Oboedire "UMC: Schism" by J. Steven Harper for Sunday, 13 March 2016

Oboedire   "UMC: Schism" by J. Steven Harper for Sunday, 13 March 2016
The atmosphere of schism (even when the word is not used) never completely goes away in these days leading up to General Conference. It most often appears with respect to human sexuality, but it can sometimes be observed in discussions about being a global denomination and/or any other matter that has to do with being a "united" Methodist Church.
If you have followed my writing, you know I am categorically opposed to schism. Holding this view has resulted in some on both the Conservative and Progressive sides not to know what to do with me. But as the days draw near to General Conference, I want to say again why I continue to oppose schism.
First it simply is not true that schism is appropriate when "biblical" issues are at stake. We have already faced this in our Methodist history. In 1758 John Wesley had to resist schismatic sentiments. In 1792 so did Francis Asbury. Another formidable move for schism occurred in 1849.
In a blog-length post it is not possible to analyze each of these uprisings, but it is accurate to say that in each case "biblical" reasons were cited to justify schismatic sentiments. It is also important to observe that in each case, primary leaders (e.g. Wesley and Asbury, and in 1849 the denomination's 'Book of Discipline') rejected the efforts. Our present talk of schism once again uses "biblical" reasons to justify it. But our heritage teaches us to say, "No." We must do so again. [See reference note at the end of this post]
Second, it is simply not true that there can be "amicable separation." I do not say this to question the motives or efforts of some to make it so. Rather, I once again use the lessons of history to show that any schism creates deep fractures that cannot be thought of as amicable--before, during, and after it occurs. I know most about the Reformation, and beneath the surface of conventional history there are multiple stories of sadness and brokenness.
Moreover, post-Reformation history confirms that schism does not stop contention (which is rooted in our heart not the institution), and "pure church" advocates always face subsequent divisive issues and/or continue to perpetrate retributive acts against alleged opponents (e.g. the Anabaptist persecutions) after the initial schism has occurred.
Sometimes people take my view here and say, "Surely you do not believe the Protestant Reformation was a mistake. Look how God has used it." To that I simply reply that a theology of grace means God always works through the messes we make, leaving us to wonder "what might have been" if schism had been averted. But whatever we may think about that, we cannot use history to justify calling schism "amicable." (I mention here current efforts by Pope Francis to heal the historic schisms between the Roman Church and Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and Anglicanism--at least in spirit)
Finally, I reject schism because I believe the world desperately needs to see a church bear witness to doing the harder work of remaining united. I do not know to what extent the public needed that witness in times past, but they need it today. The current cultural default switch is partisanship which results in division after prolonged and contentious debates. The arrogance, judgmentalism, and mean-spiritedness that attend these controversies is contaminating our witness and contributing to the none/done phenomenon. We must do better.
Taken together, these three points lead me to outright reject schism and continue to call the UMC to the more-difficult task of remaining united and then implementing plans for being so. In the words of the old phrase, "call me a cock-eyed optimist," but I remain convinced that unity is always a higher value than schism. I am not willing to trade in Jeremiah 32:27 for a lesser view. I pray our General Conference delegates will go and do likewise.
[Note: Go online to read John Wesley's 'Reasons Against a Separation from the Church of England'....and get a copy of Francis Asbury's book, 'The Causes, Evils, and Cures of Heart and Church Divisions,' available from cokesbury.com or amazon.com][J. Steven Harper]
---------------------

REASONS 

AGAINST A 

SEPARATION 

FROM THE 

CHURCH of ENGLAND. b

y JOHN WESLEY, A.M., 

Printed in the Year 1758., 

WITH 

HYMNS for the PREACHERS among 

the METHODISTS (so called), b

y CHARLES WESLEY, A.M.

LONDON: 

Printed by W. STRAHAN, and Sold at the 

Founder in Upper-Moorfields, 

MDCCLX.

WHETHER it be lawful or no (which itself may be disputed, being not so clear a Point as some may imagine) it is by no Means expedient for us to separate from the Establish'd Church:

I. BECAUSE it would be a Contradiction to the solemn and repeated Declarations, which we have made in all Manner of Ways, in Preaching, in Print, and in private Conversation:

2. BECAUSE (on this as well as many other Accounts) it would give huge Occasion of Offence to those who seek and desire occasion, to all the Enemies of GOD and his Truth:

3. BECAUSE it would exceedingly prejudice against us many who fear, yea, who love GOD, and thereby hinder their receiving so much, perhaps any farther, Benefit from our Preaching:

4. BECAUSE it would hinder Multitudes of those who neither love nor fear GOD, from hearing us at all.

[4.] 5. BECAUSE it would occasion many Hundreds, if not some Thousands of those who are now united with us, to separate from us; yea, and some of those who have a deep Work of Grace in their Souls.

6. BECAUSE it would be throwing balls of Wildfire among them that are now quiet in the Land. We are now sweetly united together in Love. We mostly think and speak the same Thing. But this would occasion inconceivable Strife and Contention, between those who left, and those who remained in the Church, as well as between those who left us, and those who remained with us: Nay, and between those very Person who remained, as they were variously inclined one Way or the other:

7. BECAUSE, whereas Controversy is now asleep, and we in great Measure live peaceably with all Men, so that we are strangely at Leisure to spend our whole Time and Strength, in enforcing plain, practical, vital Religion, (O what would many of our Forefathers have given, to have enjoyed so blessed a Calm?) This would utterly banish Peace from among us, and that without Hope of its Return. It would engage me for one, in a thousand Controversies, both in Publick and Private; (for I should be in Conscience obliged to give the Reasons of my Conduct, and to defend those Reasons against all Opposers) and so take me off from those more useful Labours, which might otherwise employ the short Remainder of my Life:

8. BECAUSE to form the Plan of a New Church would require infinite Time and Care, (which might be far more profitably bestowed) with much more Wisdom and greater Depth and Extensiveness of Thought, than any of us are Masters of:

9. BECAUSE from some having barely entertained a distant Thought of this, evil Fruits have already followed, such as Prejudice against the Clergy in general; and aptness to believe Ill of them; Contempt (not without a Degree of Bitterness), of [4/5] Clergymen as such, and a Sharpness of Language toward the whole Order, utterly unbecoming either Gentlemen or Christians.

10. BECAUSE the Experiment has been so frequently tried already, and the success has never answer'd the Expectation. GOD has since the Reformation raised up from Time to Time many Witnesses of pure Religion. If these lived and died (like John Arndt, Robert Bolton, and many others) in the Churches to which they belonged, notwithstanding the Wickedness which overlowed both the Teachers and People therein; they spread the Leaven of true Religion far and wide, and were more and more useful, 'till they went to Paradise. But if upon any Provocation or Consideration whatever, they separated, and founded distinct Parties, their Influence was more and more confined; they grew less and less useful to others, and generally lost the Spirit of Religion themselves in the Spirit of Controversy:

11. BECAUSE we have melancholy Instances of this, even now before our Eyes. Many have in our Memory left the Church, and formed themselves into distinct Bodies. And certainly some of them, from a real Persuasion, that they should do GOD more Service. But have any separated themselves and prospered? Have they been either more holy, or more useful than they were before?

12. BECAUSE by such a Separation we should not only throw away the peculiar Glorying which GOD has given us, That we do and will suffer all Things for our Brethren's Sake, tho' the more we love them, the less we be loved: But should act in direct Contradiction to that very End, for which we believe GOD hath raised us up. The chief Design of his Providence in sending us out, is undoubtedly, To quicken our Brethren. And the first Message of all our Preachers is, to the lost Sheep of the Church of England. Now would it not be a flat Contradiction to this Design, To Separate from the Church? [5/6] These Things being considered, we cannot apprehend, whether it be lawful in itself or no, that it is lawful for us: were it only on this Ground, That it is by no means expedient.

II. It has indeed been objected, That 'till we do separate, we cannot be a compact, united Body.

IT is true, we cannot 'till then be a compact united Body, if you mean by that Expression, A Body distinct from all others. And we have no Desire so to be.

IT has been objected, Secondly, "It is mere Cowardice and Fear of Persecution, which makes you desire to remain united with them."

THIS cannot be proved. Let every one examine his own Heart, and not judge his Brother.

IT is not probably. We never yet, for any Persecution, when we were in the Midst of it, either turned back from the Work, or even slackened our Pace.

BUT this is certain: That although Persecution many Times proves an unspeakable Blessing to them that suffer it, yet we ought not willfully to bring it upon ourselves. Nay, we ought to do whatever can lawfully be done, in order to prevent it. We ought to avoid it, so far as we lawfully can; when persecuted in one City, to flee into another. If GOD should suffer a General Persecution, who would be able to aide it, we know not. Perhaps those who talk loudest, might flee first. Remember the Case of Dr. Pendleton.

III. UPON the whole, one cannot but observe, how desirable it is, That all of us who are engaged in the same Work, should think and speak the same Thing, be united in one Judgment, and use one and the same Language.

Do we not all now see Ourselves, the Methodists (so called) in general, the Church and the Clergy in a clear Light?

[7] WE look upon ourselves, not as the Authors, or Ringleaders of a particular Sect or Party; (It is the farthest Thing from our Thoughts:) but as Messengers of GOD, to those who are Christians in Name, but Heathens in Heart and in Life, to call them back to that from which they are fallen, to real, genuine Christianity. We are therefore Debtors to all these, of whatever Opinion or Denomination: And are consequently to do all that in us lies, to please all, for their Good, to Edification.

We look upon the Methodists (so called) in general, not as any particular Party; (This would exceedingly obstruct the Grand design, for which we conceive GOD has raised them up) but as living Witnesses in, and to every Party, of that Christianity when we preach; which is hereby demonstrated to be a real Thing, and visibly held out to all the World.

WE look upon England as that Part of the World, and the Church as that Part of England, to which all we who are born and have been brought up therein, owe our first and chief Regard. We feel in ourselves a strong Storgh, a Kind of Natural Affection for our Country, which we apprehend Christianity was never designed either to root out or to impair. We have a more peculiar Concern for our Brethren, for that Part of our Countrymen, to whom we have been joined from our Youth up, by Ties of a Religious as well as a Civil Nature. True it is, that they are in general, without GOD in the World. So much the more do our Bowels yearn over them. They do lie in Darkness and the Shadow of Death. The more tender is our Compassion for them. And when we have the fullest Conviction of that complicated Wickedness which covers them as a Flood, then do we feel the most (and we desire to feel yet more) of that inexpressible Emotion, with which our blessed LORD beheld Jerusalem, and wept and lamented over it. Then are [7/8] we the most willing to spend and to be spent for them, yea, to lay down our Lives for our Brethren.

WE look upon the Clergy, not only as a Part of these our Brethren, but as that Part whom GOD by his adorable Providence, has called to be Watchmen over the rest, for whom therefore they are to give a strict Account. If these then neglect their important Charge, if they do not watch over them with all their Power, they will be of all Men most miserable, and so are entitled to our deepest Compassion. So that to feel, and much more to express either Contempt or Bitterness towards them, betrays an utter Ignorance of ourselves and of the Spirit which we especially should be of.

BECAUSE this is a Point of uncommon Concern, let us consider it a little farther.

THE Clergy wherever we are, are either Friends to the Truth, or Neuters, or Enemies to it.

IF they are Friends to it, certainly we should do every Thing, and omit every Thing we can with a safe Conscience, in order to continue, and if it be possible, increase their Good-will to it.

IF they neither further nor hinder it, we should do all that in us lies, both for their Sakes and for the Sake of their several Flocks, to give their Neutrality the right Turn, that it may change into Love rather than Hatred.

IF they are Enemies, still we should not despair of lessening, if not removing their Prejudice. We should try ever Means again and again. We should employ all our Care, Labour, Prudence, joined with fervent Prayer, to overcome Evil with Good, to melt their Hardness into Love.

IT is true, that when any of these openly wrest the Scriptures, and deny the grand Truths of the Gospel, we cannot but declare and defend, at convenient Opportunities, the important Truths which they deny. But in this Case especially we have Need of all Gentleness and Meekness of Wisdom. [8/9] Contempt, Sharpness, Bitterness can do no Good. The Wrath of Man worketh not the Righteousness of GOD. Harsh Methods have been tried again and again (by two or three unsettled Railers); At Wednesbury, St. Ives, Cork, Canterbury. And how did they succeed? They always occasioned numberless Evils; often wholly stopt the Course of the Gospel. Therefore, were it only on a prudential Account, were Conscience unconcerned therein, it should be a sacred Rule to all our Preachers, "No Contempt, no Bitterness to the Clergy."

2. MIGHT it not be another (at least prudential) Rule, for every Methodist Preacher, "Not to frequent any Dissenting Meeting?" (Tho' we blame none who have been always accustomed to it) But if we do this, certainly our People will. Now this is actually separating from the Church. If therefore it is (at least) not expedient to separate, neither is this expedient. Indeed we may attend our Assemblies, and the Church too; because they are at different Hours. But we cannot attend both the Meeting and the Church, because they are at the same Hours.

IF it be said, "But at the Church we are fed with Chaff, whereas at the Meeting we have wholesome Food:" We answer, I. The Prayers of the Church are not Chaff: They are substantial Food for any who are alive to GOD. 2. The LORD'S Supper is not Chaff, but pure and wholesome for all who receive it with upright Hearts. Yea, 3. In almost all the Sermons we hear there, we hear many great and important Truths. And whoever has a spiritual Discernment, may easily separate the Chaff from the Wheat therein. 4. How little is the Case mended at the Meeting? Either the Teachers are New Light Men, denying the LORD that bought them, and overturning his Gospel, from the very Foundations: Or they are Predestinarians, and so preach Predestination and Final Perseverance, more [9/10] or less. Now whatever this may be to them who were educated therein, yet to those of our Brethren who have lately embraced it, repeated Experience shews it is not wholesome Food: Rather to them it has the Effect of deadly Poison. In a short Time it destroys all their Zeal for GOD. They grow fond of Opinions and Strife of Words. They despise Self-denial and the daily Cross; and the compleat all, wholly separate from their Brethren.

3. NOR is it expedient for any Methodist Preacher, to imitate the Dissenters in their Manner of Praying: Either, in his Tone: All particular Tones both in Prayer and Preaching, should be avoided with the utmost Care: Nor in his Language; all his Words should be plain and simple, such as the lowest of his Hearers both use and understand: Or in the Length of his Prayer, which should not usually exceed four or five Minutes, either before or after Sermon. One might add, Neither should be sing, like them in a slow, drawling Manner: We sing sift, both because it saves Time, and because it tends to awake and enliven the Soul.

4. Fourthly, IF we continue in the Church not by Chance, or for want of Thought, but upon solid and well weighed Reasons, then we should never speak contemptuously of the Church, or any Thing pertaining to it. In some Sense, it is the Mother of us all, who have been brought up therein. We ought never to make her Blemishes Matter of Diversion, but rather of solemn Sorrow before GOD, We ought never to talk ludicrously of them; no, not at all, without clear Necessity. Rather, we should conceal them, as far as ever we can, without bringing Guilt upon our own Conscience. And we should all use every Rational and Scriptural Means, to bring others to the same Temper and Behaviour. I say, All; for if some of us are thus minded, and others of an opposite Spirit and Behaviour, this will breed a real Schism among ourselves. It will of course [10/11] divide us into Two Parties; each of which will be liable to perpetual Jealousies, Suspicions and Animosities against the other. Therefore on this Account likewise, it is expedient in the highest Degree, that we should be tender of the Church to which we belong.

5. IN order to secure this End, to cut off all Jealousy and Suspicion from our Friends, and Hope from our Enemies, of our having any Design to separate from the Church, it would be well to every Methodist Preacher, who has no Scruple concerning it, to attend the Service of the Church, as often as conveniently he can. And the more we attend it, the more we love it, as constant Experience shews. On the contrary, the longer we abstain from it, the less Desire we have to attend it at all.

6. Lastly, WHEREAS we are surrounded on every Side, by those who are equally Enemies to us and to the Church of England; and whereas these are long practised in this War, and skilled in all the Objections against it: While our Brethren on the other Hand are quite Strangers to them all, and so on a sudden know not how to answer them: It is highly expedient for every Preacher to be provided with sound Answers to those Objections, and then to instruct the Societies where he labours, how to defend themselves against those Assaults. It would be therefore well for you carefully to read over the Preservative against unsettled Notions in Religion, together with Serious Thoughts concerning Perseverance and Predestination calmly considered. And when you are Masters of them yourselves, it will be easy for you to recommend and explain them to our Societies: That they may no more be tossed to and fro by every Wing of Doctrine; but being settled in one Mind and one Judgment, by solid scriptural and rational Arguments, may grow up in all Things into Him who is our Head, even Jesus Christ.

[12] I think myself bound in Duty, to add my Testimony to my Brother's. His Twelve Reasons against our ever Separating from the Church of England, are mine also. I subscribe to them with all my Heart. I am quite clear, that it is neither Expedient, nor LAWFUL for Me to Separate: And I never had the least Inclination or Temptation to do so. My Affection for the Church is as strong as ever: And I clearly see my Calling; which is, to live and to die in her Communion. This, therefore. I am determined to do, the Lord being my Helper.

I have subjoined the HYMNS for the Lay-Preachers; still farther to secure this End, to cut off all Jealousy and Suspicion from our Friends, or Hope from our Enemies, of our having any Design of ever Separating from the Church. I have no secret Reserve, or distant Thought of it. I never had. Would to GOD all the Methodist Preachers were, in this respect, like minded with

CHARLES WESLEY.

---------------------

Oboedire   "Year of Mercy: The Foundation by J. Steven Harper
(10) The life and ministry of the Church stands on the foundation of mercy. The witness of the Church rises and falls in relation to the presence or absence of mercy. Pope Francis believes the Church has forgotten this and must be reawakened to it.
As the showing of mercy wanes in the world today, the Church is particularly called by God to be a mercy-giving institution. This does not eliminate the need for justice, but it means that justice is not the first motive, the first move, or the first ministry of the Body of Christ--mercy is. God's 'hesed' is the igniting inclination.
Forgetting this, justice becomes retributive rather than restorative. The focus is on what the offender must do to in order to be forgiven. With mercy as the foundation, justice is restorative and the focus is on the Church in its initiative to forgive even before a person asks to be forgiven--just as God showed love to us while we were still sinners (Romans 5:8).
Mercy is the manifestation of grace--not "cheap grace" (because of what Jesus has done for us), but 'free' grace which is offered irrespective of who the the person is or what they have done. Mercy is offering to others what we ourselves have received.
Is this counter-cultural? In a retributive-justice (quid pro quo) world, you better believe it is! But as Pope Francis, makes clear--this is the Church's calling, and it is in showing mercy where the Church distinguishes itself from an inquisition-oriented, meritocracy-based world.
This points to the redemptive mission of the Church. As Pope Francis writes, "Mercy is the force that reawakens us to new life and instills in us the courage to look to the future with hope." People can only hear and respond to the Gospel when it is offered them through the spirit of mercy. When offered as a "turn or burn" requirement, they will turn--not away from God, but rather away from a Church that no longer knows how to love.
Pope Francis is determined to return the Church (remember he is writing to all Christians, not just those in the Roman Church) to its foundation--the foundation of mercy. His pontifical bull is his invitation for us to join with him in the effort.
[Note: the numbers at the beginning of each meditation correspond to the section of the Pope's document on which it is based][J. StevenHarper]
---------------------
Oboedire   "Year of Mercy: Storied Into Loveby" J. Steven Harper
(9) Jesus understood the transformative power of stories. Parables were his primary means of speaking the revelation of God to us. Among his best-known stories are two parables of mercy: e.g. Luke 15:1-32 and Matthew 18:21-35.
These parables of mercy do two things simultaneously. First, they confirm that God is merciful. And second, they make it clear that we are to be merciful too. If the face of Jesus is mercy, and if Christlikeness is the essence of the Christian life, then "we go and do likewise" by showing mercy to others.
This is not a high-minded abstract notion, it is a disposition of our heart expressed one moment at a time, one place at a time, one person at a time. It is holiness as described by Jean Pierre de Caussade: "Do the next thing you have to do and do it for God." Mercy is always realized in concrete, specific ways.
Pope Francis puts it simply, "As the Father loves, so do his children. Just as he is merciful, so we are called to be merciful to each other."
[Note: the numbers at the beginning of each meditation correspond to the section of the Pope's document on which it is based][J. Steven Harper]
---------------------
Oboedire   "UMC: Round Table #4" by J. Steven Harper
It would be a mistake to end this brief series on Christian Conferencing (using the Round Table illustration) at the level of practice. I want to end by remembering why we engage in holy conferencing in the first place.
First and foremost, we do it because we believe it is a means of grace. This an obvious point, but one that can get lost under the pile of tools and techniques--whether ancient or modern. We believe that God speaks into, among, and through Christian Conferencing, and this conviction means we believe God does things through a collective mind that would not occur through an individual mind. Christian Conferencing is a surrender to that larger possibility.
Second, we practice Christian Conferencing because it is an expression of humility, which is itself (in the Wesleyan tradition) an evidence of love. In relation to General Conference there is nothing more important than to create a spirit of humility. Delegates dare not meet apart from the rock-solid foundation of love for one another. Christian Conferencing fosters that spirit.
Third, we engage in Christian Conferencing because it preserves our belief that revelation unfolds over time, and that one thing leads to another. If I have any overarching fear as General Conference approaches, it is the fear that delegates will go to Portland with a problem-solving mentality. Christian Conferencing is not a problem-solving technique, it is a communal act (and commitment) to let God's revelation emerge over time. Assuming that good decisions reflective of God's will emerge at General Conference, they are not essentially policies to write up in a Book of Discipline; they are dynamic realities that demand we follow them into greater Light as they mature. This keeps polity alive, rather than allowing our life together to deteriorate into dead orthodoxy.
Christian Conferencing is not for 2016. It is for 2020, 2024, 2028, etc. More importantly, it is not for General Conference. It is in our Wesleyan DNA, to be practiced by congregations, Districts, and Annual Conferences day after day, just as are all the other means of grace.
This is one reason why I share the anxiety of some who believe that it is virtually impossible to expect hundreds of delegates to arrive in Portland and suddenly have the ability to practice Christian Conferencing. This is a legitimate concern, and it is surely possible to use the language of Christian Conferencing while doing something else.
But it has to start somewhere, and if the delegates are among our best leaders, then what better time or place than to make a devoted attempt to use one of our Instituted Means of Grace for the good of the UMC. We have elected them to lead us through wise discernment. Christian Conferencing is a means to that end.
In the time that remains before General Conference, delegates must train themselves in Christian Conferencing by doing it among themselves in each locale. A recent gathering of Philippine United Methodists is a good-faith example of that aim. And as I said previously, the General Conference needs to have consultants on sight to do some further training and to provide subsequent guidance as the delegates make use of Christian Conferencing.
Some may believe that the risk is too great in using a process that is so foreign to our actual experience, and that the best we can hope for is an awkward stumbling. But this would not be the first time in Christian history that the people of God stumbled on their journey, nor will it be the first time God has been with a faltering people as a Pillar of Cloud by day and a Pillar of Fire by night.[J. Steven Harper]
---------------------
Oboedire   "Year of Mercy: Pure Love" by J. Steven Harper
(8) When we experience mercy it is always the mercy of love because God is love (1 John 4:8, 16). Jesus came to reveal love and to invite us to accept the fact that we are God's beloved daughters and sons--and then, to live accordingly, which is to live the life of love each day via the two great commandments.
Everything in Jesus was about manifesting the love of God--every thought, every word, every deed. The primary word for this is compassion. Jesus puts a face on God. It is the face of compassion. It is the face of mercy--the face of love, shepherding us (guiding) and saving us (guarding), so that we may not miss seeing Who God is and who we are.
Once our hearts are filled with God's mercy, and we know ourselves to be God's beloved daughters and sons, we are given "eyes to see" that everyone is similarly shown mercy and equally beloved. Who we are is who everybody else is! This changes everything and provides the soil in our souls where the fruit of the Spirit can grow.
[Note: the numbers at the beginning of each meditation correspond to the section of the Pope's document on which it is based][J. Steven Harper]
---------------------
Oboedire   "UMC: Round Table #3" by J. Steven Harper
In the last blog, I wrote of the "all in" necessity implied in Christian Conferencing. E. Stanley Jones described this commitment through basic principles required if the Round Table process was to work.

--respectful atmosphere
--no one has 100% of the truth
--every devout person has some truth
--learning posture, not defensive
--frankness (bring the best you have)
--no debate or controversy
--questions for clarification & expansion
--goal is not agreement, but enrichment
--enrichment is the prelude to discovery
--God can do what we cannot
--God is hampered by our not coming together
(From 'Christ at The Round Table')
We can hope that holy conferencing will yet again provide the structure for the conversations at General Conference, and if so, we can dare to believe that God will effect "life together" through our coming together as the people called Methodist in ways not possible if we choose to remain separate.[J. Steven Harper]
---------------------
Oboedire   "Visit The Archives" by J. Steven Harper
About once a year I remind you that the Oboedire Archives contain a wealth of my previous writings on a host of topics, which you can see on the sidebar of the Oboedire home page.
If you are a relative newcomer to Oboedire, perhaps you have not seen the Archives, since posts come automatically to your inbox. Other than the books which I have authored and co-authored (which are accessible on the sidebar link as well), the Oboedire Archives contain my most extensive writing.
Sometimes, when I feel like I have "lost my mind," I wonder if much of it has been deposited in my previous blogs! :-)
So, check out the Archives. There may be a topic of interest there for you.[J. Steven Harper]
---------------------
Oboedire   "Year of Mercy: Source of Salvation" by J.  Steven Harper
(7) Mercy is the source of our salvation. God does not save us out of a sense of obligation, but rather out of intense desire. Mercy is the sign that God is madly in love with us, never gives up on us, and is not willing that any of us should perish. God's mind is consumed with only one thing: salvation.
Pope Francis chose Psalm 136 as the focal text for his confirmation of this, seen in the recurring phrase, "God's mercy endures forever." In the word 'forever' we see the eternality of God's love. In the word 'endures' we see the strength of God's love.
All this came together in Jesus, the Word made flesh--mercy with skin on. Throughout his life on earth, Jesus manifested mercy over and over again, refusing to condemn, ever ready to forgive. On the night of his betrayal, he prayed Psalm 136 with his disciples in the upper room, connecting himself to this text and to its message.
Mercy is the one-word summary for what Jesus said, "With humans, this is impossible; with God nothing is impossible." Why? Because God's mercy endures forever and is offered to anyone, anytime, anywhere. In his Great Commission, Jesus passed the torch to us, telling us to go and do likewise, and that he would be with us all the way.
We have our mandate--the call to be merciful, until "Christ comes in final victory" and effects the ultimate triumph of mercy.
[Note: the numbers at the beginning of each meditation correspond to the section of the Pope's document on which it is based][J. Steven Harper
---------------------
Oboedire   "UMC: Round Table #1" by J. Steven Harper
I stand among those who are happy to see the emphasis on Christian Conferencing as the preferred means for deliberating matters at General Conference this coming May. I believe that the future of The United Methodist Church largely turns on our willingness and ability to practice Christian Conferencing and our willingness to allow this means of grace to inspire and inform us.
This is the vision I cast in my book, 'For the Sake of the Bride' in proposing that our hope for renewal lies in our commitment to exercise love, non-judgment, and holy conferencing. I chose the Round Table used by E. Stanley Jones as my illustration for Christian Conferencing in the church today. I will write a few blogs on this practice as a means to assist any who wish to practice holy conferencing.
What John Wesley called Christian Conferencing was his 18th-century use of the ancient practice of holy conversation--a conciliar process used by Christians throughout the Church to deal with challenges by trusting the Spirit to give collective insight which exceeded what an individual or partisan group could achieve in isolation from the larger community.
This process underlay the seven Ecumenical Councils, enabling some of them to produce the classic Creeds of Christianity, and other significant things as well. We see the process at work in later periods of Church history, one product being major Confessions. The process was also used throughout Vatican II and the multiple subset activities which the conference generated (e.g. 'The Catechism of the Catholic Church').
The practice is continued today through such things as Jewish Chavurah, Native American Council Fires, Parker Palmer's Circles of Trust, and Appreciative Inquiry. The commitment made by General Conference delegates to practice Christian Conferencing is a sign of hope.
But Christian Conferencing is not something anyone can do on the spur of a moment. It requires training and guidance. I am glad to see some resources aiming to help delegates prepare to practice Christian Conferencing. It would be well for the General Conference to engage the services of consultants who can provide on-the-ground guidance as the Conference unfolds. This could include people schooled in historic Methodist conferencing and others knowledgeable of contemporary conferencing (e.g. 'Circles of Trust' or 'Appreciative Inquiry').
In addition, every delegate and delegation would do well to "train" in exercising the spirit and substance of holy conferencing. In the next couple of blogs, I will offer insights from the Round Table that help facilitate holy conferencing.[J. Steven Harper]
---------------------
Oboedire   "Year of Mercy: Living By Faith" by J. Steven Harper
(5) Before Pope Francis opened the Vatican Door announcing the commencement of the Year of Mercy, he looked to the end of the Jubilee year next November, declaring his belief that God would be faithful and pour out mercy on the world.
As I read his words, I asked myself how often I have expressed faith about one thing for a whole year. In principle, I think I do. But when it comes to writing about a year's worth of anything in advance--well that's another story.
We can only imagine how deeply the Pope prayed and then pondered the stirrings in his soul before declaring (not just in a papal proclamation, but in lived-out conviction) the Year of Mercy. We will await the end of November next year, trusting that there will be many confirmations of the Pope's discernment.
Which brings the matter to us. If we put ourselves inside the circle of the Year of Mercy, then we too must believe that the Holy Spirit will offer us numerous times to show mercy in the coming year. Will we too live the Year of Mercy in faith--faith that is both professed and expressed?
[Note: the numbers at the beginning of each meditation correspond to the section of the Pope's document on which it is based][J. Steven Harper]
---------------------
Oboedire   "Church: Biblical Marriage" by J. Steven Harper
As a person who seeks to be a responsible student (notice I did not say "expert scholar") when exploring topics of interest and importance, the recent sanctions of the Episcopal Church USA by the Primates of the Anglican Communion has necessarily brought me back to yet another consideration of the phrase "biblical marriage"--a phrase not used in the actual document produced by the Primates, but certainly implied in it, and used in various responses to the document.
Hopefully, I am stating the obvious when I say that no Christian is in favor of unbiblical marriage. But what is not so obvious is that the term "biblical marriage" is not as singular and clear cut as some allege. A look at Scripture bears this out, as does the subsequent Christian tradition.
The Bible has eight models of marriage in it. I cannot describe them in a blog-length post, but in brief they are: man/woman; man/brother's widow; man/woman (or women) & concubines; rapist/victim; man/woman & woman's slaves; male soldier/prisoner of war; man/multiple women as wives; and male slave/female slave. [You can Google "types of marriage in the Bible" and see them for yourself, as well as where they are mentioned in the Bible]
The point I am making is simply that there is no one model of marriage in Scripture. And, furthermore, godly people in the Bible are married in different ways. It is also true that every model could be violated. The model is not determinative; how the model is honored is.
In history, the variations multiply over the earth over the course of time. These variations became significant (and problematic) as Acts 1:8 became fulfilled "to the ends of the earth." And once again, we see Christians lacking a singular mind on every occasion when the meaning of marriage was up for discussion. This was particularly true with respect to polygamy. A few examples suffice to illustrate this fact.
Paul's words (1 Tim 3:2, 3:12 & Titus 1:6) were taken by some to be pervasively prohibitive, while others pointed out he was applying the principle only to leaders.
Additionally, Martin Luther, on one occasion, condoned polygamy while continuing to advocate monogamy as the norm.
Even the Anglican Communion reveals the historic struggle in (1) Bishop John Colenso's excellent and extended 1855 treatise on the subject as the Church of England moved further onto the African continent, and (2) the Lambeth Conference of 1988--Resolution 26 . Both examples uphold monogamy, while acknowledging there are occasions when people in polygamous marriages can become Christians.
What emerges from the witness of history is that the Church came to reject models of marriage which were non-consensual, the result of abuse (e.g. rape), and more recently marriages that ascribe to women a status of lesser worth than men. At the same time, the Church has never based the meaning of marriage in "romance," reproductive capacity, or any other concept that lacks commitment.
Again, the point is that the Church has had to discern the meaning of marriage from among the options presented in Scripture itself and represented in a variety of religions and cultures over time.
The question is, "How did the Church do this?" The answer is, through the concept of Covenant, the all-encompassing bond, established by God, that defines the God-human relationship and the related human-human and human-all creation ones. Covenant principles are non-negotiable: sacredness, fidelity, and permanency. [I personally believe church history shows that monogamy can be added as a fourth (New Covenant) principle]
This use of Covenant established a crucial distinction between "normative" and "definitive"--a distinction that gets lost when only the term "biblical marriage" is used. To be sure, the one-man/one-woman model is normative--no doubt about that. But Scripture and tradition reveal that this model is not definitive--Covenant is definitive. We even sometimes today call marriage the "covenant of holy wedlock."
If we are to move beyond the intense controversy (even impasse) in the Christian community regarding the meaning of marriage, we must recover the historic Church's willingness and ability to make the distinction between normative and definitive--with Covenant being definitive, not a particular model of marriage. No marital union can be called "Christian" if it lacks sacredness, monogamy, fidelity, and permanency. [That's why even some one-man/one-woman marriages are not actually Christian]
If we follow the example of the Church over time, we will preserve the foundation of Covenant as the definitive element, recognizing that one-man/one-woman marriages are normative--as evidenced by historical data itself.
But when using Covenant to define marriage, we will also join with historic Christianity in recognizing that there can be other marriage models which honor and bear witness to Covenant: sacredness, monogamy, fidelity, and permanency. And with the foundation of Covenant in place, we can bless and/or solemnize the union of any two people who intend (and pledge through the making and keeping of vows in the presence of God and Christian witnesses) to live in Covenant love toward God and toward each other, and to make their home a haven of blessing to all who enter it.
This is the reason (rooted in Scripture and tradition, not cultural capitulation or a Supreme Court ruling) that many Christians and ecclesial bodies believe that same-sex marriage is legitimate--whenever and wherever it honors and reflects Covenant.
I do not offer this blog naively. I know it is not the view held by all Christians everywhere. But that fact only illustrates the reality the Church has had to deal with when considering (re-considering) the meaning of marriage. Our challenge is to recognize, as the Church has recognized in the past, that times like ours call for conversation, not censure.
Without that, the term "biblical marriage" (a term we are all for) will be an ecclesial vollyball batted back and forth over a net of confusion, caricature, and contradiction--leaving us vulnerable to being less "Church" (i.e. unloving, judgmental, arrogant) than God would have us be.
If, however, we are willing to engage in holy conferencing, we may find (as the Church has found in the past) a way through what too easily seems to be an impasse--as the Holy Spirit leads us beyond our wilderness wanderings to "a new land" that God has made and will show us--a land that is ahead of us--a land only grace can create (Jeremiah 32:27).[J. Steven Harper]
---------------------
Oboedire   "Year of Mercy: Powerful Mercy" by J. Steven Harper
(6) Pope Francis connects God's mercy and God's omnipotence. Drawing on the thoughts of St. Thomas Aquinas, he writes that God's most powerful action is the expression of mercy. This is clearly so when we remember that mercy is our word for 'hesed' (OT) and agapé (NT).
What this essentially means is that God does not act toward us on the basis of who we are, but rather on the basis of who God is. Because God is love--steadfast love, never-failing love, loyal love--every movement toward us is merciful. Every act is aimed for our good.
Such mercy is powerful precisely because it so often flies in the face of conditions which do not deserve mercy. Our attitudes and actions would justify something from God other than mercy. But we receive mercy anyway!
This amazing grace removes all notions that Christianity is a meritocracy where God blesses those who are "worthy"--those who "toe the mark" and perform up to par according to the rules of a person or group. Mercy is all that keeps any of us in the game (see Ecckesiastes 7:20, Romans 3:9, Romans 3:23). Mercy is the basis of hope.
Mercy is the proof that we are in a relationship with One who loves us. Pope Francis puts it this way, "It gushes from the depths naturally, full of tenderness and compassion, indulgence and mercy." Mercy is not a trickle of love given to us reluctantly by God; it is God's "Niagra" soaking us 24/7 with a never-ending embrace.
[Note: the numbers at the beginning of each meditation correspond to the section of the Pope's document on which it is based][J. Steven Harper]
---------------------
Oboedire   "UMC: Round Table #2" by J. Steven Harper
Today, I continue the exploration of E. Stanley Jones' concept and practice of the Round Table as a model for us to learn from as we move toward General Conference.
The first thing Jones noted was that the Round Table was offered, but not everyone accepted the invitation to come to it. He described the refusal by writing, "Their native air is debate and they were not quite at home in the atmosphere of quiet search for truth and reality through sharing."
This means that any practice of holy conferencing must be an "all in" commitment--a substantive involvement, not a perfunctory one. Christian Conferencing is not a posturing, it is a participation.
After a decade of using the Round Table, Jones summarized his learnings in his book, 'Christ at the Round Table.' In the rest of this post, I will let him largely speak for himself in these points....
(1) "a great deal of intellectual and spiritual culture was represented through those who participated"-- the interdisciplinary breadth and depth at the Round Table.
(2) "no one has a right to teach others who is not also learning from them"--the spirit of those who came to the Round Table.
(3) "we were all being called upon to face religion and life in a new way"--the sense of 'kairos' at the Round Table.
(4) "human beings are incurably religious"-- the essence of the Round Table.
(5) "humanity is fundamentally one"--the universality of the Round Table.
(6) "the fundamental need of the human heart is redemption"--the missional aim of the Round Table.
(7) "given time and space, there was not a situation in which Christ was not in moral and spiritual command"--the faith at the Round table.
Set against the biblical backdrop of Jeremiah 32:27 and the Wesleyan context "to serve the present age," I believe the Round Table method offers us a mindset and means for remaining The United Methodist Church, and eschewing schism.[J. Steven Harper]
---------------------
Oboedire   "UMC: The Pivot" by J. Steven Harper
As General Conference approaches, the various plans being put forward regarding human sexuality make it appear that the decisive factor will be which theological view is finally adopted as determinative. And while I believe theological conversations are essential in a discernment process, I do not believe they are the pivot on which the future of the UMC turns.
The pivot is not a theological position, it is a value--namely, whether unity is a higher value than schism. To say it another way, if we have the will to stay together, we can find a way to do so. If we lack that will, we will find a way to divide.
Francis Asbury recognized this in 1792 when he urged the 8-year-old Methodist Episcopal Church in America to carefully consider the dangers of divisions and how to "cure" themselves of the temptation to promote such. [Happily, Abingdon Press has recently republished Asbury's book, 'The Causes, Evils, and Cures of Heart and Church Divisions ' Go to http://www.cokesbury.com, and search by this title to find out more]
Asbury knew, as do we, that any theological position is exercised by the will of the person or group that holds it. Whatever the will is, a theological position can be found to justify it. History shows that the Church is always able to find theological language to do what it wants to do.
The Church has been able to hold together deep disagreements throughout its history--because it wanted to. At the same time, separations have happened when the will to stay together was lost. In both cases, theological language attended the decision and the resulting ecclesial systems which emerged.
Of course the discernment of the ultimate value is always connected to conscience and conviction (e.g. Luther's, "Here I stand, I can do no other"), and these elements are intertwined with theology. But in the end, the final action is forged in the crucible of a decision relative to the scale of values regarding the preference of unity or schism in a given situation.
If the delegates at General Conference believe unity is a higher value than schism, then we can anticipate some plan for remaining together. If not, we will see some plan for separation. In either case, theological language will be used to justify the ideological and institutional manifestation. But however it is worded, the preference for unity or schism will reflect the deeper and final influence of will.
So, in the end, the pivotal question at General Conference will be, "What do you want? Unity or schism?" and the old Chinese proverb about the bird in our hand will come true once again: is the bird alive or dead? "It is as you will."[J. Steven Harper]
---------------------