Looking Beyond the Symptoms

Symptoms are what motivate us to seek the help of a doctor. The doctor, in turn, looks beyond the symptoms to what is causing them. The doctor seeks to address the underlying germ or virus or disease that is causing the symptoms. The symptoms only go away when the root cause has been addressed.

Using this symptom-disease metaphor, we United Methodists are focused on symptoms without recognizing or addressing the underlying cause.

The conflict over how to deal with LGBTQ+ issues is a symptom. It only exists because of other, underlying issues. Those underlying issues have produced the conflict over LGBTQ+ issues. Until those underlying issues are identified and addressed, the issues related to LGBTQ+ individuals will never be resolved.

In my mind, the primary underlying issue is the interpretation of scripture. People on both sides of the LGBTQ+ issue value the Christian scriptures as the source book of faith. Interestingly, the statements about scripture in the Book of Discipline of the Global Methodist Church and of The United Methodist Church are identical. The difference lies in how scripture is viewed, interpreted and, consequently, used.

Most who identify themselves as traditionalists or conservatives view the Bible as the Word of God (capital W). For them, it is a divine book. They believe everything in the Bible reflects God’s truth. (Well, almost everything. There are some things they don’t accept, such as the stoning of a rebellious son or of a daughter who is pregnant outside of marriage, but they seldom talk about those kinds of things.) They read the Bible literally, understanding the Bible means what it says and says what it means. Reading the Bible literally does not require interpretation (in their minds). Following this way of reading scripture, the Book of Discipline of the Global Methodist Church condemns homosexuality as a sin, identifying it as a chosen sexual perversion. Their position is based upon what the Bible says. In turn, anyone who does not identify homosexuality as a sin is viewed as not believing the Bible.

Rather than reading scripture literally, the traditional United Methodist approach to interpreting scripture (what is today referred to as progressive) uses tradition, reason, and experience. It values and relies upon biblical scholarship. This approach speaks of Jesus rather than the Bible as the Word of God (capital W – John 1:1-5, 12-14, 16-18). It views the Bible as God’s gift to us, given through the work of numerous authors and editors. “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets” (Hebrews 1:1). Thus, the Bible is a human book as well as a divine book. God’s truth comes to us wrapped in a human wrapper. Identifying divine truth (the task of interpretation) requires us to identify the human dimensions—historical setting, cultural setting, theological viewpoint, language issues, etc. We find God’s word for us today in God’s word to the original audience within its historical and cultural situation.

This tradition-reason-experience approach recognizes the different voices in scripture. Each voice reflects the author’s attempt to understand God and how to relate to God. The voices often contradict and challenge each other. The challenge of interpretation is identifying the different voices and determining which voice best reflects the voice of God. Because Jesus is the fullest revelation of God—as opposed to the “many and various ways” God spoke in the past (Hebrews 1:1)—this way of interpreting the Bible reads through the lens of Jesus. It “hears” the voice of God primarily in the life and ministry of Jesus. “In these last days, God has spoken to us by a son. He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Hebrews 1:2, 3). In this way of interpreting scripture, every verse is not given the same weight of authority nor does every verse reflect God’s final revelation of truth. That most complete revelation is found in Jesus.

The task of interpretation calls us to distinguish between that which reflects the truth of God and that which reflects the human situation in which that truth was expressed. Consequently, the task of interpretation calls for our best thinking. Failure to distinguish between the human dimensions and the divine can result in viewing time-bound, cultural norms as divine truth. We end up chewing on the wrapper rather than tasting the sweetness of God’s truth.

The literal approach to reading scripture appears to be simpler. However, it has inherent dangers. When we read scripture literally, we open the door to using the Bible to validate what we already think and believe. We are confident in our belief because “the Bible says!” That confidence (arrogance?) leads us to use the Bible as a rule book, identifying right and wrong, righteousness and sin. From that posture, the Bible can easily be used as a weapon to condemn sin and the sinner. This use of scripture focuses upon behavior, particularly sinful behavior. It blocks self-awareness, blinding us to the critical, judgmental, condemning spirit and arrogant attitude that reside in our hearts. This process allows us to unconsciously create God in our image. Our way of thinking and living becomes identified as God’s ways and God’s will. Ultimately, this process blocks the renewing of the mind that is the catalyst to a cleansed heart and transformed life (Romans 12:2). We remain essentially unchanged, trapped in merit-based thinking and living.

In this literal way of reading and interpreting the Bible, Jesus is seen primarily as our savior who saves us from our sins and from hell. He is seldom looked to as the fullest revelation of the character of God and the ways of God. The focus on sin overshadows his emphasis upon the heart. Repentance becomes a prerequisite for forgiveness, making forgiveness conditional.

How we interpret scripture is, in my mind, the primary issue underlying the LGBTQ+ issues. It determines the other underlying issues, as well: the nature of the Christian life (“A good Christian does … doesn’t”), the nature of the church, the nature of grace, and, ultimately, the nature of God.

For those who read scripture literally, the Christian life is expressed in right belief (orthodoxy), right behavior (morals), and right worship. It is rule-oriented. For those who view scripture as a human-divine book and interpret it through the lens of Jesus, the Christian life is expressed in love, manifested in grace and forgiveness that embraces every person as a beloved child of God.

For those who read scripture literally, the church is the guardian of right belief, right behavior, and right worship. It serves as the moral policeman to society, condemning and resisting sin (behavioral sins). For those who interpret the Bible through the lens of Jesus, the church is a spiritual community who offers the world an alternative way of thinking and living. It embodies the grace and forgiveness of Jesus, valuing and embracing every person as a beloved child of God.

Those who read scripture literally proclaim grace and forgiveness. That grace and forgiveness is conditional, accessible only through repentance. “If you repent, God will forgive you.” Those who interpret the Bible through the lens of Jesus view God’s grace and forgiveness as unconditional. God’s acceptance and forgiveness are gifts freely given. We respond to these gifts in faith. God’s grace and forgiveness move us beyond a focus upon sin. They free us from slavery to guilt, shame, and fear. They free us to love God and others, including those who are not like us.

When we recreate God in our image — one of the inevitable results of a literal reading of scripture — we generally think of God in terms of authority, viewing him (and in this way of reading, God is always male) as a judge who gives us what we deserve. When we read scripture through the lens of Jesus, we come to know God as a God of steadfast, faithful love (Hebrew: chesed) whose love never waivers, who never gives up on us or abandons us. We come to know God as a God of grace and forgiveness who responds to us with compassion and mercy.

How we resolve each of these underlying issues — how to interpret scripture, the nature of the Christian life, the nature of the church, the nature of grace, the nature of God — determines our position on the LGBTQ+ issues facing The UMC. The LGBTQ+ issues are but the symptoms of these deeper, underlying issues.

Purity

 In a special called conference this weekend, 81 Central Texas churches formally disaffiliated from The United Methodist Church and the Central Texas Conference. There are more to come.

In my mind, the reasons being given for their disaffiliation can be summed up in a single word: purity — doctrinal purity (orthodoxy), moral purity (the condemnation of homosexuality), biblical purity (the literal reading of scripture).

Those leaving have been led to believe that United Methodists no longer hold to traditional orthodoxy. They have been told United Methodists have abandoned belief in the virgin birth, Jesus’s miracles, the resurrection, hell, and salvation through Jesus alone — just to name a few. What these individuals have been told is simply not true. The doctrinal standards of The United Methodist Church have not changed since the founding of the Methodist Church in the 1700’s. While there may be some who reject these beliefs, these beliefs are still a part of the doctrinal standard of The UMC. They are used in examining those seeking ordination. The vast majority of elders in The UMC believes and preaches them.

Those leaving The UMC believe in moral purity, particularly in relation to sexuality. They insist that homosexuality is a sin that is incompatible with biblical teaching. This position was the presenting issue that initially led to the disaffiliation process. Those who hold this position appeal to the purity code found in the Old Testament book of Leviticus. The proposed Book of Discipline of The Global Methodist Church condemns homosexuality as a perversion that must be corrected. Consequently, those who identify as gay or lesbian will experience judgment and condemnation in this new denomination. They will not be welcomed and accepted unconditionally. They will not be allowed to hold leadership positions in their churches, particularly as clergy.

By the term biblical purity, I mean believing the Bible says what they believe it says. They allow little room for interpretation or biblical scholarship. They allow no room for differing views of scripture.

It seems to me these disaffiliating churches have left The UMC in pursuit of purity — doctrinal purity, moral purity, biblical purity.

Purity is an illusion.

The purity these churches desire is better described as sameness. They all hold the same position on these issues. They all believe alike. Their sameness presents the appearance of unity, but that appearance will quickly dissolve when disagreement over some other issue arises. Disagreement will not be tolerated. It will lead to rejection or to another split.

Purity is impossible.

Our human condition precludes purity. By nature, we are and always will be imperfect, in process, lacking in some area, rebellious in others (sinful). The desire for purity is an effort to overcome these aspects of our normal human condition. It is an attempt to escape being human. It is an attempt to be like God (what the man and woman in the Garden sought in their choice to disobey the directive of God).

Purity is an issue of the heart, not morality.

Ironically, the insistence upon purity reflects an impure heart. Jesus, following the prophet Jeremiah, taught the source of our problems was in the heart (Mark 7:21-23). The heart — the attitudes and inner spirit which govern our lives — is what needs to be made clean (pure). The experience of the psalmist leads us to pray, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me” (Psalm 51:10) and “Give me an undivided heart” (Psalm 86:11). Instead, we are inclined to focus on behavior — morals, right and wrong. This focus is based on the belief that right behavior is the key to purity.

Jesus told a parable that pointed to the danger of focusing on behavior rather than the heart (Luke 11:24-25, Matthew 12:43-45). A demon was cast out and the house (life) swept clean with everything put in order. Wrong behavior was eliminated; right behavior was put in place. Later, when the demon returned, he found the house (life) clean, but empty. It had not been filled with anything that gave it life. Seeing the empty condition of the house, the original demon found seven other demons, inviting them to move into the house. The result was the last condition was worse than the first – seven demons versus one. The house was filled with evil. Right behavior that is not paired with a right spirit leads to a judgmental, condemning spirit. Focusing on how another’s life is out of order in comparison to his own, the person is blind to the spirit out of which he lives.

 The spirit of condemnation and judgment that is expressed in relation to homosexuality indicates unrecognized and unaddressed issues of the heart. Jesus warned against judging others, calling us first to recognize the 2x4 in our own eye, that is, what is in our heart. A judgmental spirit exposes the unaddressed issues in our own heart (our 2x4, our shadow). It indicates a lack of self-awareness. Blind to our own need of grace, we have little grace to offer others (Luke 7:36-50). “The one to whom little is forgiven, loves little” (Luke 7:47b).

Purity is rooted in merit-based thinking and relating.

Those who insist on purity live out of merit-based thinking. They barter acceptance in exchange for conformity (another word for sameness). Their acceptance is conditional, given “if” and “when.” For those who identify as gay and/or lesbian and/or trans, repentance is a prerequisite to being accepted and included. Repentance is viewed as the path to purity. “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). God claims us (Ephesians 1:4-5) and embraces us long before we confess or repent of our sins. John Wesley called this prevenient grace.

At its core, purity is a veiled power-play.

Bartering acceptance in exchange for conformity, coupled with judging, condemning, and rejecting those who fail to conform, is an abuse of power. It is using power over, down against another – a use of power Jesus expressly condemned (Mark 10:42-45). It is the way the world uses power. In the kingdom, power is used to serve. It is used on behalf of others, particularly the powerless. Power in the kingdom is used to empower.

I grieve the disaffiliation that these churches have chosen. I respect their right to make the decision and the desire it reflects. Yet I fear they have been misled. I particularly grieve the lack of grace I perceive in their position. I grieve that our polarization reflects the polarization of our culture and our splintering reflects the way of the world. The apostle Paul identified it as one of the many works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21). Thus, this disaffiliation grows out of our default human nature (the flesh), not out of our spirituality or our discipleship. I grieve that we have failed to love one another as Jesus commanded. In doing so, we have failed to offer the world God’s way of dealing with our differences.

As I grieve, I want to move beyond my anger and my hurt and my own judgmental spirit. So I pray, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.”

Merciful God, may it be!

Whose Voice?

One reason people misinterpret what the Bible says is their failure to recognize the many voices in scripture. They read the Bible as though it speaks with one voice. They read everything in the Bible as though it were the voice of God. In reality, the Bible has many voices.

The Bible contains multiple works, from a wide variety of sources that span centuries of Hebrew history. Each work reflects the efforts of different individuals and/or groups to understand who God is and the ways of God. These different works do not present a common understanding of how to relate to God. As a result, the reader must discern which biblical voice most echoes the voice of God.

Walter Brueggeman, world renowned biblical scholar, identifies two predominant voices in scripture. One voice excludes while the other welcomes and includes. For the voice that excludes, acceptance is based upon conformity to a prescribe set of expectations (law). Those who fail to measure up to the expectations are excluded. I describe this way of relating as merit-based. In contrast to this merit-based way of relating is grace-based relating. Grace-based relating is the voice that welcomes and includes. Acceptance is a gift that comes from God.

When we read scripture, the voice we hear is the one that echoes our own voice. It is the voice that reflects our own thinking. It is the voice that represents how we unconsciously relate to God.

Of the two voices, Jesus spoke the voice of grace and forgiveness. Jesus accepted and embraced all, excluding no one. Because Jesus is the fullest revelation of God, the voice of God is heard in the voice of Jesus. Thus, when we read the Bible, we must read it through the lens of Jesus. We must listen for — and follow! — the voice that welcomes and includes.

John 10 records a metaphor of the sheep following the voice of their shepherd (John 10:4). Jesus identified himself as the good shepherd (John 10:11). His sheep hear his voice and follow him.

We follow the voice of Jesus when we view and value, accept and embrace everyone as a beloved child of God. Excluding is not the way of God. It is not the way of Jesus. It is not way of the followers of Jesus. 

Test the Spirits

As of today, over ninety churches in the Central Texas Conference have voted to disaffiliate from The UMC. These churches supposedly went through a time of discernment before voting to do so. That number will likely increase as other churches are currently involved in the discernment process.

These votes to disaffiliate raise questions in my mind: what criteria did these churches use in their effort to determine what they would do? Did they seek to discern the Spirit’s guidance? If so, what did they identify as the Spirit’s guidance? Did they merely operate out of what they thought and believed, assuming it reflected the mind of Christ and aligned with the heart of God?

The author of First John identified the need for discernment. “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1). In doing so, the author also identified the focus of discernment. His exhortation is an important guide to any church involved in a discernment process regarding disaffiliation (or any other issue).

The author’s exhortation calls us to exercise discernment. Discernment is about discerning what is of God and what is not — “to see whether they are from God.” It is the ability to distinguish truth from partial truth, the genuine from the pretentious, what is healthy from what is crippling, what is life-giving from what is destructive, good from evil. Discernment is what helps us determine the will of God.

Discernment is the work of the Spirit; hence, it is spiritual discernment. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul identified the ability to exercise discernment as a gift of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:10).

The author’s exhortation calls us to give spiritual discernment a conscious place in the life of our church. It is to be exercised every time our congregation faces a challenge or crisis or decision. It is to be exercised in regard to the issue being faced and the decision to be made, in regard to what is said and what is done, in regard to motives and objectives. Sadly, spiritual discernment is often absent in many churches. It has been replaced by committee recommendations and majority votes in which the Spirit and the Spirit’s guidance have been assumed or unconsciously neglected. This lack of discernment opens the door to power brokers imposing their will on the congregation.

The author’s exhortation also instructs us regarding the focus of our discernment. “Test the spirits.” Spiritual discernment goes beneath the surface to the underlying spirit, beyond the issue to the spirit with which the issue is being addressed.

According to the information being published, those voting to disaffiliate from The UMC base their decision on a combination of issues: the place of LGBTQ+ individuals in the life of the church (ordination of LGBTQ+ clergy), moral standards that view homosexuality as a sin, the view and use of scripture, etc. Each of these issues is considered to be a right-and-wrong issue, that is, there is a right position and a wrong position. Consequently, decisions are based upon what is viewed as “right.” In such decisions, discernment is not needed.

The author of First John calls us to go beyond the issue to the spirit with which the issue is addressed. The author did not deal with whether an issue was right or wrong. Rather, he called his readers (us) to “test the spirits,” that is, to discern the underlying spirit. Does that spirit reflect the spirit of Jesus? Does it expresses the grace and forgiveness and unconditional acceptance Jesus offered to every person?

Moral issues call for black-and-white, right-and-wrong thinking. They involve moral standards by which we are judged (and by which we judge others) — what Paul called “the law.” Failure to conform to such standards brings condemnation and judgment. Moral issues are an expression of merit-based thinking. Merit-based thinking is about earning and deserving. What we receive is determined by what we do. We get what we deserve. Merit-based thinking opens the door to condemnation, judgment, rejection, and exclusion of those who fail to conform to the moral standards or who fall short of their demands. The spirit of merit-based thinking is one of condemnation and judgment. It is an arrogant spirit that looks down on those who do not measure up from a posture of moral superiority. Such a spirit does not reflect the spirit of Jesus.

The spirit of Jesus grows out of grace-based thinking. It is expressed in grace and forgiveness, in unconditional acceptance that views and values, accepts and embraces all as beloved children of God. Because it does not deal in earning and deserving, such a spirit looks beyond behavior to see the need and hurt of the other. It responds to the other with compassion and understanding. The spirit of Jesus is a servant spirit (Mark 9:35; 10:42-54). It gives freely and generously of self to address the need of the other. This grace-filled, servant spirit of Jesus mirrors the spirit of God. The Spirit cultivates the spirit of Jesus in our hearts by teaching us to think with what Paul called the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16; Philippians 2:1-11). The Spirit moves us from merit-based thinking to grace-based thinking, from a critical, judgmental spirit to a grace-filled, forgiving spirit.

If we want to discern what is of God, don’t get trapped in arguing right-and-wrong. Test the spirit!