Methodists not "Positionists"

The other day I was in conversation with a member of the church I serve and he told me of a book that he was taught and memorized much of when he was younger, The Westminster Shorter Catechism. He went on to tell me that the first question and answer in this book is:

• Q. What is the chief end of man?
• A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

This was the foundation of his early Christian experience. It was also clear in our conversation that he is in a phase of this formation where he is deconstructing his faith and has more questions than ever before. This is a natural process for so many but the Church has not been very helpful at guiding pilgrims through the deconstruction (death) of their former understanding of faith in order to help usher reconstruction (resurrection). I tried my best to listen to him because he embodies the type of Christian that I desire to be - curious, open and humbling seeking. 

After learning about what he was taught was the chief end of man was, it dawned on me that perhaps this is a point of difference in the UMC that I have experienced. That is to say, the United Methodist tradition that I have experienced is one that is concerned less about the "ends" than it is concerned about the "means."

The UMC says that the sacraments of communion are "means of Grace." The UMC has three rules - 1) do no harm, 2) do good and 3) attend to the ordinances of God. That last rule is about upholding the practices that draw us closer to the Spirit of God such as worship, prayer, fasting, study, silence, etc. These three rules all point to a process, a means a way of living. These are not rules to think about but rules do live. These are not so much of positions as they are postures that give flexibility to the Christian to discern how to live these rules out. So within the Church we have conversations about what "doing good" looks like or take actions to repent in the ways we have done harm. Methodists were made fun of in the early days because of their insistence on the "methods" of practicing Christianity. The Methodists were not made fun of because of their positions but because they emphasized the methods/means/practice. 

There are some within our denomination that demand we all pick predetermined sides to the hot issues of the time. It is seen as "unfaithful" or "not a winning strategy" to be a voice that calls for incremental change. The Biblically informed Methodism that has shaped me is one that emphasizes the process (method) over the position. 

The way we are having conversation these days - blaming others, scapegoating victims, dismissing arguments, creating straw-men and false equivalences, not repenting of our own hypocrisy, etc. - is less Methodist and more reflective of the newest denomination I call Positionists. 

Making Pens and the "Nashville Statement"

I have a friend who makes pens on a lathe. I have another friend who makes pens by hand carving. Both make pens that work. Often times they critique each others pens but they don't talk about their different process they use to make the pens. The one who uses the lathe does not understand why the hand carvers pens use such "boring" wood colors (it is because some woods are softer and easier to hand carve). What is overlooked is that the process drives how the pens will look. 

Photo by Dominik Scythe on Unsplash

Both style of pens are different, but they work to achieve the goal of writing. Some of the pens more comfortable than others and some are more stylized than others, but every pen puts ink on the page. 

Within Christianity we like to critique each others positions, but we don't critique the processes that we use to get to these positions. One side cannot understand why the another person would take such a position, so we try to change their position. The issue is that unless we change the process by which we come to these decisions, then we will not be able to change the positions. 

Pointing to a position and then arguing for or against it misses the point of talking about the process used to arrive at that position. 

I am tired of talking and listening to positions. I desire to talk and hear about process. Talking about positions are less interesting to me than how you arrived to that position. Because if we know how we arrived at the position, then we have a clue to how to invite each other to move from that position.

We Are All Afraid in the #UMC. Great. Can We Move On Yet?

Everywhere I look and read there is some element of fear that is being described. For instance in the conversation around the inclusion of LGBT Christians in the UMC, each side claims the other side is fearful. One side says that the other is fearful of change. Another side says the other is fearful of being out of step with culture. One side says the other is fearful of a slippery slope. Another side says the the other is fearful of embracing the full authority of scripture. Everyone says the other side is afraid.

In some circles you may hear that everyone is afraid and even go a step farther in sharing what they are afraid of. Owning what we are each afraid of is cathartic, but it does not seem to produce much fruit. In fact, talking about fear seems to only amplify the fear that may not even be out there! 

Instead of talking about our fears, can we just take at the starting point that we all are afraid? Can we move the conversation around LGBT inclusion from "what are you afraid" of to something like "what do you value"?

My son is four years old and he says he is afraid of the dark. However, in addition to being afraid of the dark he is also fearful of deep water and caves. At night I can give him a flashlight. I can ensure he stays in the shallow end and in the suburbs it is not difficult to avoid caves. The "thing behind the thing" around my son's fear of the dark, deep water or rocky crevasses is that he values being able to see clearly. Now if you listen to my son talk about what he is afraid of you will miss the underlying value that informs (drives) his behavior. 

Likewise in the Church. When we spend time listening to the fears of another person, this is a pastoral action and it is important. However, if we are only listening to fears we can miss the underlying value that drives those fears. 

The final point I want to elevate when talking about fears is that it is easy to dismiss the other person as not having legitimate fears. When we hear the fears of others and then speak to our own fears we often discount our partners fears as being less important as our fears. Playing the game of who has the most legitimate fear is a relational earthquake that shakes foundations, rupture relationship and crumbles bridges.

Rather than talking about fears, can we talk about values? Can progressives and traditionalists see that our values are aligned? Talking about values shifts the conversation from what arrests our actions to what can we do to live out these shared values? 

We Are All Afraid. Okay. Can We Move On Yet?