Sit, Stay, Go - A Dilemma in Table Manners

The UMC has an open table when it comes to Communion. We take the theological stand that the communion table is one that belongs to Christ and putting restrictions on who can and cannot feast with Christ at table is not the place of the church. We understand that Jesus did not kick people out of the room when the Eucharist ("Last Supper") was instituted. We hold fast to the promise that when we come to the table we may very well be changed and that, in part, is the power of being at the table with God and others. 

Sitting, Staying and Going with Rev. Dr. Charles Boayue Jr. (hear my interview with him here)

We understand that the communion table is a place where people are invited to sit, stay at, AND go from. We trust, have faith and place some hope in the repetition of sit, stay AND go. It may take time, much longer than we may even want to admit, but we continue the practice of sit, stay AND go. 

Within the church there are people who feel sit, stay AND go is not applicable for other tables. Rather, the position seems to be taken (on both left and right) that we need to sit, stay OR go from tables. Here are a couple of examples:

Some conservatives desire that the UMC should no longer sit and stay but rather go from the table of Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice (RCRC). The UMC is a founding member of the RCRC and while the RCRC may not line up 100% with the UMC on a very difficult topic it is also the case that the members of the UMC are not all aligned with the official stance of the church on these same matters. The power of sit, stay and go was abandoned in favor of forcing a choice. The UMC chose to go. So the UMC is no longer going to the RCRC table.

Some progressives desire that the UMC should divest (an economic term meaning to "leave") from companies dealing in fossil fuels. There were votes that were taken but the UMC vote to stay at the table of companies dealing in such industry. Some of the rational that I heard was that these same companies are the ones leading the way on renewable energy source and that being a shareholder gives us vote and voice to influence these companies. The UMC chose to stay at this table.  

Choosing to only "go" from tables because the table does not align with our current values or we are not influencing the table any longer is missing a larger point. Table fellowship does not come with the expectation to change the minds of others at table but to be open to the reality that we may be the ones who are changed. It took Jesus courage to sit, stay AND go from the table with Judas and Peter. It takes courage to sit at, stay with AND go from a table that you feel like you cannot change. It takes courage to be continue the sit, stay AND go pattern because that cycle may influence/change you.

The courageous sit, stay AND go.

The proud sit, stay OR go.

My concern is that my denomination is divorcing our table theology from our table practice.

ORDER, DISORDER, AND REORDER AND #UMCGC (PT. 1)

Richard Rohr speaks about the spiritual life in a number of ways that are both accessible and refreshing. At the school he founded, he speaks about there are three boxes: Order, Disorder and Reorder. He goes on to say that conservatives tend to (but not always) get stuck in the Order box. There is a desire to make life as ordered as possible. So we set up rules, accountability, authorities, consequences (punitive if need be) all in the effort to create order. When you read the legislation being considered by the UMC at the May General Conference, there is a much legislation about keeping or expanding order.

For instance, in the March/April publication of the conservative magazine Good News, Thomas Lambrecht (UMC clergy person and VP or Good News) wrote the following (emphasis added): "We do not see the disagreement over marriage and sexuality as a major threat to the future of United Methodism. After all, we have survived with it for 40 years. Instead, the major cause for potential schism is the intentional disobedience and defiance of our denominational policies and requirement." (source)

With all the chatter and concern about LGBTQ issues and the church, the vice president of one of the most influential conservative publications in the UMC says the real threat is the current and potential future disorder that is happening. Rev. Lambrecht goes on to outline no less than nine pieces of legislation that Good News promotes all of which attempt to create greater Order in the UMC system.

This is the great work of our conservative sisters and brothers. It is the work of trying to order the life of the Church with agreed upon rules. I akin this work to that of trying to get children to play the game of soccer. You have to lay out the rules so that some sense of order may take shape. Otherwise you will have kids running out of bounds, using their hands to pick up the ball, kicking the referee in the shin, and nothing that looks like soccer. 

The concern among many is that the UMC is falling out of order. For some this is not a good thing, while for others, the disorder is a welcomed and good thing. To be clear, not all disorder is chaos. Take a look at this picture:

Ursus Wehrli - The Art of Clean Up

While they are both salads, one is more ordered than the other. The one that is disordered is not in chaos (that might be a fruit smoothie). It is however, non-linear and interconnected. It is messier and to some it may look like like chaos, however the fact of the matter is the salad on the right and the salad on the left are both salads. They just approach the nature of salad differently. 

So let us have some grace when it comes to dealing with our conservative brothers and sisters who may value order more than the more liberal voices who (according to Rohr) tend to get stuck in the "disorder". A forthcoming post will attempt to connect disorder and the UMC General Conference. 

The eight degrees of charity

Maimonides was a 12th century Jewish teacher who is new to me but old hat for those who know anything about Judaism and philosophy. While he writes on a wide breath of topics, it is some of his writing on charity that stands out to me this time of year. It was brought to my attention on the podcast "Question of the Day" (trailer below).

Here are the eight degrees of charity that Maimonides puts forth. Just a note that each degree is "greater" than the preceding degree.

8. When donations are given grudgingly.

7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully.

6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked.

5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked.

4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor's identity, but the donor still doesn't know the specific identity of the recipient.

3. Donations when the donor is aware to whom the charity is being given, but the recipient is unaware of the source.

2. Giving assistance in such a way that the giver and recipient are unknown to each other. Communal funds, administered by responsible people are also in this category.

1. The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others.

What is interesting to me is degree number two. I have heard much of my time in church work that many people value giving in a way that they know what the money will be used for and they will not give or not give as much if they do not know what the money will be used for. That is to say that for our time it seems we do not value Maimonides' degree #2 as highly has he did.

Could it be that we are missing something in our persistent insistence in having the final say on where the money we donate goes? Could we it be that we are eroding away social Trust when we push aside the second degree for a "lesser" degree?