The ways of the world have an alluring effect, even to those who are dedicated to Christ. As our church sang jubilantly, “On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand,” my thoughts moved to the times I have foolishly chosen the sinking sand instead of the solid Rock. Sometimes, I place my toe in the quicksand, trusting that I can move away quickly. However, to my surprise my entire foot begins to sink, seeking to pull all of me down. It’s like I think, “Just a toe. It’s only a toe. Surely I can rescue a toe.” The quicksand creates a formidable pull, and one toe in allures my entire foot and soon my leg. If I don’t make a conscious decision to try to get out, I will continue sinking, though it is likely already too late.
Quicksand is defined as “loose wet sand that yields easily to pressure and sucks in anything resting on or falling into it.” In our day to day lives, one moment of a thoughtless, ill-chosen decision can create that loose sand that easily sucks in anything in its path. You might find yourself in financial quicksand, marital quicksand, or relationship quicksand. Then, if one is in the habit of ranking sins, he might wrongly think there is a decision of lesser consequence: a quicksand of thoughts, a quicksand of holding a grudge, a quicksand of a negative attitude or a quicksand created by our thoughtless words toward someone else.
However, I don’t think that God ranks sin. A sin is a sin. Some carry consequences of larger proportion, affecting not only ourselves but our family and friends. Other sin is hidden, known only to that person and God. Still, to deny there are consequences to all sin is to keep our minds locked into what we prefer to notice. In truth, we prefer to think that quicksand does not even exist. This illusion is perhaps the most dangerous type of sinking sand.
Humans are amazingly good at this. Take our first mother, Eve. She thought the quicksand didn’t exist. As she plucked the fruit from the forbidden tree, she stuck her toe into the sand that would engulf her whole self, thinking, “Just a toe. Only a toe. Surely I can rescue a toe.” When Eve danced over to tell Adam that she has chosen an alternative view from God’s advice, she sparkled with this new discovery. Now, she would know as much as God. She offered the same delusion to Adam. And he ate. Only one piece of fruit. Only one toe. Together they put their whole selves into the quicksand. Whereas they had been created for a relationship with their Maker, for holiness and happiness, their descent into the thick sand brought about the loss of their innocence, the loss of light and the beginning of dark. Paradise sank into the sand as death entered.
God changed their address from Rich Intimacy to Pain and Brokenness. That address would become the address of all humanity. We became helpless on our own to get out of the sinking sand.
The Bible is filled with examples of toe dipping leading to sinking sand, of leaders who thought, “It’s just one toe. Only one toe. Surely I can rescue a toe.” Moses killed one man. Jacob schemed with one bowl of soup. David planned one murder. Peter hid behind one lie. None of them were successful in pulling out their toe. Their dip into sin had far-reaching consequences.
The greatest story teller of all gives us a vivid example of exactly what can happen when we stand on “all other ground is sinking sand.” Jesus’ parable in Matthew 7: 24-27 puts these thoughts into perspective. Those who hear the words of Jesus and act on them, he explained, are like a wise man who builds his house on a rock. When the rains fall and the floods come along with heavy winds pounding the house, it does not fall because the house is built on a rock. In contrast, the foolish man builds his house on sand, and the pounding wind and rain easily push over the house.
Only Jesus can break the power of sin in our lives. Because of Jesus, you and I have the unbelievable privilege of leaving the sin of sinking sand and choosing instead, the solid Rock of Rich Intimacy.
Members of the Bishops’ Commission on a Way Forward at their March meeting in Atlanta, UMNS
By Thomas Lambrecht-
The Bishops’ Commission on a Way Forward for the Church is now in its fifth month of work. We have had three face-to-face meetings and are preparing for a fourth in July.
Over these months, I have continued to hear criticisms of the Commission that stem from misunderstandings or myths about what the Commission was charged to do and/or what will finally result from the process. As a member of the Commission, I would like to speak to these misconceptions.
1. The Commission is just another way to “kick the can down the road.” After 45 years of debate and dialogue, United Methodism continues to discern a consistent biblical teaching regarding marriage and sexuality. I share evangelical frustration that this seems to be a never-ending controversy. I also know progressives who are extremely frustrated the church has not moved toward officially allowing same-sex marriages and the ordination of practicing homosexuals, and in fact has moved toward tighter limits on these questions. And centrists often wonder aloud, “Can’t we just all get along?”
With some justification, people say: No matter what proposals have been presented at General Conference — from left, right, or center — the issue never gets resolved. Bishops have often failed to enforce the requirements of the Discipline and are perceived as trying to delay any resolution to the conflict. Church-wide studies and committees have failed to end the debate (e.g., 1988 and 1992). The 2012 and 2016 General Conferences were unable to even vote on legislation pertaining to this conflict. The promised called General Conference, originally set for 2018, was pushed back to 2019. So what confidence do we have that the Commission will actually bring a plan to resolve the impasse? Our track record suggests the Commission’s formation was just another way to “kick the can down the road.”
The Commission is indeed moving toward a solution. Its rough outlines are being worked on right now, as well as plans for how the proposal will be presented and interpreted to the church. This is not a quick process, since the proposal will need to gain the assent of a diverse church. (If there were a simple and easy solution, it would have been passed and implemented long ago!) Therefore, the task of creating such a proposal needed to be given to a small, representative group from across the connection so it could devise a broadly acceptable solution.
The Commission has built relationships of trust, defined the parameters of the challenge as well as the focus of a solution, consulted with experts, examined lessons of church history, learned from other mainline denominations that have experienced this conflict, heard about the unique contexts of ministry in the various central conferences outside the U.S., and surveyed at least nine different proposals various groups have made for resolving the impasse. All of this needed to happen before we could, in good faith, begin crafting a proposal for a way forward.
I remain confident the Commission will coalesce around a proposal that is broadly acceptable to the church. The Council of Bishops will act upon that proposal before submitting it to the 2019 General Conference. That conference has been called and preparations are being made for it. “Kicking the can” stops in St. Louis in February, 2019!
2. The Commission is just a disguised way to bring back the “local option” or “third way” proposal. The idea that the church could “agree to disagree” on issues of ordination and marriage for LGBTQ+ persons and provide some sort of “local option,” where each local church or annual conference could decide for themselves, has been defeated at every General Conference since 2008. Significant segments of the church, both progressive and conservative, are adamantly opposed to a “local option.” Some outside the Commission have been promoting this option, and a few on the Commission may favor it, but they are in the minority. It is not a viable way forward.
The challenge we face is not geographical, but theological. Leaders and congregations in nearly every part of the global church (even in Africa) have varying opinions about whether marriage or ordination of LGBTQ+ persons is appropriate for the Christian church. A “local option” would still find disagreement within annual conferences that do or do not ordain LGBTQ+ persons that would offend the dissenters’ consciences. A congregational or clergy option regarding same-sex marriages would potentially pit congregations against pastors when they disagreed on its appropriateness, and it would certainly lead the church in a much more congregational direction when it comes to our polity.
In a recent blog, Dr. David Watson summarizes a trenchant critique of the “local option” when he calls it “incoherent” theologically. “If we are going to move to a ‘local option’ on homosexuality, we are saying that the General Conference cannot actually make reliable ethical decisions,” writes Watson, academic dean of United Theological Seminary. “If this is the case, we should move to a local option on all major ethical issues … At the end of the day, we as United Methodists are either a church or we are not. And if we are a church, then we are also a moral community. If we are not a church, but a loose association of churches, that is another matter altogether.”
A guiding principle of the Commission is to find a way forward that does not offend the consciences of anyone, whether progressive or traditionalist. No one will be forced to live within a body with which they cannot conscientiously agree. Therefore, the Commission is unlikely to endorse a “local option” plan.
3. The Commission is a power play by the bishops and other church leaders to maintain the institutional status quo of the church. I have been encouraged to hear the discussions in the Commission revolve not just around the question of how the church ministers with LGBTQ+ persons, but about how the church can once again become effective in our mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. I believe the Commission will present a way forward that sets the church free to reimagine how it can be effectively structured for the 21st century. The focus is not on institutional preservation, but missional effectiveness. We have brought back some of the learnings from the Call to Action report of 2008 to help inform our work. Our proposal will not simply be a rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic, but a search for a new way to do mission and ministry effectively.
4. The Commission’s proposal will end up forcing people to compromise their principles for the sake of securing the financial future of the church. We are cognizant of, and continue to learn about, the financial realities facing the church. These include financially supporting the work of the church in Africa, Asia, and parts of Europe, providing for unfunded liability for clergy pensions, and the future of various boards and agencies. I feel confident in saying that, where possible, the Commission will opt for continuity and consistency, ensuring needed financial support for vital programs and ministries. At the same time, there is a sense in which providing for the financial needs of the present and future are just details. Major companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars work through these issues in mergers, spin-offs, and restructures all the time. These challenges can be solved. Far more important is finding a workable model of connection that allows principled and enthusiastic mission to go forward. We are confident we can do that in a way that will meet the financial needs our church faces.
5. The Commission is structured in such a way as to create winners and losers. The Commission is stacked with persons who favor a more progressive or revisionist stance regarding ministry with LGBTQ+ persons. The Commission was structured to bring together people who are broadly representative of The United Methodist Church at large. It is not proportionally representative. (If it were, 40 percent of the membership of the Commission would be from Africa instead of the current 23 percent.) As long as there is representation from the major segments of the church (and there is), the Commission is well positioned to do its work.
Any proposal coming from the Commission has to have the support of all the major segments of the church in order to be adopted, since I presume it will require a change in the constitution. It needs to be supported by bishops, clergy, and laity. It needs to be supported by progressives, centrists, and traditionalists. And it needs to be supported by the U.S. church and the central conferences. It has to be a (relatively) consensus proposal, or it will not obtain the 2/3 majority vote needed at the 2019 General Conference and the subsequent 2/3 ratification by the members of annual conferences.
The Commission members do not think in terms of “winners” and “losers.” The Commission is looking at how the church might be structured in the future to put an end to our infighting. In the past the debate has been which view – traditional or revisionist – was correct and should prevail. Fortunately, we’re not headed down that dead end road once again. We are looking toward a solution that puts an end to the fighting and creates a better future. We are working hard to craft a proposal that will enable all United Methodists to identify with a group in which they can feel at home, pursuing the mission of the church in a way consistent with their consciences and theological framework. Most of the other mainline denominations have degenerated into unholy fights over power and property, as they broke into pieces. Our goal is to find a different way, a Christ-honoring way, to respectfully and generously resolve the intractable divisions that beset our church. Thank you for your prayers as we seek to be faithful to this vision.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergy person and vice president of Good News.
Two of the Judicial Council’s decisions reinforced the duty of annual conference boards of ordained ministry to determine that candidates for licensing, commissioning, and ordination all meet the requirements of the Book of Discipline, including the requirement for “celibacy in singleness and fidelity in a heterosexual marriage.”
In the run-up to General Conference 2016, at least six annual conference boards of ordained ministry (BoOM) issued statements saying that they would no longer consider sexual orientation when evaluating candidates for ministry. In two of those conferences, New York and Northern Illinois, persons raised questions of law aimed at overturning those BoOM policies. In both cases, the respective bishops ruled that the questions were “moot and hypothetical” and thus did not need to be ruled upon. Last fall, the Judicial Council disagreed and mandated that the bishops issue a ruling.
Bishop Jane Middleton of New York upheld the BoOM policy, stating that the BoOM is not required to ascertain whether a candidate meets the qualifications for candidacy and ordained ministry. Instead, the BoOM is to use “a process of examination, review, measurement and evaluation, not a process of ascertaining with certainty.” The bishop did acknowledge that “if a person being evaluated is known, by extrinsic evidence or self-admission, to be self-avowed practicing homosexual, they cannot be commissioned or ordained.”
Bishop Sally Dyck of Northern Illinois ruled the BoOM policy out of order, but qualified that ruling by stating that the BoOM “does not have the capacity to conduct an investigation leading them to be certain of anything; but in the exercise of their discernment and judgment, they can be satisfied as to the integrity of the answers to Disciplinary questions for ordination.”
Both bishops played word games with the definitions of “ascertain” and “believe.” Both said we couldn’t possibly “ascertain” something about a candidate and that we should not make recommendations based upon what we “believe” about a candidate.
In two strong and concise decisions, the Judicial Council modified both bishops’ rulings. In the New York decision [1343] the Council stated, “The Board is charged with identifying and recruiting ministerial leadership for our churches (¶ 624.h), required to examine all applicants as to their fitness for ordained ministry and make full inquiry into the fitness of the candidate.” “The prohibitive language of ¶ 304.3 [‘self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church’] prevents a Board of Ordained Ministry from ignoring statements of self-disclosure about any action that violates any portion of church law as is the case for these persons who avowed their homosexuality.”
In the Northern Illinois decision [1344], the Council stated, “The Board of Ordained Ministry … is mandated by The Book of Discipline, 2012, to examine all applicants as to their fitness for the ordained ministry, and make full inquiry as to the fitness of the candidate … The Board’s examination must include all paragraphs relevant to election of pastoral ministry, including those provisions set forth in paragraphs that deal with issues of race, gender, sexuality, integrity, indebtedness, etc.” “This provision obviously aims to ensure that the Disciplinary standards are met. The duty of the Board is to conduct a careful and thorough examination and investigation, not only in terms of depth but also breadth of scope.” “The Board can only legally recommend to the Clergy Session a candidate for whom they have conducted a thorough examination and who has met the disciplinary standards for fitness.”
Based on these decisions, annual conference boards of ordained ministry cannot continue their “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies. Instead, they are required to ask questions about the candidates’ fitness for ministry, ensuring that they meet the standards set forth in the Discipline. Candidates who have not received a thorough examination cannot be legally recommended for commissioning or ordination.
Questions can legitimately be raised at upcoming Clergy Sessions about whether ministerial candidates have been properly examined. Some have suggested that approval by the Clergy Session can be temporarily postponed to allow the BoOM to carry out its full examination in order to verify that candidates meet the qualifications around sexuality. These Judicial Council decisions certainly mandate that a full and proper examination is required in order to legally recommend a candidate for commissioning or ordination.
The need for these decisions illustrates once again how broken our church has become. Bodies of the church that are placed in a position of trust are instead determined to act based on their own opinions rather than on behalf of the whole church. When they do so, trust is destroyed. How can members of the half-dozen annual conferences now ever trust that their boards of ordained ministry will carry out the mandates of the Discipline, given that they have previously declared their intent to disregard it? (The BoOM carries out its duties in closed sessions guarded by confidentiality.) Rebuilding that trust will be extremely difficult in our current conflict-ridden church environment. This loss of trust points out once again how important it is for the Commission on a Way Forward to come up with a plan that ensures accountability and rebuilds trust within the church.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergy person and vice president of Good News.
Editor’s Note: Overshadowed by its significant ruling regarding the consecration of an openly lesbian bishop, the Judicial Council did issue other important decisions. Below, the Rev. Walter Fenton reviews one of them and the Rev. Thomas Lambrecht addresses two others.
Judicial Council, UMNS
By Walter Fenton
Without any dissenting opinions, the Council affirmed Bishop Mark J. Webb’s decision to rule a resolution passed by the delegates of Northeastern Jurisdiction to be “null, void and of no effect.”
The resolution, presented at the jurisdiction’s July 2016 meeting in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, called on the region’s bishops to refuse to hear complaints, initiate investigations, or conduct church trials for pastors who preside at same sex services or who self-avow as openly gay clergypersons. The resolution was initially ruled out of order because it called on bishops to violate the church’s Book of Discipline.
In an attempt to salvage it, the Rev. Gere Reist, the former secretary of the denominations’ General Conference, offered the following amendment: that the ten annual conferences in the jurisdiction should instruct their separate councils on finance and administration (CFA) to “state that there are no funds available for initiating and processing of complaints and initiating of investigations and trials based upon the sexual orientation or marital status of faithful United Methodists or involving clergy for conducting same-sex weddings.”
It was one of the more cynical amendments we have heard proposed in order to skirt church law. Clearly neither Reist nor any other delegate had consulted with the CFAs to determine whether such a statement were true or not. But the progressive majority marveled and rejoiced at Reist’s clever amendment. And even Bishop Thomas Bickerton, who was presiding at the time, congratulated him for a maneuver that would apparently allow the bishops to rule the resolution in order.
Bishop Mark J. Webb
A delegate from the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference did have a comment and a question: “I have trouble with this amendment,” he said. “Aren’t we essentially asking people to lie?”
Some delegates were sobered by the observation, but ultimately 96 out of 160 decided the ends justified the means; asking people to lie in the interest of the LGBTQ+ agenda seemed fine with them.
At a later session a delegate asked for a decision of law regarding the resolution’s legitimacy. Since Webb was then the presiding bishop, it fell to him to issue a ruling within 30 days. (All decisions of law by a bishop are subject to the Judicial Council’s review.)
In a stinging rebuke, Webb found the whole resolution to be out of order. He noted that it ran afoul of prior Judicial
Council rulings, would violate the Discipline’s instructions regarding funds for church counsel and trials, and worst of all, violated the church’s constitution.
In its decision upholding Webb’s ruling the Council wrote, “[jurisdictional conferences] may not pass resolutions that encourage a violation of Church law or discourage the enforcement of Church law. The Untitled Resolution adopted by the Northeastern Jurisdictional Conference is contrary to the Constitution and The Discipline and, therefore, null and void. The bishop’s Decision of Law is affirmed.”
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
The Rev. Rob Renfroe, President of Good News, shares his thoughts on the recent Judicial Council decision and how the UM Church should move forward from here.
By B.J. Funk-
