Do You Believe the Bible?

 “Do you believe the Bible?” An individual asked this question recently in a church meeting that was called to consider disaffiliating with The UMC. One of the reasons being given as churches choose to leave The UMC has to do with the Bible. Many of those who are leaving have said and are saying, “The UMC doesn’t believe the Bible.”

When he asked the question “Do you believe the Bible?”, the man was really asking two other questions. First, he was asking “Do you believe the Bible says what I believe it says?” In other words, “Do you interpret the Bible the way I do?” Then he was asking “Do you use the Bible to support what I believe about the LGBTQ+ issue?” This second question was his real concern, i.e., his bottom line.

“Do you believe the Bible?” is the wrong question. It is a smokescreen designed to discredit the one having to answer the question while presenting the one asking the question as more spiritual and “right.”

Every United Methodist I know believes the Bible. Granted, there are plenty of United Methodists that I do not know, so I can’t speak for all of them. But I dare say the vast majority of United Methodist Christians believe the Bible. The issue is not “Do you believe the Bible?”

 So “do you believe the Bible?” is the wrong question. A better question is “How do you read-understand-interpret what the Bible says?" After all, that’s what the man was really asking. “Do you believe the Bible says what I believe it says? Do you interpret the Bible the way I do?” Implied in the man’s question is a second issue: “How do you use the Bible?”

Underlying the LGBTQ+ question is the issue of interpretation. How do we interpret the Bible? How do we get to its meaning? How do we identify its word for our lives today?

Many (most?) of those throwing rotten eggs at The UMC concerning the Bible (yes, I am making a broad generalization here) read the Bible literally. They do not believe they have to interpret it. They believe it means what it says. They see it as God’s word, i.e., a divinely inspired and divinely produced book that is infallible (that is, totally reliable) and inerrant (that is, no mistakes). In their mind, it means what it says.

On the surface, this position sounds admirable and appealing. Beneath the surface, however, this position has a number of weaknesses. It ignores the fact that reading the Bible literally is a form of interpretation. In other words, those who read the Bible literally are interpreting it. In addition, reading the Bible literally allows me to read what I already believe into what the Bible says. It allows me to use the Bible to support what I already believe rather than allowing what the Bible teaches to shape how I think and what I believe. When I read the Bible literally, I read each verse from the same posture, giving equal weight to every verse — the purity laws of Leviticus carry the same authority as the teachings of Jesus. Reading the Bible this way ignores how Jesus read and used the Bible. Ironically, what the literalists say they believe about the Bible and what they practice is different. They pick and choose which verses to emphasize. For example (and there are many other examples), they emphasize what the book of Leviticus says about “homosexuality” but ignore what it says about stoning a daughter who is pregnant but not married or a son who is defiant. They argue those later commands are time-bound and so do not apply to our culture or our day. They accept, as did Jesus, the Leviticus command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18b) but ignore the command “You shall love the alien as yourself” (Leviticus 19:34). The verses the literalists choose to emphasize are the ones that support what they already believe. Another weakness: when we read the Bible literally, we confuse cultural norms from another time with spiritual truth (e.g., women speaking in church). Again, picking and choosing based upon what I already believe is involved in this confusion.

Claiming to read the Bible literally is really a smokescreen that allows us to avoid having to consider the possibility that we might be wrong. After all, if what we believe is wrong, then we would have to change what we believe. Changing what we believe, in turn, would challenge the attitudes we harbor in our hearts. How we view and treat others would have to change, as well.

We all interpret the Bible when we read it. That reality calls us to bring our best thinking to the task.

Sound interpretation takes the Bible seriously. It deals with the Bible as a divinely inspired work given to us through the work of ancient authors and editors. It seeks to understand the message and meaning of any given text by understanding the original audience to whom it was addressed, including its historical and cultural context. The objective of interpretation is to understand the meaning of a text. What spiritual truth was the biblical author attempting to communicate to the original audience? Believing Jesus was the true Word of God (John 1:1, 14), sound interpretation reads through the lens of Jesus as the fullest revelation of God (John 1:14, 18; Colossians 1:15, 19; 2:9; Hebrews 1:1-4). What Jesus taught about God and the ways of God guides how we understand the other parts of the Bible.

The work of interpretation raises another issue: how do we use the Bible?

Presumably, we read the Bible to know God and the ways of God. We seek the wisdom of God taught by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:7-16). We seek to know the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16; Philippians 2:5-11). In other words, we allow the character of God and the ways of God revealed in Jesus to shape how we think — what Paul called the renewing of the mind (Romans 12:2). We move beyond how the world trained us to think and live. This renewing of the mind produces a transformed life (Romans 12:2), a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17-18a), a new self (Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:9b-11). How we live is then shaped by and patterned after the ways of God Jesus taught (the Kingdom of God). The renewing of the mind leads us to love God and neighbor. It leads us to love as Jesus loved.

Reading the Bible to know God and the ways of God leads us beyond how we are inclined to use the Bible. Following the merit-based thinking of the world, we are prone to read the Bible looking for what to believe (which inevitably corresponds to what we already believe). We look for laws to obey and rules to follow. We look for a moral standard by which we judge our lives and the lives of others. For the most part, we often do more judging of others than we do ourselves. This way of reading the Bible emphasizes obeying and conforming, not loving. It allows us to judge those who do not believe what we believe or measure up to our moral expectations. It allows us to reject and exclude. This way of reading the Bible uses the Bible as a club, to attack and condemn others.

It is important to ask the right questions. The right questions bring clarity, facilitate understanding, and lead to progress. “Do you believe the Bible?” is not the right question.

The Fatal Flaw Exposed

 The splintering that is taking place in The UMC exposes the fatal flaw in The UMC (and in most institutional churches in Western Christianity).

A fatal flaw is a weakness that causes the downfall and destruction of an endeavor or an individual or an institution or a business or a society.

The fatal flaw in The UMC is seen in the splintering. In last week’s blog, I argued that the splintering is an expression of what the apostle Paul called “the flesh” — our default, self-serving, what’s-in-it-for-me, ego-centric nature. “The works of the flesh are obvious: enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy” (Galatians 5:20-21). The splintering in The UMC is full of enmities, strife, anger, quarrels, dissensions, and factions. It is fueled by our default human nature, i.e., the flesh. It is devoid of Spirit-led spirituality.

And therein lies the fatal flaw of The UMC (and of Western Christianity, in general). We have proclaimed and followed a theology that has not addressed our default human nature. It is a theology that does not lead to the transformation of heart and mind and life. It provides a religious veneer for our basic nature but fails to produce spiritual transformation, what Paul called a new creation in which “everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God” (2 Corinthians 5:20-21). In fact, the theology we proclaim and practice appeals to and strengthens the ego-centric self rather than calling us to die to it as Jesus taught (Mark 8:34). The theology we proclaim and practice does not require us to put off the old self and put on the new self by being made new in the spirit of our minds (Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:9b-11; Romans 12:2).

The popular theology of Western Christianity (and in most UM churches) is focused on going to heaven, not on the transformation of our hearts and minds and lives. It emphasizes belief, not faith. Its nature is transactional, not relational. Belief is the key that opens heaven’s door to us. This theology calls for church involvement and moral living as evidence of our believing the right things. It inherently fosters us-them thinking — those who believe (or those who believe what we believe), those who don’t; those who participate in church activities, those who don’t; those who conform to the moral expectations, those who don’t. As with all us-them thinking, this theology creates a subtle arrogance expressed in judging and condemning those who don’t believe what we believe or don’t participate in church activities or conform to the expected moral standard. This theology emphasizes sin, what Richard Rohr calls sin management Christianity. It wraps the ways of the world in religious garb.

This theology produces a religious ego-centric self that is rigid in its thinking. This religious ego-centric self rejects anything that does not align with its beliefs and thinking. It has no self-awareness. Consequently, it is innately resistant to anything that would require change in how the religious ego-centric self thinks and believes. 

This theology is me-centered, not God centered. Even its emphasis upon sin keeps the focus on me. Consequently, it cannot lead us to love God with all of our heart, minds, soul, and strength, much less love our neighbor as ourselves as Jesus taught.

The current splintering of The UMC is the end result of fifty plus years of conflict over LGBTQ+ issues. Since the formation of The UMC in 1968 and the adoption of its first Book of Discipline in 1972, we have fought over how to view and treat LGBTQ+ people. We have argued over the place they are allowed to have in The UMC.

I can’t help but wonder: how might things be different today (not to mention throughout those fifty plus years) if we had functioned out of hearts and minds transformed by God’s grace rather than out of our default, ego-centric nature dressed up in religious garb?  

The splintering of The UMC exposes its fatal flaw. Now the question is: will we recognize the flaw and address it? Or, will we simply blame the other side for what is happening so we can go back to doing what we have always done without learning or growing from the pain?

 

Splintering

The process of splintering is in play in The UMC. Many churches in the Central Texas Conference — 92 at the last report — have scheduled a church conference to vote on disaffiliating (i.e., withdrawing) from The UMC. Some have already voted to do so. Some of these churches are joining a new denomination that calls itself The Global Methodist Church; others are choosing to be Free Methodist or independent.

The issues driving the desire to disaffiliate are numerous, according to the people promoting the withdrawal. The presenting issue is the place and role of LGBTQ+ people in the life of the church. Those who are withdrawing view and condemn the gay lifestyle as sin, quoting the Bible in support of their view. They want to protect what they call the sanctity of marriage, reserving it for one man and one woman (not two men or two women). (These two positions are expressed in the early drafts of the GMC’s social principles.) In addition to the LGBTQ+ issue, a central accusation is those in The UMC do not believe the Bible.

In their attacks on The UMC, those who are withdrawing are misrepresenting The UMC in their arguments. They are like an angry spouse in the midst of an ugly divorce that can only see the worse in their ex, exaggerating their perceived faults and flaws to justify the divorce.

While those who are withdrawing from The UMC focus on issues (beliefs) as the justification for their leaving, the true differences — in my mind — are deeper. In a blog I wrote in 2018, I identified the deeper, underlying issues to the LGBTQ+ question.

·        What is the nature of scripture and how do we use it?

·        What is the distinguishing mark of a follower of Jesus?

·        What is the nature of the Christian life?

·        What guidance does the life, teachings, and ministry of Jesus offer us on these issues?

I still believe these deeper, unrecognized issues drive the desire to withdraw.

Perhaps the key difference in my mind is the issue of spirit — the inner disposition or attitudes out of which we live. It is an internal or heart issue rather than an external issue of beliefs.

In my mind, the spirit being expressed by those who are withdrawing is often one of condemnation and judgment toward The UMC. It is an arrogant “I’m right, you’re wrong” spirit. This spirit reflects black-and-white, either-or thinking that focuses on behavior. It leads to rejecting and excluding those who don’t think like we do. (In this perception, I may be guilty of the same kind of spirit.) This spirit reflects what the apostle Paul called “the flesh” — our innate, anxiety-driven nature that lives out of a self-serving, what’s-in-it-for-me spirit.

The spirit of Jesus stands in contrast to the spirit of the flesh. The spirit of Jesus is a servant spirit. It is expressed in grace and forgiveness, not condemnation and judgment. It embraces all as beloved children of God, particularly those the world excludes. It does not deal in rejecting and excluding. The servant spirit uses power on behalf of the other, not to control the other or force them to conform to “my way.”

The spirit of Jesus is reflected in the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). There, the servant spirit of Jesus is identified as love. The Spirit empowers us to love as Jesus loved. The spirit of Jesus is one of inner joy and peace, not anxiety and fear, not angst and negativity. The spirit of Jesus is expressed in patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, and gentleness. I see little or none of these five traits in the accusations against The UMC.

In short, I see the splintering of The UMC as an expression of what Paul called the flesh. Just before Paul identified the fruit of the Spirit, he identified the works of the flesh. “Now the works of the flesh are obvious: . . . enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions” (Galatians 5:20).

The LGBTQ+ issue is not the real issue driving the splintering of The UMC. 

Two Essential Elements for Growing Churches

 Church growth has been a repeated emphasis, in some form or another, throughout my ministry as a pastor. I first heard the concept while I was in seminary — over fifty years ago! A required course in “missions” boldly proclaimed the secret to church growth. At the same time, a required course in “evangelism” taught a significantly different secret to church growth. Once I was out of seminary, denominational leaders and agencies carried the banner of church growth. In the last half of my ministry, large churches across the country offered annual “how to” conferences. These conferences provided training in the methods these churches used to produce numerical growth. The implied message of the conferences was “do what we do and you’ll become like us,” that is, a large church. (What these conferences failed to address was the issue of the context in which a church was located or the culture of the church — both of which have significant impact upon the church’s growth.)  Interestingly, the identified “keys” to church growth varied, depending on which leader or conference or agency was promoting church growth.

For more than half a century, the institutional church has repeatedly focused on and promoted church growth. Ironically, throughout that same half century, the institutional church has been in obvious decline. (The factors contributing to that decline are the topic of another blog — which I may or may not write.)

The church is the primary focus of the New Testament book of Ephesians (specifically, the role of the church in God’s eternal, redemptive purpose — Ephesians 1:3-14). The author identifies the church as the body of Christ (Ephesian 1:23), created by God’s grace in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:1-10). The church is composed of Gentile and Jew — what the author calls “a new humanity” (Ephesians 2:15). The church is the temple, the dwelling place of God (Ephesians 2:21-22). Unity that embraces and values diversity is a central characteristic in the life of the church (Ephesians 4:1-16).

In the description of the church’s life, the writer spoke of that which “promotes the body’s growth” (Ephesians 4:16), i.e., church growth. The body promotes is own growth “as each part is working properly” (Ephesians 4:16). Diversity — recognized, valued, embraced, and empowered — promotes growth. A church grows as each part of the body does what it does best. In other words, empowered laity is an essential element in the growth of any church.

Empowered laity point to the second essential element in the growth of a church — leadership that empowers the laity. In describing the life of the church, the biblical author identified four different leadership roles — apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (in the original, pastors and teachers are linked together as one — Ephesians 4:11). These leaders are “to equip the saints for the work of ministry” (Ephesians 4:12). Leaders who equip others produces growth in the church — “for building up the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12).

Equipping the laity has two different components.

The first is helping the laity grow spiritually into Christ-like maturity — “until all of us come . . . to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). Church leaders are responsible for helping others make progress in their spiritual journeys. “We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Ephesians 4:14-15a).

The second component is helping the laity to develop their natural abilities to be used in ministry to others. These abilities — what Paul called spiritual gifts — are Spirit-given tools to be used in ministry. The equipping leader helps the people identify their unique gifts, develop those unique gifts, and deploy those unique gifts in the name of Jesus. The ministries that grow out of these abilities go beyond plugging into an organizational role in an institution in an effort to keep the institution functioning and alive. (So many of the church growth strategies identified over the past fifty years are nothing more than strategies for organizational and institutional survival. They ignore the foundational principles that shape a culture within the congregation that are conducive to growth.) Spirit-empowered and Spirit-guided ministries are life-giving expressions of grace that enrich and bless the lives of others.

These two components — spiritual growth and Spirit-empowered ministry — are interrelated. As the laity grow spiritually, a servant spirit — the servant Spirit of Christ — grows within them. That servant spirit is expressed in how they use their Spirit-given abilities to minister to others in Jesus’s name. As they give themselves in ministry to others, they continue to grow spiritually until they reach “the measure of the full stature of Christ” (Ephesians 4:14).

The biblical writer spelled out his strategy for church growth in clear, unmistakable terms. Church growth is the result of two essential elements — spiritually-maturing laity who are empowered to do ministry and leaders who equip and empower them for their ministries by nurturing their spiritual growth.

So why have we not adopted the biblical writer’s strategy for church growth? Why have we missed it? Could it be that we have focused on the church as an organization rather than as a spiritual community, as a program-based institution rather than as a ministry-oriented community committed to addressing the needs of its community with the grace of God?

In growing churches, leaders equip the laity to do the work of ministry. As a result, “the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love” (Ephesians 4:16).

The Role of Leadership in Growing Churches

In writing a recipe for a growing church, most people would agree that leadership is an essential element. Without the right kind of leadership, churches simply cannot and will not grow. Even with the right kind of leadership, some churches won’t grow — but that’s a topic for another blog. (Hint: even good leaders can’t overcome engrained resistance to growth. Some churches don’t want to grow. They would rather die than change . . . and growth requires change.)

The question is, “What kind of leadership does a growing church require?” A related question: “What kind of leadership is needed to reverse the decline of plateaued church?” The answer to both questions is, in my mind, the same.

For a church to grow, it must have a leader … a leader, not a manager. The two roles are different. They have different foci. They have different objectives. They produce different results.

A leader focuses on the future — what can be. A manager focuses on the present — what is. A leader introduces purpose-shaped change. A manager promotes stability. In introducing purpose-shaped change, a leader creates anxiety by disrupting what is. A manager seeks to create effectiveness and efficiency with what is, keeping people comfortable and happy. A leader asks, “Are we doing the right things?” A manager asks, “Are we doing it right?” (This contrast is developed in Gil Rendle’s book, Journey in the Wilderness.)

An effective leader must have leadership skills in two arenas: in the spiritual realm and in the life of the church as an emotional system.

Vibrant spirituality is the heart of a growing church. An effective leader must be able to nurture vibrant, authentic spiritual community. He (or she) must be able to help people connect with God in deeply personal ways. (That connection generally centers in meaningful, uplifting worship.) An effective leader must be able to guide the people’s spiritual development so that each year they are growing in Christ. (The people’s spiritual progress requires preaching and teaching that is biblically based, full of grace, free from judgment and condemnation, relevant to people’s daily lives and their spiritual journeys.) An effective leader must guide the people’s growth in understanding and living the ways of the kingdom so that they embrace all as beloved children of God, so that they relate out of grace and forgiveness, so that they live out of a servant spirit. An effective leader must equip people to use their gifts and passions to serve others, training them to make a difference in their various worlds in the name of Jesus. An effective leader must be able to lead the people beyond where they are to where God is calling them to be, both spiritually and missionally.

The second set of leadership skills an effective leader needs is in systems-thinking. Systems-thinking sees beyond the church as an institution and organization. It understands the emotional dynamics that dictate the church’s life. It sees the church as a living organism, not an organization, as a spiritual community, not an institution. Systems-thinking recognizes the interconnected nature of the church as a spiritual community. It understands how anxiety flows through that emotional interconnection (especially anxiety related to change), often sabotaging progress before it can get off the launching pad.

Systems-thinking is what makes change, i.e., growth, possible. It understands each person’s emotional need for safety, belonging, power, and standing. It recognizes how the life of the church addresses those needs. It takes into account how change represents a threat to a person’s sense of place or sense of power or sense of value in the community, thereby robbing them of their sense of being safe.

Systems-thinking creates growth through addition and multiplication, not division and subtraction.  It creates new places for new people without threatening the established places of the current members. When coupled with vibrant spirituality, systems-thinking enables people to reach across social barriers to welcome and embrace “the other” as a brother or sister. Systems-thinking enables change to occur. It makes growth possible.

If a church is to be or become a growing church, it must have a leader. Sadly, most pastors are trained to be managers, not leaders. They are administrators overseeing the many facets of an institution—finances, buildings and facilities, worship, staff, programming, pastoral care. As a result, next year’s calendar and budget generally look an awful lot like last year’s. We keep repeating the same things we have always done, hoping next year they will produce a different result and things will be different. (What’s that definition of insanity?) At least, we keep the people happy by doing what we’ve always done!