God's Plumb Line

We United Methodist are caught in a quandary. And that quandary, I might add, is one of our own making. You might say it is self-inflicted. We have allowed an issue to take center stage in our life as a denomination. That issue dominates our conversations at every level of our connection. And we have allowed that issue to divide us into opposing camps, setting up the possibility of some kind of split. That issue, of course, is human sexuality and sexual orientation, or, to be more specific, our "official" stance on the issue of homosexuality. The Commission on a Way Forward is seeking to help us deal with our quandary.

As I have said before, issues and beliefs by nature are divisive. They require that a position be taken for or against, in agreement with or opposed to. And therein is our quandary: how do we determine which position is the correct position? How do we determine who is right?

We would like to be able to use the Bible to answer these questions. However, those on both sides of the issue appeal to the Bible to support their position. The difference in the positions lies in how the Bible is viewed and how the Bible is used. (I've addressed this difference in earlier blogs.) Consequently, something more than the Bible is needed to help us in this quandary.

I would suggest we use God's plumb line.

A plumb line is a simple tool ancient builders used in building walls around a city or to a house. It consisted of a stone or weight hanging on a cord from a tripod. Gravity pulling on the stone insured that the string was perpendicular to the earth's center. As long as the wall was built "in plumb," that is, parallel to the string, it would be stable and strong. When a wall was out of plumb, that is leaning, it was weakened and could collapse, destroying the house. This simple tool was especially important in the hilly country of Israel. When the ground was not level, how could the builder know his wall was perpendicular to the earth's center and, thus, stable? The plumb line was his guide for building a wall that was straight and strong.

The prophet Amos used the image of a plumb line in one of his visions: "This is what the LORD showed me: the Lord was standing beside a wall built with a plumb line, with a plumb line in his had. And the Lord said to me, 'Amos, what do you see?' And I said, 'A plumb line.' Then the Lord said, 'See, I am setting a plumb line in the midst of my people Israel'" (Amos 7:7-8, NRSV). The plumb line - God's plumb line - identified whether the people of Israel were in or out of line with God. Were they straight and strong, in line with the ways of God, or leaning and thereby out of line with God's ways?

Playing with the image of a plumb line, I would like to suggest what alignment with God's plumb line would look like.

The stone weight at the bottom of the line is the character of God. God's character is the foundation (to change images). In Exodus 34:6-7, God revealed the Divine Character (God's glory) to Moses. God was described as "the compassionate and gracious God" who was slow to anger, abounded in faithful love, and forgave every expression of sin. The writer of 1 John used the word love to define the character of God: God is love (1 John 4:8). God's plumb line leads us to ask of any position we take on any issue, not just the LGBTQ+ issue: does the position align with God's character? Is it an expression of compassion and mercy, of God's willingness to put up with us without getting angry or disgusted, of God's refusal to give up on us or abandon us, of God's forgiveness? Is the position an expression of love?

The second piece of God's plumb line is the life and teachings of Jesus. Jesus was the embodiment of God's character. As the writer of Colossians expressed it, he is the visible image (literally: icon) of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). In him, all the fullness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell (Colossians 1:19). If we want to see what God looks like, look at the life of Jesus. In Jesus, we behold God's glory (John 1:14). He was God in the flesh. He embraced all with grace and forgiveness. He responded with compassion and mercy to the needs of those who were hurting. He used his power to serve. (BTW, another word that describes the character of God is the word servant. Jesus was a servant. See Mark 10:43-45 and Philippians 2:5-11). God's plumb line leads us to ask: does the position align with the life and teachings of Jesus?

The third piece of God's plumb line is the ways of God that Jesus taught, what he called the Kingdom of God. In the Kingdom, all are embraced as beloved children of God. God does not divide into us-them groups. Relationships are governed by grace and forgiveness, not merit. God does not deal in guilt and shame and judgment. Power is used to serve, particularly the powerless and the most vulnerable in society. God never uses power over, down against the other. Money, as a form of social power, is used on behalf of poor. God's plumb line leads us to ask: does the position align with the ways of the Kingdom that Jesus taught?

A fourth piece of God's plumb line is an internal focus on the heart as opposed to an external, behavioral conformity to some standard or law. Jesus taught that what is on the inside, i.e., the heart, was the problem, not the failure to live by a prescribed set of rules (Mark 7:1-23). The Spirit is at work in us to transform our hearts and minds, conforming us to the likeness of Jesus (2 Corinthians 3:18). The biblical word salvation refers to God's transforming work in our lives, empowering us to love as God loves. God's plumb line leads us to ask: does the position align with a focus on internal transformation or external conformity of behavior?

God's plumb line guides us in determining what position is aligned with the character of God, the life and ministry of Jesus, the ways of God that Jesus taught (the Kingdom), the way of transformation of heart and mind into the likeness of Jesus. If the position does not align with God's plumb line, can it be "right"?

From my perspective, God's plumb line just might help us get out of this quandary we have created for ourselves.

Unity, Not Uniformity

One of the terms I learned in my theological education is "unity in diversity, expressed in community." The term expresses the idea of oneness that embraces differences. In this way of living, differences are viewed as strengths that contribute to enriched life in community with one another. The term is used describe the pattern of relationship in the Godhead as the Three-in-One, in marriage in which the two become one, and in the church as the body of Christ. 

This concept underlies the Apostle Paul's description of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12. Those individual, diverse gifts are like the different parts of the body. They are what allow the body to function. The concept is also reflected in Ephesians 4:1-16. Verses 1-6 emphasize unity with the central exhortation being to make every effort to maintain or protect the unity the Spirit gives. Verses 7-16 then focus on five leadership gifts that are used to equip the followers of Jesus to do the work of ministry. This pattern of church life results in a healthy vibrancy that leads to unity and spiritual maturity among the members.

Unity in diversity is a spiritual pattern that reflects the nature of the Godhead.

Sadly, unity that embraces diversity as a gift is not a pattern that is inherent to our human nature. Our default pattern is to segregate ourselves into groups, associating with those like us and avoiding those who are different ... that "birds of a feather" thing. This pattern, rooted in fear, views differences as a threat. It is dependent on uniformity - being alike, thinking alike.

Uniformity is not unity. Uniformity does not produce authentic community.

This human pattern that depends on uniformity often invades the life of the church. We group with those like us. And we allow differences to divide us. We look for uniformity of beliefs, practices, behavior, organization. Examples abound. One group views the Bible as infallible and reads it literally; another uses the best scholarship to interpret it as an ancient, Near Eastern book written from a pre-scientific perspective. One group baptizes by immersion; another baptizes by sprinkling. One group builds worship around an organ and a choir; another around a band with guitars and drums; another uses no instruments at all. One group is led by a group of elders; another is democratic in its functioning. You get the point.

When churches build their lives upon uniformity instead of the unity of the Spirit, they ...

• duplicate the ways of the world;
• deny their calling to live and reflect the ways of God;
• rob themselves of the gifts diversity brings;
• limit their spiritual development; 
• weaken their community life; 
• hinder their witness; 
• rob the body of spiritual vitality and health;
• guarantee the stagnation of their group by excluding anyone who is "different."

In addition, living out of uniformity - being in agreement - sets the stage for the next conflict, the next issue over which to disagree and divide.

As we United Methodists consider the report of The Commission on a Way Forward, we are wrestling with the issues of unity and uniformity. Some value uniformity over unity. They insist on uniformity of belief as the basis for living in community. Some of these have drawn a line in the sand, indicating they will leave and create a new Wesleyan denomination if the current position on homosexuality is changed. Others believe we can live and work together for the sake of the Kingdom, even if we do not all agree on this one issue. They (including me) value unity over uniformity.

Perhaps it would be helpful to remember the words of John Wesley from whose ministry the original Wesleyan movement began. In his sermon entitled "A Catholic Spirit," Wesley asked, "Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion?" In that same sermon, he went on to say, "If your heart is as my heart - if you love God and all mankind, I ask no more - give me your hand." Wesley is also credited with a saying that originally came from Thomas a Kempis and was a part of the Moravian movement that helped shape Wesley:
"In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity (love)." For Wesley, a common commitment to love God and others (the heart) was the grounds of relationship, not agreement. Love, not agreement, was the determining factor in relating to one another.

Or better, perhaps it would be helpful to remember the words of scripture: with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all (Ephesians 4:2-6, NRSV).

Unity in diversity. It's a spiritual pattern - God's way of living in relationship. It produces genuine community that is healthy and vibrant. It leads to spiritual maturity as the body builds itself up in love.

Playing Hot Potato

How do you win the game of "hot potato?"

As a kid, I played a game called hot potato. A hot potato (we generally pretended a ball was the potato) was tossed from person to person as quickly as possible. Because the potato was hot, catching and holding it would result in getting burned. Thus, the objective was to get rid of the potato as quickly as possible by tossing it to someone else. Getting rid of the hot potato kept you from getting burned. Tossing it to someone else required them to deal with it. Of course, they dealt with it the same way you did, by tossing it to someone else. As did the next person and so on.

It seems to me that society and culture (think "church") has created a number of hot potatoes. They are "hot" issues - issues that are so emotionally charged they are too hot to handle. Our preferred way of dealing with them is to avoid talking about them. We are in the game but hoping the hot potato doesn't come our way. When someone raises the issue, we seek to pass it off as quickly as possible by instinctively reverting to our already-held position. We assert our position, defend it, and attack any position that challenges it. In doing so, we toss the issue back to the other side who does what we just did: assert their position, defend it, and attack any position that challenges theirs.

LGBTQ+ issues are one of those hot potatoes in The UMC today. Well, to be more accurate, LBGTQ+ issues are a hot potato for people over the age of 40, which is the majority of the members within The UMC. LGBTQ+ issues are not an issue for most of the younger generations.  That fact might be one explanation for the absence of many of those younger generations in our congregations.  But I digress.

It seems The UMC has being playing the game of hot potato with this LGBTQ+ issue for years. We keep tossing it back and forth to each other by stating our position, defending it while attacking any differing position. This game of tossing the issue back and forth avoids the hard work of dealing with the issue OR our position on the issue OR our emotions that reinforce our position OR any different position that another might have OR the people who hold another position OR their reasons for doing so. That's a lot of avoiding!

It seems that the Commission on a Way Forward has actually engaged in the hard work of listening that leads to hearing that leads to mutual respect and understanding (not agreement!). Now it is time for the rest of us in the local congregations to stop playing the game of hot potato with this issue and engage in the hard work of listening and hearing one another. The objective of this hard work is not to reach agreement, but to reach mutual respect and love as brothers and sisters in Christ.

One challenge to this kind of hard work is the emotion surrounding this issue. Is homosexuality incompatible with Christian teaching? Is it "unnatural?" Is marriage between a man and a woman only? Is an individual engaged in a homosexual lifestyle actively engaged in willful sin? Can a person who identifies as homosexual be called of God into ordained ministry? Each of this sub-issues stirs strong emotions. Those emotions are what make the issue "hot." They are what keep the hot potato game going with the LGBTQ+ issue.

When strong emotions get involved, we lose our ability to think clearly. We lose our ability to listen and hear opposing positions. Instead of thinking, we react. We passionately defend our position. We attack opposing positions and, sometimes, go so far as to attack the people who hold them. We use Scripture to justify our position as "the biblical (i.e., right) position." We end up polarized, divided into us versus them camps. We set up a win/loss scenario in which no one wins and our Christian witness is severely damaged.

This emotionally fueled way of dealing with the issue grows out of our human nature (what the Apostle Paul called "the flesh" in Galatians 5). We cannot come to any mutual respect or understanding, much less mutual love, by living out of our default human nature. Something more is required if we want a different outcome. That something more is spiritual maturity. Paul identified love as the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). Only the Spirit can guide us to love the other. In other words, dealing with this hot potato issue calls for Christ-shaped, Spirit-empowered spirituality. It calls us to manage and move beyond the strong feelings tied to the issue, i.e, self-control, another one of the nine characteristics of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:23). Self-control puts us in a position to think more clearly. It allows us to listen in such a way as to genuinely hear the other person. It positions us to choose to love.

I don't remember playing the game of hot potato very often. It really wasn't a fun game to play for very long. There was seemingly no way to win the game.

The Opportunity Before Us

In February of next year (2019), the General Conference of The United Methodist Church will meet in a special, called session to vote on the recommendations of the Commission on a Way Forward. The anticipation of this special session has stirred much angst, anxiety, and fear among United Methodists on both sides of the theological spectrum. A dominant fear is that The UMC as we know it will no longer exist after the special session. For others, the fear is that The UMC as we know it will continue to exist unchanged.

I view this time of angst and anxiety as an opportunity waiting to be embraced. Think with me.

Healthy, vibrant churches function out of a clear sense of purpose. They know why they exist. Everything they do flows out of that purpose. All of their resources are aligned around that purpose. Each group within the church can identify their role in achieving the purpose. Their why determines their what and how. The flip side of this principle is that churches become unhealthy and stagnant when they forget their why, the purpose for which they exist.

Ironically, churches can be unhealthy and stagnant without recognizing it. They are so focused on what that they fail to think about why. Churches function out of repeated activities, groups, and events. Church calendars and church budgets almost always reflect the same activities and events every year. Last year's calendar and budget are generally used to create the next year's calendar and budget. The same groups, organizations, and classes continue to meet the way they always have, doing what they have always done. Business-as-usual becomes the unspoken mantra with little or no room (and certainly no money!) for anything new and different. Honest evaluation that identifies genuine outcome seldom occurs. Success is measured by the numbers who participate and the enjoyment of the event. This way of doing church functions out of an unstated purpose: to do what the members expect and enjoy, keeping them happy.

Churches of every size and stripe drift along in this way of doing church ... until some kind of crisis disturbs their predictable life. The most common kinds of crises are conflict, noticeable decline in attendance, the lack or loss of young families and children, or a new pastor with new ways of doing things. (The special session of The UMC represents 3 out of 4 of these crises: conflict that grows out of a long term decline and the loss of younger generations.) 

The predictable reaction to crisis, driven by fear, is to seek to reestablish comfort as quickly as possible by returning to the way things were. This reaction views the crises as a threat.

A crisis is only a threat when it is viewed and treated as a threat. Otherwise, a crisis is an opportunity. It is an invitation to evaluate, rethink, and refocus. It is an opportunity to get clear about why we do what we do - our purpose, the reason we are a church. It is a "wake up call" designed to arouse us out of our unconscious, business-as-usual way of doing church.

Crises are also an opportunity for change. Crises disrupt "what is." In doing so, they make space for something new or different. They provide the opportunity to make creative, purpose-shaped change under the leadership of the Spirit. Crises open the door to a different, more God-shaped future.

I view the looming "crisis" of the called, special session of General Conference (as well as the pattern of decline at FUMCA) as an opportunity. I pray we don't miss it.

The Primary, Underlying Issue to the UM LGBTQ Issue

I wrote in an earlier blog that the issue being addressed in A Way Forward is not the real issue. The issues that gave birth to the Way Forward report have to do with the official stance of The UMC concerning LBGTQ people: the language in the Book of Discipline that declares the practice of homosexuality as incompatible with scriptural teaching plus the prohibitions against the ordination of LBGTQ persons, against UM clergy performing marriages for LBGTQ couples, and against the use of UM facilities for such marriages.

On the surface, the issue appears to be a black-and-white, either/or issue: is the practice of homosexuality incompatible with scriptural teaching - yes or no? If the answer is "yes,", then ordination and marriage of LGBTQ individuals are not options.

As with most seemingly black-and-white, either/or issues, this issue rests on deeper issues. Those deeper issues are the ones we must discuss. These deeper issues comprise the foundation for our position on this seemingly black-and-white issue. (I made a list of those issues in my earlier post "There's More to the Issue Than the Issue Before Us.")

It seems to me the primary, underlying issue is: What is the distinguishing mark of a follower of Jesus? A different question comes at the same key issue from a different direction: What is the nature of the Christian life?

I have served in Christian ministry during a time in which being a Christian was defined by a combination of (1) what one believed, (2) one's moral behavior, and (3) one's involvement in church life. A Christian is someone who believed certain things, held to a particular moral standard, and was actively involved in church activities. The particular "brand" of church in which one was involved was determined by the beliefs and moral standard. This way of identifying or defining a Christian resulted in Christians identifying themselves as United Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, non-denominational, etc., not simply "as a follower of Jesus." Each group had its own set of distinguishing beliefs and moral standard.

In this way of defining a Christian, the Bible became the basis for what a Christian believed, for the moral standard the Christian held, and for the religious rituals they followed. The Bible became the authority that defined right belief, right behavior, right ritual. It began to be used as the unquestionable "last word" as to what to believe, how to live, and how to worship. As such, the Bible became a book of laws and rules to which to appeal in times of disagreement over belief, morals, or ritual. The wide variation of what was considered right belief, right behavior, and right ritual lay in how each group viewed the Bible and, thereby, interpreted the Bible.

This way of defining a Christian and using the Bible created churches that are rigid in their views.  (They would dislike the term "rigid," arguing that their views were "biblical.") An inevitable consequence of such rigidity is these churches became elitist, excluding "those not like us" (us-them division). Belonging is conditioned upon conformity. Questions are treated as "a lack of faith" rather than a way of growing in faith. Differing views are labeled "unbiblical" or heresy. "Being right" is a prized virtue and the fuel to an unrecognized sense of superiority. Some groups go so far as to say "if you don't believe as we do, you're not a Christian."

This expression of Christianity is quick to argue that homosexuality is incompatible with biblical teaching. Those in this camp can quote chapter and verse from the Bible to support their position. (In my opinion, how they view scripture and how they interpret scripture is really the basis of their position.)

This expression of Christianity is the religious arena in which I have lived since I first became involved in church life as a child. But I am increasingly uncomfortable in this kind of Christianity. It seems to me that it does not reflect the heart of God or the ways of God that Jesus taught, what he called the Kingdom of God. Right belief, right behavior, right ritual are ways of identifying different religious groups (Christian and non-Christian), but not for identifying the followers of Jesus.

Jesus himself said, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Love is the distinguishing mark of the followers of Jesus. How one views and treats others is what sets one apart as a follower of Jesus. The nature of the Christian life is a life of love and service to others - the way of the servant.

Us-them, better than-less than thinking are inherent to our human condition. We naturally think and live this way. We associate with "those like us." We exclude (and fear) those who are different. To wrap this us-them, better than-less than way of thinking and relating in religious garb, appealing to the Bible as validation, is not authentic Christianity. Nowhere in scripture do I see that Jesus excluded anyone. He viewed, embraced, and treated all as beloved children of God ... and taught his disciples to do the same.

As the followers of Jesus, we are to love one another. We are to love our neighbors. We are to love our enemies. Because love - love for all - is the distinguishing mark of the followers of Jesus. Love expressed in ministry to others is the nature of the Christian life.

The Way Forward report raises a divisive issue. Before we take a position on that issue, we must first, I believe, be clear on what is the distinguishing mark of the followers of Jesus, on how we describe the nature of the Christian life. Our answer to those questions will determine what position we take on the other issue.