Jason Valendy Jason Valendy

Leaving and Going #UMC and #WCA

In full disclosure, I was not at the initial gathering of the Wesleyan Covenant Association on Friday, October 7, 2016 in Chicago. This is not a commentary on the WCA's actions at all but the underlying conversation present in many of the UMC leaders: schism.

Right now there still seems to be a battle over who is leaving whom. It is a defense mechanism to all parties to say that "they" left "us" and that "we" did not leave but held fast to the "true" expression of the denomination. I get it. In Christianity, perhaps only in the USA, there is a bit of a stigma to leaving. Leaving looks like you quit and were a failure, and there are only a few things that American Christians hate more than quitting and failure. So no one desires to be the one who "leaves". 

In the battle for language, it is much more effective to communicate that you are not "leaving" but that you are "going" somewhere. When you say you are going then it looks like you have a mission and a purpose; that you have a righteous calling that you are "going" to live into. Going is much better than leaving in part because of the assumed righteousness in "going".

From what I could see on the #WCA2016 Twitter feed, there was a lot of talk about "going". Here is a sampling of the feed:

This is a small sample size of tweets, but a quick search of "leaving" on the Twitter feed returns a couple of responses that are about how excited people are leaving their home in order to attend the conference. The sentiment on Twitter gives the impression to this outsider that the desire of the WCA is that of "going" and not "leaving". 

I don't want to read too much into the tea leaves, but I raise this matter as a point of caution that there is a difference if you say you are "going" or if you are "leaving". The WCA may feel like they are "going" but it feels like the WCA has already left.

Read More
Jason Valendy Jason Valendy

Guest Posts - WCA: Friends Seeing Differently

The past few days I have come across this post about Rev. Moore's excitement over the upcoming Wesleyan Covenant Association initial gathering (happening on 10/7/16). A friend of mine, named Ethan Gregory, read Rev. Moore's post and, feeling like he had something to say, he asked if I would be willing to allow for a guest post. 

While Ethan was working on his post, I reached out to mutual friend, Ryan Kiblinger. I asked Ryan to consider writing a response to Rev. Moore's post as well. Ryan was kind enough to do so. 

Neither of these two guest authors (Ethan and Ryan) have read what the other has written and I have not influenced them in anyway. What follows are two different perspectives of the same blog posting. I offer this platform to my friends to share their thoughts in mutual respect. I hope that you will join me in giving thanks for both of these voices trying to follow Christ in the most faithful ways they know.

And Also with You - by Ethan Gregory

We know it’s happening. The Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) is meeting at the end of this week in Chicago. There has been an article shared on social media this week by one of the participants, discussing her excitement about the gathering. Excitement is understandable (though, I want to be clear, I think the entire idea behind the WCA is at best questionable); I get excited about being in groups with persons, particularly other Methodists, who are in similar places theologically as I am.

However, as I read this article, I found myself somewhat concerned. There was one line that stood out in particular:

“While we wait, the WCA will provide a voice and a place to land for faithful United Methodists.”

The author is referring to this interim time while we wait for the Bishop’s Commission on a Way Forward to convene. What concerns me within this sentence is that she says while we wait, the WCA will be a place for “faithful United Methodists” to be.

I have some questions for the author. Are the roughly 1700 United Methodists and the churches and ministries they represent really the only “faithful United Methodists” that there are? Are those in favor of LGBTQ inclusion then unfaithful Methodists? Are we any less committed to the work of doing no harm, doing good, and attending to the ordinances of God? Are we receiving or participating any less in a life of grace that is prevenient, justifying, and sanctifying? Are we not also joining each of those persons attending this gathering on the Way of salvation as we seek to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world?

I don’t think so. Regardless of which caucus group we align ourselves with, or if we find ourselves somewhere in the middle, I think each person who at their baptism or confirmation said yes to the questions of will you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness, will you resist evil, injustice, and oppression in all the forms they present themselves, and will you profess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior; and each person who has joined a United Methodist Church and said yes to the question, will you uphold this church through your prayers, presence, gifts, service, and witness remains a faithful United Methodist.

No group: not progressives, traditionalists, or moderates, has a monopoly on faithfulness.

It is my understanding that the WCA event will conclude its time by celebrating Holy Communion. Gathering around the table is an important means of grace in our tradition. This ritual has the ability to fill and renew us, but it also has the ability to break down walls, allowing strangers or even persons we are in complete disagreement with to become friends.

I remember the Sunday in July right after Jurisdictional Conference. News had of course spread about the election of Dr. Karen Oliveto in the Western Jurisdiction, the first openly gay bishop in The United Methodist Church. After one of the services at my church, during the ritual of shaking the pastors’ hands, a woman who knew I was a delegate at the South Central Jurisdictional Conference told me that she was praying for the Western Jurisdiction—that they would repent of their sin. I had no other words or actions except to simply smile and say thank you. She had no idea about the sense of pain I felt on the Friday night before when moments after Bishop Oliveto’s election—a moment I wanted to be celebrating—a delegate in the SCJ got up to the mic to present a motion that would ask for a judicial council ruling on Bishop Oliveto’s election.

A few weeks later I found myself seated at a table during a luncheon with the woman who had approached me the Sunday after Jurisdictional Conference. It was a beautiful time to learn some more about her, particularly how proud she was of her grandchildren. The luncheon was during the week, and the following Sunday was a Communion Sunday. It just so happened that she ended up kneeling in my section of the communion rail. We partook in the meal together. I served her the bread, saying, “The body of Christ, the bread of life, given for you.”

Clearly this member of my church and I understand the scriptures differently when it comes to LGBTQ persons. But this does not mean that either of us are any less in need of God’s grace—that only one of us has a seat at the table—or that either of us are any less faithful.

And so, I hope that when members of the WCA gather at the table of Jesus Christ at the conclusion of their time together that when it comes time for the Great Thanksgiving, and the beginning when the congregation responds “And also with you,” that they will remember the grace of our God is present in the lives of faithful United Methodists all over the world—even those in favor of LGBTQ inclusion in the life of our church.

Because, I could be wrong, but I think “When Christ comes in final victory and we feast at the heavenly banquet,” whether we like it or not, all of us—gay and straight, queer, black, white, and brown, WCA members or not—will be seated across and next to one another with plenty of Welch’s to go around.

I was asked to guest blog my thoughts on this posting by Carolyn Moore. First, a few words about who I am and from where I am coming. I do not know Carolyn Moore.  I do know the person who is commenting about her post from a different perspective. I am attending the Wesleyan Covenant Gathering in Chicago this Friday October 7, but I have am not a dues paying member of the WCA (I don’t really know that anyone is yet). I am not an insider. I do not belong to any groups in the UMC that might be considered renewal groups or otherwise are affiliated outside local church and annual conference ties. I am not the WCA planning team, nor do I personally know anyone who is. I do know a few participants but mainly through social media. Finally, my views are only my views. So now to my thoughts on Carolyn Moore’s post.

I don’t see this week as a ‘big week’. Quite honestly, I am saddened by this week. I never thought that I or we as a church denomination would be in this position. You see, I grew up a United Methodist, but never thought I would be a UMC pastor. In fact, during high school even when I thought God was calling me to ordained ministry, I boldly pronounced to my father that if I were to ever become a pastor, I would never be a Methodist pastor. I am in the United Methodist Church, not because I grew up in it, but because I studied, learned, and fell in love with it. I find myself believing in Wesleyanism. I grew in love towards the marriage of personal piety and holiness, and that piety and holiness making a difference in the broken world around us. So even as a WCA event attender, I am not filled with excitement, I am filled with sadness.

My sadness is not a commentary on the leadership of the WCA or any other group in the UMC for that matter. It is a sadness born out the brokenness of a denomination and a particular way of being in Christ in the world that I hold dear. I have read over most of the statements that have come out of the WCA, and I find myself in broad theological agreement with them. I am not surprised by this, nor should any UMCer be surprised by finding theological ground in common with the WCA. The WCA seems to theologically simply hold to what Wesley taught, and what most any of alive today and ordained promised or covenanted together to do when we were ordained. I have studied the theology, doctrines, and polity of the UMC and I pledged to support them. I still hold to that pledge, so I see no real issues with the WCA theologically.

I will offer one word though about the future and speculations. I am one who is sincerely both concerned and interested in the future of the UMC. As an ordained elder, I have a great deal of my call and my earthly ministry tied up or vested in the UMC. There are many who do from all different theological perspectives, and I would urge we be gracious, sensitive, and merciful to people who both agree and disagree with us. None of us knows the future, and to put too much speculation, based on fear, into what the WCA is or is not trying to accomplish as far as the future, I believe is unfair. Many of us have fertile imaginations and we can image all types of non-realities into being. That being said, I too, need to express that personally I am approaching the ends of the WCA with some healthy caution even though I agree theologically. I will rejoice in faithfulness of covenant and in theology that is orthodox and lines up with the ordination vows I have taken. I will not rejoice in the realities that have gotten us to the place so many think the formation of the WCA is necessary.

 

P. S. I want to offer a short post script with regards to A Way Forward. It is an elephant in the room and should be addressed. First, I was opposed to its passage at GC2016. I think that the work of the General Conference should be done by the General Conference, and as much as I see bishops in the UMC as leaders, I don’t think their primary function is to lead in doctrine or polity changes, but rather to lead spiritually and lead as executors of the General Conference. My disagreement is then not with any findings of the Bishops, but rather with what I see a breach of proper placement of authourity (sic). But A Way Forward has passed, and I pray for the work of the commission to be named by the Bishops. I will say that the clear and even more pronounced will of the General Conference is to not change our historic positions on matters like Biblical authourity (sic), marriage definition, and prescriptions in how clergy may or may not bless. Any shift in position on these matters that is substantive, if recommended by the commission will not be passed by a General Conference in 2018 or in 2020.  I believe that any hope for common ground on these matters has passed us by. I do not think that any major theological changes will be recommended by the commission and if they are they will not pass. The authourity (sic) still lies not with the work of the commission, but with the vote of the General Conference. I believe this, hopefully, not based on my personal positions on any of these matters, but based on looking at the demographics, and clear voting patterns of the General Conferences over the years.

 Lastly, I want to thank Jason Valendy for even considering me to write on these matters. Jason and I do not always see eye to eye, but we always, always see and hold each other in love. My greatest prayer is that we would find perfection in loving one another. Love covers over a multitude of sins, and as a great sinner in need of grace, may we extend that hand of grace and forgiveness rooting in Christ’s love to each other no matter where we stand or what positions our consciences constrain us to take.

Read More
Jason Valendy Jason Valendy

What to do with the "We Can Also" (WCA) group in my church : a parable

Disclosure, the following has nothing to do with my local church. This is a parable that is fictional and clearly I am not Jesus, so this parable will not be of that standard, but here we go:

There is a new group within my church, called "We Can Also" and I do not know how to pastor them.

This group upholds all the same beliefs of the UMC but requires group members to meet the group's financial dues. The group has a leadership that is self appointed and outside the due process of the lay leadership team nominations and the administrative council approval. And while I love prayer, they are asking the whole church to pray for the group's creation even as many disagree with the creation of the group. Additionally, they are asking group members to advocate for the group's interests and seeking out new people to join the group. The group's leadership sets events on dates that the church has events already scheduled and members are forced to decided if they should attend the new group's events or attend to the previously scheduled church events. The group also seems to downplay the resources from Cokesbury and Upper Room for a newer publishing house.

The group's leadership does not see the creation of this group as violating the Discipline. However, the group's requirements on financial contributions and attendance puts people in a precarious position of choosing if they will take their time and treasure from the larger church in order to support this new group or not.

The new group has been asked to consider the harm they are doing to the church (thus violating the first rule of the UMC), but the new group says they will continue their work since they do not see a violation of the Discipline. And when reminded that there is a higher authority on the interpretation of the discipline, they stated that "We Can Also" interpret the Discipline. They went on to write to their group members that their pastor was out of line to say they are breaking the Discipline and that to call this group's creation into question is just another way members of this group are threatened. They explained they are only forming We Can Also, to support those who interpret the discipline they way they do. hen asked about how they interpret the discipline, the group leadership said that they understand it the "right way" and that if I interpret it differently then they will consider leaving the church.

 

I have a three primary concerns with the We Can Also group in my church: 

  1. I am concerned We Can Also exists in an echo chamber behind a paywall. I am concerned the unintended consequence will be this group will become enslaved to their own thinking and their hearts harden (like that of Pharaoh in Exodus).
  2. I am concerned others will be inspired by We Can Also and create their own group and the local Body of Christ will not be a body but disconnected parts (like that of the church in Corinth).
  3. I am concerned that if membership to We Can Also requires that one agrees with their positions and pays dues then does offering communion at their meetings violate the open table of Christ? 
Read More