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.

Quality Preachers Don't Preach Because They Enjoy It

I am not an award winning preacher, but I am married to one (Find Estee's name on page 99 of this report). I don't teach preaching (although I have recently been riding the coattails of Estee to help work with a college on his preaching). I have never been asked to lead a session on how to preach, however I have pulled preachers together a few times in a event I co-created called "SermonCraft".

View fullsize

Rev. Charles McClure and Rev. Thomas Q. Robbins. McClure has something to say about the nature of the Church and Robbins has something to say about Evangelism. These are two quality preachers.

Like others, I listen to a number of preachers in my denomination's conference from Rev. Phillip Rhodes at FUMC Hurst to Rev. Katie Meek at FUMC Round Rock to preachers outside my denomination such as Pastor Rob Carmack at Collective Church and the great work of Shane Hipps. I have even tried to highlight other preachers on this very blog through the "Preacher of the Month" posts. 

Recently I was asked by a Sunday school group, "How do you come up with sermons?" It was a fun time talking about sermon crafting and I am thankful for the opportunity. In deeper reflection on the art of preaching, there is at least one Truth that has come to the surface about the quality preachers that I hear:

Quality preachers don't preach because they enjoy it. If you encounter someone who feels called to the ministry because they really like to preach, feel free to share this bit of advice - quality preachers don't go into preaching because they like it but because they have something to say. 

That is not to say that preachers cannot enjoy saying something in front of a congregation, but it is to say that saying something is not the same as having something to say. The best preachers have something to say. 

What is Missing in All This Talk About Leadership in the #UMC

Jonathan Haidt's fantastic book, The Righteous Mind, touches on a number of things related to moral foundations theory which is what made this book so helpful for me. However, this post is to point out one of the minor points of the book: leadership. Specifically he says that if we want to take advantage of the "hivish nature" of human groups so to accomplish great things (like that of honey bees) then we need to stop focusing so much on leadership. 

He goes on to cite other thinkers who say leadership can only be understood as the complement of "followership" (something I made note of here). And not only is leadership one half of the formula, it is not even the most interesting half: "it's no puzzle to understand why people want to lead. The real puzzle is why people are willing to follow." 

Haidt makes the distinction that there are at least two types of leadership styles: Transactional and Transformational. And each has a place in an organization. Transactional leadership uses a a combination of sticks and carrots to incentive followers to a specific action. This style of leadership is helpful when quick, short term action is needed. The drawback of transactional leadership is twofold. First, workers focus on looking good to get a promotion, a higher pay grade or greater prestige. Second, leaders have to monitor workers closely and have costly enforcement mechanisms. If you want people to build a boat then train people to be builders, cut checks and those who are better boat builders will work harder and "move up" into supervision and management. But you don't know who is a good worker and who is a slacker so you have to have metrics and tools to assess each worker and then judge them accordingly.

On the other hand, there is transformational leadership which uses bonds of social capital, pride and loyalty to energize workers. Then you have to trust your workers to do their job, which requires less monitoring than transactional leadership is comfortable with (which some would identify as a drawback to this model). So if you want to build a boat, you don't have to teach people to be builders but only to long for the ocean. 

“If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.”

— Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Leadership is not only a hot topic in the business world, but we have a bit of a leadership fascination in the UMC. Recently I shared about the "Clashing Shepards" in the UMC, what seems to be missing in all this talk about leadership is the type of leadership we need is one that take seriously followership. If people are following because of sticks and carrots then you know that leader is short sighted. If people are following because of trust and pride, then you know that leader understands followers. 

And of course, there is great African proverb that reminds us, "If you think you're leading and no one is following you, then you're only taking a walk.” 

The irony is that in an organization that talks about being followers of Jesus, when it comes to leadership it is followship that is missing.