

1) The facilitators are elected by the General Conference from a slate and serve as servants of the delegates. Their role is to compile and to develop the focus petition into a piece of legislation that mirrors the will of the body and will bring forth a report based on what we have recorded on the small group sheets. This report will contain recommendations like: Keep the addition of this word because 68% of small group participants indicated support of the addition. Do not delete this phrase because only 22% of the small group participants favor deletion.

2) The facilitation group will also incorporate the suggestions of the small groups that were included on the sheets if there might be some ownership of that idea. One group might support a suggestion with only 30% yes votes, but if it comes up in a few other locations too, the facilitation group might include it. What they are doing is giving us the opportunity to test if that is the moving of the Holy Spirit by allowing the whole body to discuss the suggestion.

3) The goal is to help the whole body see the voice of the whole body. The focus petition might look different when it comes before the plenary because a) the pieces were not supported by the small group votes, b) suggestions were made and had some support (even like 15%, are incorporated, c) division in support in various parts of the pettion might cause the facilitation group to divide the petition into separate sections.

The Facilitation Group will present

1) They will bring the compiled petition to the body and it will come before us like ANY OTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION, with the addition of the report including our % votes and rationale behind the inclusions or exclusions.

2) Like ANY OTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION, we can vote to amend, discuss, table, divide, etc.

The four groups/topics if we vote to use this process on the topic of human sexuality are (based on a sorting of roughly 60+ petitions) :

1) Human Sexuality (paragraph 161.F ) – All groups will do this one to start.

2) Marriage – divided into three subgroups: Definition of Marriage ( paragraph 161.B),  Unauthorized Conduct (paragraph 341.6), and Chargeable Offenses (paragraph 2702.1)

3) Ordination (paragraph 304.3)

4) Inclusion in the Church (paragraph 4)

The rationale behind allowing the small groups to choose which topic they want to discuss second is that it allows for them to determine focus.  If no small group chooses to complete one of the topics, that says something about our willingness to engage in those petitions. The various small groups will choose the ones that are important to them.

Hi, I’m your small group leader AKA why I’m voting for #rule44 #umcgc

I started my day at 7am with the  Committee on Reference and when everyone else was done for the evening, I joined  a group of 50+ folks for a three hour training session for a process we might not even choose to implement.

I’m exhausted. It was a 14 hour day and I’m spent. So I apologize for any typos.

But I have to tell you… if we don’t pass rule 44, we are missing out on an opportunity to listen to one another and to let the Holy Spirit move in our United Methodist General Conference.

I was really challenged by the Episcopal Address this morning… particularly Bishop Palmer’s words that we can get all of the words of a petition right, but if we don’t get the process right, then we have failed in our witness as a church.

And I’m going to be honest.  There was not a lot that has been shared before this conference about what the process would actually look for Rule #44 like that was helpful. A lot has been vague. Rule 44 doesn’t actually talk about how the small group process will work OR the facilitation team. It only sets out the foundation for the process. So no wonder there has been speculation and misinformation and fear and trembling.

Because we didn’t know!

I was invited to be a small group leader (they were nominated by heads of delegation/bishops and then chosen by the Commission on General Conference) and I didn’t know what it would look like.

So twitter and facebook and tables conversations are blowing up with #rule 44 (seriously, it has its own twitter account – @RuleFortyFour) commentary that has no basis in reality.

Tonight, I was handed a packet full of the complete process. And I was trained in how to use it. And because it isn’t a secret (and it never has been… it just for some reason was never actually shared) I feel obligated to share. I feel like someone has to put out the information about the process we would actually use if Rule #44 is approved.

    1. We vote on approving Rule 44 (or not… the body decides)
    2. We vote on whether or not to use the process this year for any given piece of legislation
    3. If we choose to use it (no matter the legislation… although the materials are prepared for our conversations around human sexuality and the church) the following process will begin:
      1. There will be an orientation to the process for all delegates in a plenary session
      2. We will move into our small groups on Saturday and work the process.  And guess what… for many, the small groups are the exact same small groups you were in for the conversation on the worldwide nature of the church (some were better organized than others, utilizing the group assignments, but that is a separate issue), which means that for many there has already been the establishment of a relationship and the beginning of trust.
      3. Small groups are assigned based on a) legislative committee assignment, b) seeking diversity of cultural , geographic, gender, clergy/lay, etc. experiences, while at the same time c) grouping participants together so that ideally there are no more than two languages in each group (to allow for better use of translation). /ol>
      4. The small group process (what I’m calling phase 1):
        1. Centering with 2 questions: 1) As you come into this discussion how are you feeling? 2) What are your hopes for the UMC as it makes decisions about _______ (in this case, LGBT people in the life of the church)?
        2. Here, we have conversation, but do not record answers. If instead of speaking you want to signal that you agree with what someone else has said, you can indicate that by raising a card.
      5. The small group process (phase 2):
        1. We examine a group of petitions about the same subject (or paragraph in the Book of Discipline) by focusing on ONE petition in that grouping that has been chosen as a focus petition. It was selected because it represented the most changes or issues to discuss given the varying petitions. Everyone begins with the same grouping/topic
        2. Three questions are asked: 1) as you consider this petition, what is important to you and why? 2) Does this petition express what the church needs to say at this time? 3) At this stage, can you see anything that needs changed to make this more helpful for the church? We have conversation, but do not record answers and can again indicate that we feel the same as someone by raising a card.
      6. The small group process (phase 3):
        1. For each proposed change in the petition (deletion or addition) we ask the following two questions and answers are recorded: 1) Do you support the change? (no spoken answer, simply raise card to indicate yes,no, or abstain… the results are recorded), 2) Do you have an alternative to what is suggested? (this is where amendments can be made… and each is suggested and then the group records support via: yes, no, abstain).
        2. This is done for each portion of the petition, then there is a final question: Is there anything that would be helpful for the GC to say to the church on this subject? Suggestions are recorded and we discuss and take votes of support: yes, no, abstain).
        3. The report contains the record of yes, no, abstensions for every piece of the legislation as well as suggestions and their support. This is what is reviewed and turned in.
      7. When the first topic/group is complete, the group decides which topic/grouping of petitions to address next and repeats phases 2 and 3.
      8. Facilitation Process:
        1. The facilitators are elected by the General Conference from a slate and serve as servants of the delegates. Their role is to compile and to develop the focus petition into a piece of legislation that mirrors the will of the body and will bring forth a report based on what we have recorded on the small group sheets. This report will contain recommendations like: Keep the addition of this word because 68% of small group participants indicated support of the addition. Do not delete this phrase because only 22% of the small group participants favor deletion.
        2. The facilitation group will also incorporate the suggestions of the small groups that were included on the sheets if there might be some ownership of that idea. One group might support a suggestion with only 30% yes votes, but if it comes up in a few other locations too, the facilitation group might include it. What they are doing is giving us the opportunity to test if that is the moving of the Holy Spirit by allowing the whole body to discuss the suggestion.
        3. The goal is to help the whole body see the voice of the whole body. The focus petition might look different when it comes before the plenary because a) the pieces were not supported by the small group votes, b) suggestions were made and had some support (even like 15%, are incorporated, c) division in support in various parts of the pettion might cause the facilitation group to divde the petition into separate sections.
      9. The Facilitation Group will present the compiled petition to the body and it will come before us like ANY OTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION, with the addition of the report including our % votes and rationale behind the inclusions or exclusions.
        1. Like ANY OTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION, we can vote to amend, discuss, table, divide, etc.
      10. The four groups/topics if we vote to use this process on the topic of human sexuality are (based on a sorting of roughly 60+ petitions) :
        1) Human Sexuality (paragraph 161.F ) – All groups will do this one to start.
        2) Marriage – divided into three subgroups: Definition of Marriage ( paragraph 161.B), Unauthorized Conduct (paragraph 341.6), and Chargeable Offenses (paragraph 2702.1)
        3) Ordination (paragraph 304.3)
        4) Inclusion in the Church (paragraph 4)

        The rationale behind allowing the small groups to choose which topic they want to discuss second is that it allows for them to determine focus. If no small group chooses to complete one of the topics, that says something about our willingness to engage in those petitions. The various small groups will choose the ones that are important to them.

        As small group leaders, we also had a lot of discussion about how we help these conversations to be a place for open, honest, safe dialogue.

        Again, I was really challenged by a line of Bishop Palmer’s this morning that went something to the effect of:

        “Our relationships are so superficial that we will not risk saying something that we might have to apologize for later.”

        I have really wrestled with the monitoring role of our conversations because the conversation I see on social media goes in two very different directions:

        1) LGBTQI folks are not an issue. They are human beings. And some the language and terms we use to discuss their lives are hurtful.
        2) If people are not allowed to speak the truth of where we really are because they are silenced by those who disagree with them, or out of fear of offending, or even because they have offended through their words, then we have not really had a conversation.

        I brought this up tonight at the training and we had some good brainstorming around strategy. And I articulated this so much better four hours ago, but I think tonight I came to the conclusion that we can only have this kind of trust and openness this conversation requires if we are willing to be hurt by what someone else says. If we are willing to be vulnerable enough to be honest and speak our truth as it is in this moment. And the way to resolve that tension and spiral of the speech/harm/silence/harm cycle is that we have to first use “I” statements. We have to avoid talking about “those people” or “you” or “whatever labels.” Second, we need to pay attention to how others experience what we have said and invite one another to hear the impact of the words we use. Third, as a leader, I can reframe language that is unhelpful by trying to get at the core of what they are trying to say. Lastly, we have to be willing to apologize, to humble ourselves, to learn and to grow, if in the process of doing one, two, and three, we recognize that what we said was not okay. These conversations represent a snapshot in time of a journey of understanding and “because people are searching together for God’s leading… where [an individual] end[s] up may not be where they make a comment in the discussion”

        The above, we should do always and everywhere. And for that reason, tonight’s training and the hours of time were not a waste. if Rule 44 doesn’t pass. In fact, I think that because there are individuals in every single legislative committee now who have been through this training, our conversations there will be richer as a result.

        There are some logistical concerns, but I hope that the feedback and learning from the worldwide nature of the church conversation will be implemented by Saturday. There are some intercultural competency concerns, but I am aware that we have those same concerns whether we are using Rule #44 or not… they are present in every plenary session and every legislative committee.

        What I hope that this post does is alleviate some of the concerns that are based in speculation and fear about this mysterious, weird process that we’ve never done before. But we are meeting in a city whose slogan is “Keep Portland Weird.”

        It is a risk to use it.

        If we don’t do it right, there is a chance that we will never attempt something like this again.

        But we know that what we are doing doesn’t always work. We know Robert’s Rules are not the most Spirit-filled tool and comes with its own set of cultural baggage. Four years ago, we decided we needed a different process and here it is.

        I’m voting tomorrow that we support Rule 44. And I’m praying my heart out that if it passes, the delegates, the monitors, the small group leaders, the facilitation team, the interpreters, the folks who set up our meeting space, the volunteer students who type up the responses, the volunteers who give directions in the hallways will enable the Holy Spirit to move in ways that surprise and delight us. I’m praying for every person and every square inch of our space so that the process we use might truly enable us to give God the glory.

        Maybe I’m naive… or maybe I’m just a prisoner of hope who refuses to let doubt and fear keep me from seeing where the Spirit blows.

Faithful. Kind. #UMCGC

This afternoon, as General Conference opened with worship, I was moved by the many first languages echoing through our space… One audible witness to the immense diversity of context, theology, and experience in the room.

As we approached communion, and partook of the bread and the juice, I returned to my seat and prayed. And prayed. And prayed.

In fact, I was kind of afraid to open my eyes.

There was a silent witness by a group of folks encouraging full communion. And as I sat there, praying, knowing the impact of their witness was rippling through the room, two words kept returning.

Let us be faithful.
Let us be kind.

Faithful.
Kind.

Those words echoed as a prayer for our gathering and as a plea to God and one another. Lord, may we be faithful. Lord, may we be kind.

I’m going to be totally honest.

Sometimes when I pray following communion, I’m simply going through the motions. I do a little prayer and I’m done. As a pastor, I rarely have the time to really pray and focus my attention on God, because it is time to clear the elements or refill the cups, or make sure the next group is served.

And I started this time of prayer intended to say a little prayer and be done.

But those words caught me.

The tension in the room and in those sitting around me caught me.

I closed my eyes tighter, clutching my prayer beads, and just kept repeating those two words.

Faithful.
Kind.

God knows, we each are bringing to this gathering the deep yearnings of our hearts. And, when we are honest, those yearnings can be a mixture of our faithfulness and our selfishness.

In part, the word faithful reminds me that every person I broke bread with is trying to be faithful. We earnestly love God and seek to do God’s will. I prayed that I might remember each person in that space was trying to be faithful.

And, we all need the reminder to be faithful. As Bishop Warner Brown Jr. proclaimed in the message: Jesus, we are here for you! If I had to summarize his message (and the GCORR and Christian Conferencing presentations) in two sentences: Keep Christ at the center…. And don’t say something you couldn’t say in front of Jesus.

Which leads me to that kind word.

We are called to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God.

Kindness in this instance is sometimes referred to as mercy.

Undeserved and unexpected acts of compassion and love, service and hospitality.

As I kept repeating that prayer for kindness, I prayed that in our breaking of the bread, we might remember the outpouring of love at the last supper that included even the one who was about to betray. I prayed that we might remember the mercy and forgiveness of the Cross.

And deep down, I was also praying that there was a safe space for all people to be fully present. I was praying that hurtful words would not be spoken. I was praying that I would let go of my own uncharitable feelings. I was praying for us to create opportunities to really hear one another.

Faithful.
Kind.

I’ve posted a lot on those few minutes.

I’m also serving on the Committee on Reference (no clue how that happened) and will have 7 am meetings all throughout conference. Yay! (Insert sarcastic face here)

We skipped a break in favor of getting our work done, and then had to take a dinner break because we hadn’t decided anything and had to get something done.

We also nitpicked the procedural process for approving our rules for a very long time. We talked for 95% of the time about the process and not the content. And ended up passing all but one without any changes.

(Not that I didn’t try)

Tonight, I returned to my Portland “home” and broke bread again… Some cheese and bread and a glass of wine with friends, as we laughed (a lot), decompressed, all so we can get up and do it all again tomorrow.

Dirt, plants, and hope #gc2016

Format Image

image

In the Scriptures, Jeremiah buys a field as the Babylonians are on the doorstep. It is a symbol of hope, promise, and faithfulness.

The Lord of heavenly forces, the God of Israel, proclaims: Houses, fields, and vineyards will again be bought in this land. – Jeremiah 35:15

One of the last things on my to do list before heading to General Conference was getting my garden in. Seedlings that had to get in the ground. Things that needed started before it was too late.

With all of the prep work… Which includes all of the pre-work at church so I can be gone for two weeks… I was a bit behind.

I found a few hours between yesterday and today to dig some holes and set some plants to growing.

And as I looked out at the garden… all bare dirt with teeny plants… I thought about Jeremiah. Knowing that after this time away, life will resume is a good feeling. Hope, promise, homes, work, all will be back.

The time away has a purpose.
But it is not an end.
It is not everything.

Life will be waiting.

And hopefully some lettuce and strawberries, too!