Perfecting Grace

John Wesley spoke of four expressions of grace. Prevenient grace is God at work in our lives before we are aware of or responsive to that work. It is the Spirit’s work of drawing us to God, leading us to respond to God’s love. It is the Spirit’s work of preparing us for what God has for us next. Justifying grace is the grace that bridges the alienation between us and God. God is the one who heals the relationship, relating to us out of grace and forgiveness. We respond to that grace by opening our lives to God – what in popular theology is called “being saved.” Sanctifying grace speaks of the Spirit’s transforming work in our lives, maturing us into the likeness of Christ. In this on-going process of transformation, we move from our old self (Ephesians 4:22, Colossians 3:9) into the new self which is being recreated in the likeness of Christ (Ephesians 4:24, Colossians 3:10) by means of the renewing of the mind (Romans 12:2, Ephesians 4:23, Colossians 3:10). (This is the biblical pattern of spiritual growth: from, into, by means of.) This process of spiritual transformation leads us to Christ-like spiritual maturity. Perfecting grace was a uniquely Wesleyan emphasis. Wesley taught that we could be made perfect in this life. By that, he did not mean we would be sinless. (That’s the misunderstanding that gave birth, out of the Methodist movement, to the holiness movement and the Nazarenes.) Wesley meant the Spirit could empower us to love God and neighbor with our whole heart — at least for brief moments. He called the Methodist people to “go on to perfection.”

 Now let me reemphasize what Wesley said. Perfection is not sinlessness. Perfection in that sense is only a word in the dictionary. (That statement is an invitation to all perfectionists to give up their quest for perfection. It is an illusion that sabotages our lives.) Perfection as Wesley taught it is the ability to love God and neighbor. Wesley’s teaching reflects the meaning of Jesus’s statement in the Sermon on the Mount. “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” Matthew 5:48. To be perfect as God is perfect is to love as God loves. It is to love unconditionally. It is to love out of who we are, not in reaction to who the other is or what they do or to what they deserve or don’t deserve. It is to love the just and the unjust just as the Father sends the rain on both (Matthew 5:45). Rather than perfect, a better translation of the Greek word is “mature.” The original word means “to reach its intended end.” The intended end of a seed is to produce a mature plant that produces more seeds. The intended end of a follower of Jesus is to love as Jesus loved and to love whom Jesus loved. It is to be spiritually mature, reflecting the likeness of Christ.

 Wesley believed that we could, through the work of the Spirit and by the power of the Spirit, live out of that kind of maturity on some occasions. The Spirit could empower us to love God and neighbor as Jesus loved God and neighbor. Believing such to be possible, Wesley urged us to go on to perfection, that is, to Christ-like spiritual maturity. “Let us then go on toward perfection,” Hebrews 6:1.  In this verse, the word “perfection” is better translated as maturity. (See the footnote reference in the NRSV study Bible.)

 Wesley’s teaching about perfecting grace comes to mind as I reflect on the splintering of The UMC. His teaching leads me to ask questions. How is this splintering an expression of going on to perfection? How will it help us go on to perfection?

 By now, you know my perspective on this issue. In my mind, the splintering is neither an expression of going on to perfection nor will it help us do so. In my mind, it is a hindrance to and will be a barrier to the process. It will, at the least, be a distraction from the uniquely Wesleyan emphasis.

 If we are going on to perfection, that is, living out of a spiritually mature spirit, we will love as Jesus loved, that is, unconditionally. The splintering of The UMC does not reflect such love. The spirit of judgment and condemnation towards LGBTQ+ people certainly does not reflect such love. The willingness to do harm to churches and to foster division does not reflect such love. The spirit of “I’m right, you’re wrong,” “my way or the highway” does not reflect such love. The criticalness of those causing the division (of which I am guilty) does not reflect such love. Certainly, we Methodists — both United Methodists and Global Methodists and Independent Methodists — are not going on to perfection-maturity in this conflict and division.

 In addition, I fear this splintering will be a hindrance to our doing so. The emphasis on moral purity — the unnamed pursuit behind the splintering — will keep us focused on issues and behavior, not on loving one another. The demand for obedient conformity to the law of The Book of Discipline will blind us to the issue of love. The emphasis on orthodoxy will be interpreted by moral and theological standards rather than by loving as Jesus loved. Unaddressed and unresolved hurt and anger toward the other side will keep us from loving one another, much less going on to perfection-maturity.

 In this splintering, we Methodists are forgetting — or denying — our unique heritage. Perhaps it is because we have not understood, studied, and embraced our theology. (In my opinion, our Methodist theology is the best on the market!) In The UMC, grace is central. We live by grace. We grow in grace so that we can love as Jesus loved. The goal of salvation is the transformation of our hearts and minds into the likeness of Christ so that we can love God and neighbor as Jesus loved God and neighbor.

 Our splintering reflects the religious culture in which we live rather than our Methodist theology and heritage. The religious culture in which we live is a culture that emphasizes proper belief, proper behavior, and proper religious life. In our splintering, our focus is on proper belief about homosexuality and proper behavior (moral purity). The splintering is because some dared to defy the official ruling of General Conference (religious life). In this splintering, our focus is on the other, not ourselves. Our focus is on externals, not the internal condition of the heart. We seek to change others to our way of thinking rather than seeking to change ourselves. Our splintering reveals the ego-centric persona out of which we live. This ego-centric persona is who the world told us we had to be if we wanted to be accepted and valued. It is constructed out of right and wrong, black-and-white thinking and living. It prioritizes proper belief, proper behavior, and proper religious life.

 If we lived our theology, our focus would be on the internal transformation of our hearts and minds through the work of the Spirit, i.e., sanctifying grace. As the followers of Jesus, we would recognize, deny (Mark 8:34), and crucify (Galatians 2:19) our ego-centric self (the old self). Our priority would be going on to perfection, that is, growing spiritually into the likeness of Christ (perfecting grace, the new self). We would judge ourselves — not others — by a single standard: love, specifically, how our love mirrors the love of Jesus. Arguments over moral issues would be governed by grace and would give way to the greater priority: going on to perfection-maturity in which we love God and neighbor as Jesus loved God and neighbor. Our unity would center in Christ, not agreement about some moral issue.

 Personally, I think Wesley got it right by focusing on the grace of God — prevenient grace, justifying grace, sanctifying grace, perfecting grace. Maybe we need to get back to our source.

 “Be perfect (spiritually mature), therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” Matthew 5:48. “Let us then go on to perfection (spiritual maturity),” Hebrews 6:1.

An Overlooked Factor

In previous blogs, I have identified issues that underlie the LGBTQ+ issue that is dividing The UMC. The LGBTQ+ issue and the resulting disaffiliation movement are but the presenting issues in the conflict. The deeper, underlying issues include …

(1) how we view, interpret, and use the Bible,

(2) our understanding of the nature of the Christian life (a good Christian is defined by beliefs, morals, and church involvement OR by love),

(3) our understanding of the role of the church (a moral policeman and religious authority OR a community of Christ-followers who are learning and living God’s ways of grace, i.e., the kingdom),

(4) merit-based thinking and functioning rather than grace-based thinking and functioning,

(5) our understanding of the character of God (creating God in our image rather than being recreated in the image of Christ).

These issues are all theological issues (what and how we think) that shape what we do and how we live. In this blog, I want to address what I believe is a major contributing factor to the conflict – one that is overlooked.

The United Methodist Church is a religious institution that functions through an organizational structure. The institution — a collection of annual conferences organized into jurisdictions — operates out of a legislative model in which decisions are made by vote with limited, controlled discussion (three statements for, three statements against). All decisions are treated as up-or-down issues that demand for-or-against positions. Various committees bring forward issues for consideration after the same kind of up-or-down vote has been done in the committee. The decision-making process is controlled by Robert’s Rules of Order. Once a decision is made, it becomes institutional law — a top-down directive which all are expected to follow, a position to which all are expected to conform.

This legislative model is a normal part of religious institutions and organizations. It is an attempt to function efficiently within a large institutional-organizational setting. The problem is that efficiency does not always translate into effectiveness.

I believe this legislative model is a contributor to the current controversy and splintering. I identify at least three weaknesses in this way of functioning.

This legislative way of functioning leaves little room for diversity or differences of opinion. As a result, it creates winners and losers. It produces uniformity, not unity or oneness. (Interestingly, John Wesley advocated “in essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberality; in all things, charity.” His philosophy avoided winners and losers.)

For the past fifty years, those who have advocated for a grace-filled way of viewing and relating to LGBTQ+ persons have worked to change the language in The Book of Discipline. Repeatedly, they have been the losers in the legislative process. Those who believe that homosexuality is incompatible with scriptural teaching (the language of the Book of Discipline) have been the winners. In recent years, more and more conferences and clergy have openly defied the legislation passed by General Conference that forbids the marriage and ordination of homosexual individuals in The UMC.

In 2019, the General Conference passed a temporary provision that provided a graceful exit for those “progressive” churches and conferences — those who came out on the losing side of the vote — to disaffiliate with The UMC. In 2021-22, the “conservative” churches and conferences — those who came out on the winning side of the vote — chose to exercise the option provided by this temporary legislation. They are the ones choosing to disaffiliate.

By their very nature, religious institutions and organizations lose the personal touch. Their focus is on the institution’s functioning, purpose, and survival, not individuals. The legislative way of functioning focuses on issues, not individuals. The impact of a decision on individuals is often not a part of the consideration. The win-lose adversarial nature of the legislative process prevents us from seeing those on the opposing side as individuals created by and loved by God. In contrast, the very nature of a church is personal. It is relational. It is a community rather than an institution or organization. The life of the church is structured to nurture the spiritual life of its members, leading them to love God and neighbor. The loss of the personal dimension is a factor in the splintering of The UMC.

Following the legislative model, religious institutions and organizations allow little room for discernment of the Spirit’s guidance. Time and energy are consumed with arguments for and against a position.

A crisis arose in the early church as opposing sides developed over the issue of Gentiles. A counsel was held in Jerusalem to address the controversy (Acts 15). Both sides argued their positions. One side, appealing to tradition and the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures, argued that Gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved (Acts 15:1). Taking the opposite position, Peter shared his experience with Cornelius in which the Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles, duplicating the experience of Pentecost (Acts 10:1-11:18). Paul and Barnabas shared their experience with Gentile converts in Antioch (Acts 11:19-30). In both situations, Gentiles responded to the grace of God that was proclaimed to them without having to be circumcised. James, the head of the church in Jerusalem, pointed out how the Hebrew Scriptures pointed to the inclusion of the Gentiles (Acts 15:13-18). Following experience, the teaching of scripture, and reason, James concluded that circumcision was not required of the Gentiles (Acts 15:19-21). The other apostles, elders, and the whole church agreed.

This whole process was an exercise in discernment. In the discernment process, the guidance of the Spirit was sought as all factors are considered. The objective of the discernment process is to discern how the Spirit is guiding, not the right or wrong of a position. The objective is to discern the will of God. It is to discern how to live the grace-based ways of God in a particular situation.

The legislative way of functioning does not allow for diversity. It omits the personal dimension. It does not have room for Spirit-guided discernment.

How we make our decisions is a factor in the splintering of The UMC.

 

Love Your Enemies

 It’s another one of those things Jesus taught: “Love your enemies,” Matthew 5:44. Like his teaching “Do not judge” (Matthew 7:1), we tend to dismiss this teaching as unrealistic. We essentially ignore it, excusing ourselves from doing what Jesus taught. We rationalize our choices by saying it is impossible to love our enemies. It is beyond our ability

In the current splintering of The UMC, it seems to me this teaching has been put on the back burner of our awareness. We have struggled to love one another (John 13:35). Instead, we have often treated one another and spoken of one another as though we were enemies rather than as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Is Jesus’s teaching really impossible or do we just not want to do the hard work it requires?

In order to love our enemies, we have to (1) shift our focus and (2) change the way we view them. How we think of them has to change.

Our so-called enemies develop around some issue or interaction. Their position on an issue is the opposite of ours, making them on the wrong side (in our opinion) of the issue. We naturally think of them as wrong. Or they do something that we perceive as an attack on us. They say something negative about us that devalues us and discounts our position.  Consequently, we view them as a threat, someone who will hurt us. We are unable to love our enemy as long as our focus is on the issue or the offense.

Loving our enemy calls us to shift our focus. It calls us to look beyond the issue and beneath the behavior. Loving our enemy calls us to seek to understand them. We seek to understand why they take the position on the issue that they do. We seek to understand the fear behind their position. (The more rigid or defensive a person is in their position, the greater their fear — which raises the question: what fear underlies our position on the issue?) Of course, seeking to understand our enemy requires us to actually talk to them (rather than about them) and to listen deeply (rather than thinking about how we can attack their position or defend our own positon). We seek to understand what their treatment of us says about what is going on inside them. Attacks on others reflect unrecognized, unaddressed, and unresolved pain. Hurting people dump their pain on others. If we can see beyond the other’s behavior to what their behavior reflects, then we can begin to view them and think about them differently. We can respond to them rather than react to them.

Recognizing our enemy’s fear or pain helps us to see them with compassion. We begin to see them as a person again rather than as an enemy we demonize. We honor their fear and pain.

Seeing the humanness of our so-called enemy allows us to do the other thing Jesus said. “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” Matthew 5:44. When we see beyond the issue or beneath the offense, then we can pray for our enemy. We can pray about their fear and their pain. Praying for them reminds us of their humanness. It helps us turn the other cheek (Luke 6:29) and bless them when they speak negatively about us (Luke 6:28).

None of this is simple or easy. It is hard work. It requires emotional-relational-spiritual maturity. It calls us to recognize and deal with the log in our own eye (Matthew 7:1-5). It calls us to rely upon the power of the Spirit to do what we cannot do in our own strength.

As long as we view the other and think of the other as an enemy, we will treat them as an enemy. We will not see them as a person created by God and loved by God. We will have little or no compassion for them or their pain. We will remain alienated and divided. The relationship will remain broken.

Such is the way of the world, not the way of the followers of Jesus.

Love your enemies. It wasn’t just a suggestion. It was and is the way to healing and reconciliation, to progress and growth. It is the way of life.

Do Not Judge

 “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged,” Matthew 7:1. Jesus was very clear. We as his followers are not to engage in judging another. Yet, in spite of his clear command, judging the other lies at heart of the current conflict and resulting splintering of The UMC.

The word Jesus used indicates judging expresses a critical spirit that cuts down the other, viewing and treating them as “less than.” Judging is rooted in merit-based thinking and functioning. When we judge, we measure the other against some standard we have in our mind, noting how they fall short, failing to measure up to the expected standard. Their failure to measure up implies inadequacy. Our judging both blames and shames the other. The condemnation inherent in judging is our way of punishing the other for their failure.

Judging another is a part of our human condition. It is a primary way we establish our sense of identity. “I’m not that. I’m better than that.” It is a way we reassure ourselves that we are okay. We are better than those people. This pattern is so common that social scientists have given it a name: scapegoating. A scapegoat is the target of our critical, judgmental spirit, the one on whom we dump our anger. Attacking the scapegoat allows us to feel better about ourselves at their expense. That’s the unconscious emotional payoff we get from judging another.

When we judge another, we think we are saying something about them — their failure to measure up, their inadequacy, their status as less than. In reality, our judging another says more about us than it does about them. That’s what Jesus meant when he spoke of the log in our own eye in contrast to the speck in our neighbor’s eye (Matthew 7:3-5). Our focus on the speck in our neighbor’s eye — our judging them for their failure to measure up — blinds us to the log in our own eye. It helps us avoid seeing what we don’t want to see about ourselves.

So how do we move beyond judging the other?

Breaking our habit/pattern of judging another begins with awareness. Judging is something we all do. The key is recognizing when we do. In the original, Jesus’s command was “Stop judging.” To stop judging requires us to recognize when we are judging. We become aware that we are judging another so we can move beyond it.

Our awareness that we are judging another becomes an invitation, calling for a conscious choice. The invitation is to shift our focus. We consciously shift our focus from the other to ourselves, from their failure to measure up to what we don’t want to see about ourselves. We invite the Spirit to help us see what we don’t want to see — our own sense of inadequacy, our own fear of failure, our sense of shame about not being good enough. We allow our judging another to become a mirror through which we look at ourselves.

To do this kind of inner work — “first take the log out of your own eye,” Matthew 7:5 — requires us to set aside the merit-based thinking and functioning that is inherent to our human nature. It requires us to embrace grace — God’s unconditional acceptance and forgiveness.

The reason we push these parts of our lives outside our awareness is because of shame. We are afraid that when they are known, they will bring condemnation and rejection — the very things we do to those we judge. (Social scientists call this projection.) We are afraid to be known. That’s the essence of shame. We fear condemnation and judgment from others because that’s what we experience from ourselves. We shame ourselves for our inadequacies and fears. Our self-condemnation and shame are rooted in merit-based thinking — our failure to measure up to the expectations expressed in some standard (law). This emotional dynamic is the story of the garden in Genesis 3. Like the man and the woman, we find ways of hiding our nakedness — being known — from others, from God, and from ourselves. Fig leaves come in many shapes and sizes.

God’s faithful love — grace — frees us to deal with these shame-based parts of ourselves that we hide from ourselves and others. We can acknowledge them because God forgives them rather than condemns them, God accepts us unconditionally, just as we are, rather than rejects and abandons us. In other words, God doesn’t do what others do or what we do to ourselves. God doesn’t judge, condemn, or reject us. Facing these parts of ourselves, allowing them to be known by God and ourselves and trusted spiritual friends, brings healing to them.

Recognizing, acknowledging, and claiming our need of grace frees us to offer grace to others. We move beyond judging.

When Jesus instructed us to stop judging, he said “so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get,” Matthew 5:1b-2. I understand Jesus to mean how we deal with others reflects how we deal with ourselves. If we are critical and judgmental of other’s failure to measure up, we will be critical and judgmental of ourselves. We will shame ourselves. The way we deflect such self-condemnation and shame is by dumping it on others in the form of judging them (projection). However, if we respond to other’s failure to measure up with grace, understanding, and forgiveness, we will be able to treat our own failures and inadequacies with grace and forgiveness, as well.

Whenever we as the followers of Jesus engage in judging others, we are living out of our humanness and our brokenness, not out of our spirituality or our identity as the followers of Jesus. It reflects our reluctance to do the work of emotional-relational-spiritual healing that is the essence of being a follower of Jesus.

We in The UMC will never resolve the conflict over LGBTQ+ issues by arguing about the issues. The conflict only reinforces our sense that we are right and “they” are wrong. Focusing on how the other is wrong — judging — keeps us blind to the log in our own eye. It keeps us stuck in our humanness, blocking our spiritual progress.

The only way to resolve the conflict in The UMC (or any conflict, for that matter) is to shift our focus from the other and their failure to measure up to ourselves, allowing it to help us see what is in our own eye (heart). Only as we focus on what we contribute to the conflict will we be able to approach it differently. Perhaps when we recognize our own need of grace will we be in a position to offer it to others.

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.