Hold Accountable ≠ Hold Hostage

"Hold people accountable!" is a rally cry when we recognize injustice done by another person or institution. We talk about holding politicians accountable to their actions by how we vote. We hold children accountable for their actions when they make a mistake. The criminal justice system talks about holding people accountable for their infractions. Holding another accountable is even present in the Church.

God holds the people accountable for their actions when the covenant is broken. Church leaders and church members hold one another accountable in doing the work of God. Pastors are held accountable to their Bishops and Bishops are held accountable to other Bishops. 

Ideally holding people accountable is a wonderful way to move into deeper relationship and health. However, too often we misunderstand what it means to hold someone accountable and instead hold them hostage. 

Holding someone accountable means at least three things: 

1. Non-threatening - In a hostage situation, threats are used in order to force the other party to participate in an action. Force by way of violence, threats, or expulsion are used in order to "get" the other person to act. Holding someone accountable means, at the very least, threats of violence (in all its forms) are not present. For example: If you do not like the way your pastor preaches and then threaten to withhold your donation until they change, you are holding your pastor hostage. However, if you do not like the way your pastor preaches and desire to hold them accountable for their action, see Jesus' teaching in Matthew 18.
2. Preservation of agency - In a hostage situation, the hostage does not have choice (agency) in the matter. The hostage taker may give false choices. They may say, "You can walk out that door if you want to! It is your choice!" but the hostage knows walking out the door means getting shot. Holding someone accountable means that the parties involved work to preserve one another's agency. If false choices are presented or if there is a clear power difference (the other has a gun and will shoot you if you leave), then you have a hostage situation not an accountable situation.
3. Trust maintained at all cost - Trust is the fuel to the engine of accountability. If there is no sense of trust between the parties, then every action will be met with suspicion. Part of the reason hostages are kept in sight or locked up is that the hostage taker does not trust the captives to remain. In Acts the jail is broken as the result of an earthquake but the prisoners chose to remain. They were in prison because the Romans did not trust them. When it was clear that Paul and his partner trusted God and remained in the newly opened cell, the guard was converted. Acts 16:25-35.

The UMC faces a situation where there is an expressed desire to hold someone accountable: Traditionalists want to hold local pastors accountable for breaking the Book of Discipline. My own jurisdiction wants to hold another jurisdiction accountable for the election of Bishop Oliveto. Progressives want to hold the church accountable to their understanding of the Kingdom of God. American churches want to hold Central Conferences accountable to pay apportionments; Central Conferences want to hold American churches accountable to their understanding of the Kingdom of God. It seems everyone wants to hold the Bishops accountable for a slew of reasons! The most recent group desiring to hold someone in the denomination accountable is the WCA's desire to hold those who violate church laws accountable for understood disobedience. 

We all invoke the accountability language because it is Biblical and mature. Frankly, humans are better at covenant-breaking then covenant-keeping (see the entire Bible for endless examples).

God holds us accountable, but God does not hold us hostage. In a twist of irony, the leading atonement theory for a millennia was rooted on the idea that God was willing to be taken hostage by the devil in order to trick the devil.

It is the evil one who takes hostages; God never has. 

Be alert to the ways you are being held hostage. Be vigilant to the ways the Church is being held hostage. Be joyful that God is not interested in holding us hostage.

The WCA's LMP Problem

The Wesleyan Covenant Association is a group of United Methodist clergy and laity. For anyone who has heard of the WCA but is not aware of what it is, the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) stated purpose open with the following statement:

"The Wesleyan Covenant Association (“WCA”) is an association of congregations, clergy persons, and laity who desire to cooperate in the mission of the WCA to promote the ministry of the gospel from a Wesleyan theological perspective within The United Methodist Church and kindred bodies."

Like all organizations, the WCA uses particular words to define what it is. Some of the words that are most commonly used in the material that I come across are "Wesleyan", "orthodox", "evangelical", and "covenant keeping". Like any organization who defines itself, there are critics who say the WCA is claiming sole ownership of what it means to be, say, "Wesleyan" or "orthodox." I am thankful for the WCA giving members of the UMC to consider again what it means to be "evangelical" and/or "covenant keeping." Just as the no one Church has the exclusive rights to claim "Christian" so to the WCA does not have exclusive rights to a number of other defining qualities of the UMC.

In all the discerning work on what it means to be Methodist, there is one descriptor the WCA uses that gives me the most concern and frankly is, from my standpoint, the cause of a great amount of tension in our world.

The WCA has a "like-minded people" (LMP) problem.

Is surrounding ourselves with LMP a form of egocentrism? 

In the WCA "statements" page the LMP problem shows up a half dozen times. In a recent video put out by the WCA, Rev. Madeline Henners lets the listener know:

“Of course everyone is welcome to attend the Wesleyan Covenant Association Conference, however I do want to make two specific invitations. The first is to pastors and congregations of small to medium-sized churches. Depending on which conference you’re located in, sometimes you may feel like your voice is not heard or even dismissed. We want you to know that your voice matters to the Wesleyan Covenant Association. I’d also like to personally invite any young clergy who are in the process of being ordained or recently ordained. We want you to feel connected and supported to like-minded brothers and sisters, who not only are seeking to restore integrity to our covenant, but are seeking to belong to a vital Wesleyan movement.”

It seems that LMP is a feature and not a bug in the WCA system. I believe this to be a problem.

If the current state of U.S. politics teaches us, it is that we all are falling short and missing the mark (AKA: Sin) when we surround ourselves with only agreement. Confirmation bias is part of the human condition. However, the Church is the place that understands that the Grace of God works in and through us to open us up. The Grace of God reminds us that God loves all people -- even if they are not like-minded. 

I am working to repent of the LMP in my own life. I have subscribed to a web browser extension (Escape Your Bubble) which puts news stories from "the other side" directly into my Facebook feed. I have begun to access most of my news from allsides.com - "Unlike regular news services, AllSides exposes bias and provides multiple angles on the same story so you can quickly get the full picture, not just one slant." Finally, I have been intentional on listening with curiosity to people in my congregation that have a completely different values than I do. 

Lent is the season to repent. It is the season to embrace, once again, a humble posture to the reality that we see through a mirror only dimly. It is the season to die to self and be reborn (not just a change of heart but a completely new heart).

Can lent 2017 be the time we cure our LMP problem?

Dog whistling in the UMC - Scriptural Holiness

In case you don't know what Dog-whistle politics are, here is the Wikipedia entry description:

Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup.

The entry goes on to say:

The term can be distinguished from "code words" used in some specialist professions, in that dog-whistling is specific to the political realm. The messaging referred to as the dog-whistle has an understandable meaning for a general audience, rather than being incomprehensible.

It is that last sentence that makes dog-whistling so darn difficult to hear. The speaker is using words and phrases you agree with, but you may not be aware of the addition meaning(s) the speaker is communicating. So one is swept up in the speaker's language while potentially getting wrapped up in something you may disagree with. 

Let me give an example here in the UMC. 

Phrases such as "scriptural holiness" or "authority of scripture" or "I believe in the Bible" have become a dog-whistle in our denomination and you may no even know it. You and I read these phrases and say, well yes I agree with all of those statements. I also believe in those statements, however in many circles these statements are implying more than what is stated. Specifically, these statements are implying a "sola scriptura" theology. Again, I turn to Wikipedia to help clarify sola scriptura:

Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God.

This may sound spot on for your theology and that is fine, however the United Methodist Church is not a sola scriptura tradition but a "prima scriptura" tradition. Take it away Wikipedia:

Christian doctrine that canonized scripture is "first" or "above all" other sources of divine revelation. Implicitly, this view acknowledges that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe and how he should live, such as the created order, traditions, charismatic gifts,mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will that do not originate from canonized scripture are perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures.

Finally, Wikipedia helps make the distinction:

Prima scriptura is sometimes contrasted to sola scriptura, which literally translates "by the scripture alone". Prima scriptura — is that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, but that the Scriptures' meaning can be mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, antiquity, the councils of the Christian Church, reason, and experience.

However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible.

Sola scriptura says, "scripture alone", prima scripture says, "scripture first." Sola scriptura is a zero-sum view of the world. That is to say, sola scriptura says that in order for the Bible to have the ultimate authority, all others much be diminished. Therefore, sola scriptura has less room for tradition, experience and reason than prima scriptura has. 

Today, the phrase scriptural holiness is a bit of a dog whistle in the UMC by signaling to the listener sola scriptura theology. 

Scriptural holiness is something that is more than likely something that most Christians affirm, however, it is worth asking the next question, "do you mean scripture first or only?"