“Every person should place themselves under the authority of the government. There isn’t any authority unless it comes from God,and the authorities that are there have been put in place by God.” (Romans 13:1)
Misusing the Bible to separate families by Magrey deVega
When U.S. Attorney General cited Romans 13:1 in defense of the administration’s policy of separating immigrant children from their families, my ears perked up. During my senior year of high school, my Bible class studied the book of Romans, verse by verse, resulting in a one-question final exam: “Explain Romans.” I became familiar with the most popular way that verse has been used throughout our nation’s history: to divinely sanction governments as instruments of God, and coerce people into obedience.
British loyalists used it to counter the American Revolution. Slaveholders used it to promote slavery. Advocates of the death penalty use it to defend capital punishment. And Jeff Sessions has now invoked it to promote an inhumane method of addressing border security.
But if there is anything I learned from having to “explain Romans,” it is that one should never take a single verse out of context. Panning out to all of chapters 12 and 13 reminds us that this is not about the government getting to do whatever it wants to do under the cover of God’s blessing. It is more about abhorring evil and doing good (12:9), practicing hospitality (12:13), being at peace (12:18), overcoming evil with good (12:21), loving our neighbors (13:8-10), and laying aside immoral actions (13:12-14).
But here is the biggest fallacy in using Romans 13:1 the way Sessions used it. Even if it were true that God has certified worldly governments to carry out divine will, there is still always one divinely sanctioned entity that precedes and supersedes political institutions.
The family.
Before there were tribes, nations, borders, political parties, and earthly laws, God created the family. It is the preservation of the family, and particularly the protection of our children, that guarantees our flourishing and fruitfulness as a people. We remember that Jesus had words for the Romans as well, in his command to “Allow the children to come to me. Don’t forbid them, because the kingdom of heaven belongs to people like these children. (Matthew 19:14) It was an indictment of the way Roman culture had allowed the exploitation and dehumanization of children. Jesus was in no way interested in telling his followers that the abuse of children was allowable as a divinely sanctioned policy.
You may have heard that Jeff Sessions is a member of a United Methodist congregation in Alabama, and that reaction from our denomination has been swift. Bishop Ken Carter, recently elected as the President of the Council of Bishops, issued a strong denunciation.[1] The United Methodist Women has issued its own condemnation,[2] as has a growing list of at least 600 fellow United Methodists who have filed a formal church complaint against him.[3]
The problem is not with a politician quoting scripture. Promoting biblical literacy in the public square can be a good thing. The biggest problem is not even with misinterpreting Scripture. We are all susceptible to doing that. The problem is in its misuse to promote an agenda that is not only antithetical to the Gospel, but is destructive of the highest and best human institution that God created: the family.
Even despite the President’s recent actions to halt the separation, we still must contend with the troubling biblical and theological premises that guided the administration to enact this policy in the first place.
So, in addition to the words of Jesus and Paul, here are five other Bible verses that I suggest Jeff Sessions consider:
JUSTICE FOR OUR NEIGHBORS (JFON)
Among the ways you might discern responding to this crisis is to support the United Methodist agency Justice for Our Neighbors (JFON), which promotes a just immigration system and provides legal support for immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. For more information, visit njfon.org.
In a 5-4 decision on the case NIFLA v. Becerra, the Supreme Court upheld a challenge to a California law that required reproductive health clinics to provide certain information to clients. The court found that the law likely violates the First Amendment. The 2015 law was enacted in response to the rise in crisis pregnancy centers, many with religious affiliations, who were not licensed medical clinics and often provided women with misleading or inaccurate information about their options. Per the law, clinics had to post information that their services did not include licensed medical help, and they were required to inform patients that free or low-cost abortion services are available through the state.
A lot of controversy swirls around crisis pregnancy centers, or pregnancy resource centers. Ideally, such a center would provide women and their partners and families a holistic place to turn to for counseling around abortion, pregnancy, and childbirth as well as assisting families with non-medical resources like adoption referrals, financial assistance, and parenting help. But too often, they offer inaccurate and misleading information about the mental and physical health risks of abortion services or fail to mention abortion as an option altogether.
As someone who identifies as a pro-choice Christian, I take the “choice” part of that label very seriously, and generally, I support the efforts of pregnancy resource centers to prevent abortion through the offering of financial assistance and adoption referrals. In order to make the right choice for themselves, their partners, and their families, women must have access to complete and medically accurate information. Too often, these centers are able to take advantage of women who are already stressed and scared by preying on their fears about the risks or costs of abortion in order to convince them to carry a pregnancy to term.
While I sympathize with the Christian grounding and desire to cherish and support bringing forth new life into the world, even in circumstances that are less-than-ideal, first and foremost these decisions should be made by those who are most affected. At their worst, these crisis pregnancy centers — and, more broadly, anti-abortion Christians — do not seem to trust women as fully capable moral actors who can weigh ethical conflicts. Truly trusting women to make their own decisions about child-bearing and their health, to weigh their personal moral and ethical convictions with the support of their community, family, partner, and friends, would necessitate providing them with full and accurate information. If the anti-abortion argument is so persuasive, surely it does not require withholding information, misleading, or outright lying about abortion to women coming to pregnancy resource centers in a moment of stress.
In some states, crisis pregnancy centers are partially funded by sales of license plates. In Tennessee, these license plates have a picture of the face of an adorable white baby on one side, with big letters that say, “Choose Life” across the bottom. I believe the intention is for the viewer to focus on that second word, “Life,” but the important word for me, as a pro-choice Christian is “Choose.” I want women to have access to the resources, information, and medical care they need in order to affirmatively and deliberately choose that life (or not), rather than mistakenly believing that they don’t have a choice.
Heartbursts: Churches Empathizing with Cultures is a regular column helping leaders plan, implement, and evaluate credible and relevant ministries based on cultural trends. Learn more about the lifestyle groups and leadership styles described below by pre-ordering Thomas Bandy's new book "Sideline Church: Bridging the Chasm between Churches and Cultures."
On June 4th, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple for religious reasons. However, there was no definitive ruling on what circumstances would justify future exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious views. Both liberals and conservative viewed this case as a “Pandora’s Box” that, once opened in favor of either party, would lead to the disintegration of either the right to freedom of speech or the right to religious preference. In essence, the Supreme Court opened the box very briefly and then closed it again.
Justice Kennedy noted: "The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”
One of the most obvious cultural shifts in America since the 1960's is the transition from a culture open to ambiguity to a culture fearful of ambiguity. Interestingly, this shift coincides with the aging of the Baby Boomers. Young Baby Boomers in the 60'’s were comfortable with ambiguities about faith (e.g. the “Death of God” movement and liturgical creativity) and morality (e.g. ethical relativism and sexual behavior). Sixty years later, boomers on the cultural left have become so ambivalent that the only sure thing is their own id, boomers on the cultural right have become so self-righteous that the only sure thing is their own ego, and boomers in the middle have become so confused that they will do almost anything to find one sure thing.
When U.S. Attorney General cited Romans 13:1 in defense of the administration’s policy of separating immigrant children from their families, my ears perked up. During my senior year of high school, my Bible class studied the book of Romans, verse by verse, resulting in a one-question final exam: “Explain Romans.” I became familiar with the most popular way that verse has been used throughout our nation’s history: to divinely sanction governments as instruments of God, and coerce people into obedience.
British loyalists used it to counter the American Revolution. Slaveholders used it to promote slavery. Advocates of the death penalty use it to defend capital punishment. And Jeff Sessions has now invoked it to promote an inhumane method of addressing border security.
But if there is anything I learned from having to “explain Romans,” it is that one should never take a single verse out of context. Panning out to all of chapters 12 and 13 reminds us that this is not about the government getting to do whatever it wants to do under the cover of God’s blessing. It is more about abhorring evil and doing good (12:9), practicing hospitality (12:13), being at peace (12:18), overcoming evil with good (12:21), loving our neighbors (13:8-10), and laying aside immoral actions (13:12-14).
But here is the biggest fallacy in using Romans 13:1 the way Sessions used it. Even if it were true that God has certified worldly governments to carry out divine will, there is still always one divinely sanctioned entity that precedes and supersedes political institutions.
The family.
Before there were tribes, nations, borders, political parties, and earthly laws, God created the family. It is the preservation of the family, and particularly the protection of our children, that guarantees our flourishing and fruitfulness as a people. We remember that Jesus had words for the Romans as well, in his command to “Allow the children to come to me. Don’t forbid them, because the kingdom of heaven belongs to people like these children. (Matthew 19:14) It was an indictment of the way Roman culture had allowed the exploitation and dehumanization of children. Jesus was in no way interested in telling his followers that the abuse of children was allowable as a divinely sanctioned policy.
You may have heard that Jeff Sessions is a member of a United Methodist congregation in Alabama, and that reaction from our denomination has been swift. Bishop Ken Carter, recently elected as the President of the Council of Bishops, issued a strong denunciation.[1] The United Methodist Women has issued its own condemnation,[2] as has a growing list of at least 600 fellow United Methodists who have filed a formal church complaint against him.[3]
The problem is not with a politician quoting scripture. Promoting biblical literacy in the public square can be a good thing. The biggest problem is not even with misinterpreting Scripture. We are all susceptible to doing that. The problem is in its misuse to promote an agenda that is not only antithetical to the Gospel, but is destructive of the highest and best human institution that God created: the family.
Even despite the President’s recent actions to halt the separation, we still must contend with the troubling biblical and theological premises that guided the administration to enact this policy in the first place.
So, in addition to the words of Jesus and Paul, here are five other Bible verses that I suggest Jeff Sessions consider:
- Zechariah 7:9-10: “Make just and faithful decisions; show kindness and compassion to each other! Don’t oppress the widow, the orphan, the stranger, and the poor; don’t plan evil against each other!”
- Proverbs 31:8-9: “Speak out on behalf of the voiceless, and for the rights of all who are vulnerable. Speak out in order to judge with righteousness and to defend the needy and the poor.”
- Jeremiah 22:3: “The Lord proclaims: Do what is just and right; rescue the oppressed from the power of the oppressor. Don’t exploit or mistreat the refugee, the orphan, and the widow. Don’t spill the blood of the innocent in this place.”
- Isaiah 58:6-7: “Isn’t this the fast I choose: releasing wicked restraints, untying the ropes of a yoke, setting free the mistreated, and breaking every yoke? Isn’t it sharing your bread with the hungry and bringing the homeless poor into your house, covering the naked when you see them, and not hiding from your own family?”
- Leviticus 19:33-34: “When immigrants live in your land with you, you must not cheat them. Any immigrant who lives with you must be treated as if they were one of your citizens. You must love them as yourself, because you were immigrants in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God.”
JUSTICE FOR OUR NEIGHBORS (JFON)
Among the ways you might discern responding to this crisis is to support the United Methodist agency Justice for Our Neighbors (JFON), which promotes a just immigration system and provides legal support for immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. For more information, visit njfon.org.
- "Top Leader Of Jeff Sessions’ Church Condemns Family Separation Policy," Huffington Post, 6/19/2018.
- United Methodist Women Statement on Immigrant Parent-Child Separation
- "Clergy, laity file complaint against Sessions," UMNS, 6/18/2018.
Sponsored
Bigstock/fizkes
The following article is part two of a ten-part series. Read the introduction here.
Methodist house churches: The basics of organizing by Dave Barnhart
Assembling the Group
The main activity of a house church is worship. Worship distinguishes a house church from a “small group,” which may be a program of a larger church. This is not a class meeting, or a Sunday school class, or a Bible study, though it may share elements of all of those, and all of those may share elements of worship. (I’ll share more about what worship looks like in the fifth blog post in this series.)
It’s important that participants understand how a house church is different from a small group. If the core group signs up expecting that they’ll one day “graduate” to a building with a “real” worship service, they may be disappointed. While I always leave open the possibility that the Holy Spirit will lead a particular house church into a different expression of church someday, I try to make it clear that becoming an attractional, event-focused church is not the main agenda.
The first step in organizing a new house church is to identify and teach the core group about what a house church is and isn’t. These need to be folks who buy into the vision of creating a network of organically-reproducing house churches. They do not need to be folks who merely have an ax to grind (although some ax-grinding is probably fine) with “the institutional church.” (I’ll share more on group dynamics and ax-grinding in the seventh blog post in this series).
There are a few hard lessons I’ve had to learn about starting house churches. In particular, there are three rules that I try to follow about starting a house church:
It’s also important to keep it simple. We use a liturgy, pray, read scripture, and share a message with discussion. We conclude with communion, then share business and announcements at the end. We do not pass an offering plate, as that feels awkward in a small group and all of our giving is done online. I use the Book of Worship and Board of Discipleship resources when appropriate, but everything we do is designed to be easily-replicable. If the pastor is not available, the members need to be able to carry on without me.
I also emphasize to the group that this is their church — that means our schedule, how we structure worship, and any local traditions we develop are up to them. For example, one of our house churches is not big on singing, so we sing rarely if at all. But for another, singing is an important part of their worship experience, so we sing every time we gather. In one church, in order to include children in more aspects of worship, they process parts of the table setting into the room: table runner, flowers, a candle (battery powered — we’ve learned from experience), chalice and patten.
Hosting
The idea of hosting sometimes makes people nervous. It’s one thing to talk inspirationally about “radical hospitality,” but it’s another to ask potential strangers into your home week after week. For this reason, it’s important that core families have an alternative location, both to give hosts a break and to have an option for when folks are sick or on vacation.
While providing snacks, coffee, or other signs of hospitality make community more intimate, and we want the space to be comfortable, we prefer what Rev. Jack King calls “scruffy hospitality,” so that people without the resources, fancy furniture, or privilege of wealth feel comfortable hosting. A little dog hair on the couch is okay, as long as we’re sure nobody’s allergies will suffer too much.
Another important thing I tell hosts is that house church is not meant to be a burden on one household. If meeting weekly becomes stressful, I’d rather people not host, or take a break. What I find, though, is that hosts come to enjoy cleaning up and preparing for guests once a week. It certainly helps us keep our house tidier, and some hosts tell me it feels like a luxury to not scramble to get loaded into the car every week. When church comes to you, it can reduce stress instead of increasing it.
This is also why the trial run is important. Hosts get to try out how hosting a house church will fit into their lifestyle, we get to see what will work and what will not in a new location, and we get a chance to see what the personality of the new house church will be.
Assembling the Group
The main activity of a house church is worship. Worship distinguishes a house church from a “small group,” which may be a program of a larger church. This is not a class meeting, or a Sunday school class, or a Bible study, though it may share elements of all of those, and all of those may share elements of worship. (I’ll share more about what worship looks like in the fifth blog post in this series.)
It’s important that participants understand how a house church is different from a small group. If the core group signs up expecting that they’ll one day “graduate” to a building with a “real” worship service, they may be disappointed. While I always leave open the possibility that the Holy Spirit will lead a particular house church into a different expression of church someday, I try to make it clear that becoming an attractional, event-focused church is not the main agenda.
The first step in organizing a new house church is to identify and teach the core group about what a house church is and isn’t. These need to be folks who buy into the vision of creating a network of organically-reproducing house churches. They do not need to be folks who merely have an ax to grind (although some ax-grinding is probably fine) with “the institutional church.” (I’ll share more on group dynamics and ax-grinding in the seventh blog post in this series).
There are a few hard lessons I’ve had to learn about starting house churches. In particular, there are three rules that I try to follow about starting a house church:
- A house church requires a core group of three households. A “household” can be a single person or a family, but three is the minimum number who will make a commitment to be there nearly every week. This way, if someone is sick or out of town, we can still have church, because wherever two or more are gathered, Jesus is there.
- The three households do a trial run for four to six weeks, during which they figure out stuff like childcare, structure, and what will work for them.
- At the end of the trial run, they commit to join as members (we call them “partners”) and to meet consistently for eight months. We’ve tried starting house churches with people who are not partners, or who were members of another church but who volunteered their home, and it simply hasn’t worked for us. For the core group, this needs to be their church.
It’s also important to keep it simple. We use a liturgy, pray, read scripture, and share a message with discussion. We conclude with communion, then share business and announcements at the end. We do not pass an offering plate, as that feels awkward in a small group and all of our giving is done online. I use the Book of Worship and Board of Discipleship resources when appropriate, but everything we do is designed to be easily-replicable. If the pastor is not available, the members need to be able to carry on without me.
I also emphasize to the group that this is their church — that means our schedule, how we structure worship, and any local traditions we develop are up to them. For example, one of our house churches is not big on singing, so we sing rarely if at all. But for another, singing is an important part of their worship experience, so we sing every time we gather. In one church, in order to include children in more aspects of worship, they process parts of the table setting into the room: table runner, flowers, a candle (battery powered — we’ve learned from experience), chalice and patten.
Hosting
The idea of hosting sometimes makes people nervous. It’s one thing to talk inspirationally about “radical hospitality,” but it’s another to ask potential strangers into your home week after week. For this reason, it’s important that core families have an alternative location, both to give hosts a break and to have an option for when folks are sick or on vacation.
While providing snacks, coffee, or other signs of hospitality make community more intimate, and we want the space to be comfortable, we prefer what Rev. Jack King calls “scruffy hospitality,” so that people without the resources, fancy furniture, or privilege of wealth feel comfortable hosting. A little dog hair on the couch is okay, as long as we’re sure nobody’s allergies will suffer too much.
Another important thing I tell hosts is that house church is not meant to be a burden on one household. If meeting weekly becomes stressful, I’d rather people not host, or take a break. What I find, though, is that hosts come to enjoy cleaning up and preparing for guests once a week. It certainly helps us keep our house tidier, and some hosts tell me it feels like a luxury to not scramble to get loaded into the car every week. When church comes to you, it can reduce stress instead of increasing it.
This is also why the trial run is important. Hosts get to try out how hosting a house church will fit into their lifestyle, we get to see what will work and what will not in a new location, and we get a chance to see what the personality of the new house church will be.
I also tell the core group that if it doesn’t work out, it’s okay. In the parable of the sower, the farmer casts seeds far and wide, and not every seed will take. While we’d love for every single house church to germinate and flourish in fertile soil, we have to be willing to fail and call it quits. Making lots of mistakes is how we’ve succeeded so far.
Bigstock/fizkes
Why crisis pregnancy centers should trust women by Kira Schlesinger
June is always a busy month for Supreme Court decisions, and yesterday, on the third anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, which extended marriage equality to all fifty states, the Supreme Court issued a number of decisions that were not as well-received by liberals. As has been the trend, the big decision affecting reproductive rights and reproductive care, including abortion, was not actually about abortion itself but about free speech.In a 5-4 decision on the case NIFLA v. Becerra, the Supreme Court upheld a challenge to a California law that required reproductive health clinics to provide certain information to clients. The court found that the law likely violates the First Amendment. The 2015 law was enacted in response to the rise in crisis pregnancy centers, many with religious affiliations, who were not licensed medical clinics and often provided women with misleading or inaccurate information about their options. Per the law, clinics had to post information that their services did not include licensed medical help, and they were required to inform patients that free or low-cost abortion services are available through the state.
A lot of controversy swirls around crisis pregnancy centers, or pregnancy resource centers. Ideally, such a center would provide women and their partners and families a holistic place to turn to for counseling around abortion, pregnancy, and childbirth as well as assisting families with non-medical resources like adoption referrals, financial assistance, and parenting help. But too often, they offer inaccurate and misleading information about the mental and physical health risks of abortion services or fail to mention abortion as an option altogether.
As someone who identifies as a pro-choice Christian, I take the “choice” part of that label very seriously, and generally, I support the efforts of pregnancy resource centers to prevent abortion through the offering of financial assistance and adoption referrals. In order to make the right choice for themselves, their partners, and their families, women must have access to complete and medically accurate information. Too often, these centers are able to take advantage of women who are already stressed and scared by preying on their fears about the risks or costs of abortion in order to convince them to carry a pregnancy to term.
While I sympathize with the Christian grounding and desire to cherish and support bringing forth new life into the world, even in circumstances that are less-than-ideal, first and foremost these decisions should be made by those who are most affected. At their worst, these crisis pregnancy centers — and, more broadly, anti-abortion Christians — do not seem to trust women as fully capable moral actors who can weigh ethical conflicts. Truly trusting women to make their own decisions about child-bearing and their health, to weigh their personal moral and ethical convictions with the support of their community, family, partner, and friends, would necessitate providing them with full and accurate information. If the anti-abortion argument is so persuasive, surely it does not require withholding information, misleading, or outright lying about abortion to women coming to pregnancy resource centers in a moment of stress.
In some states, crisis pregnancy centers are partially funded by sales of license plates. In Tennessee, these license plates have a picture of the face of an adorable white baby on one side, with big letters that say, “Choose Life” across the bottom. I believe the intention is for the viewer to focus on that second word, “Life,” but the important word for me, as a pro-choice Christian is “Choose.” I want women to have access to the resources, information, and medical care they need in order to affirmatively and deliberately choose that life (or not), rather than mistakenly believing that they don’t have a choice.
Bigstock/Heorhii Luhanskyi
This article is featured in the Summer 2018 issue of HeartBursts
Heartbursts: Churches Empathizing with Cultures is a regular column helping leaders plan, implement, and evaluate credible and relevant ministries based on cultural trends. Learn more about the lifestyle groups and leadership styles described below by pre-ordering Thomas Bandy's new book "Sideline Church: Bridging the Chasm between Churches and Cultures."
On June 4th, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple for religious reasons. However, there was no definitive ruling on what circumstances would justify future exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious views. Both liberals and conservative viewed this case as a “Pandora’s Box” that, once opened in favor of either party, would lead to the disintegration of either the right to freedom of speech or the right to religious preference. In essence, the Supreme Court opened the box very briefly and then closed it again.
Justice Kennedy noted: "The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”
One of the most obvious cultural shifts in America since the 1960's is the transition from a culture open to ambiguity to a culture fearful of ambiguity. Interestingly, this shift coincides with the aging of the Baby Boomers. Young Baby Boomers in the 60'’s were comfortable with ambiguities about faith (e.g. the “Death of God” movement and liturgical creativity) and morality (e.g. ethical relativism and sexual behavior). Sixty years later, boomers on the cultural left have become so ambivalent that the only sure thing is their own id, boomers on the cultural right have become so self-righteous that the only sure thing is their own ego, and boomers in the middle have become so confused that they will do almost anything to find one sure thing.
Unfortunately, the postmodern quest for certainty is not motivated by hope and the anticipation of new meaning, but fear and the anxiety over lost power. Therefore, the certainty for which we yearn is more like camouflage. It looks solid enough, but there is no substance underneath. It covers up our fear, but it doesn’t ground our hope. It is more "slogan" than "certainty."
"Sideline Church: Bridging the Chasm between Churches and Cultures" (Abingdon Press, 2018). Preorder here: http://bit.ly/SidelineChurch
This is why the Supreme Court was so cautious. Context is crucial. But context is also complicated. A baker who refuses to bake a cake for strangers because they are gay, might have a grandmother who shares his values but asks him to bake a wedding cake for her gay grandson and his partner because, after all, its family. And that same baker who might take the controversy to the Supreme Court over strangers because "it's the principle of the thing," might well oblige grandma because "it’s the principle of the thing." The extreme right and the extreme left might be appalled by such ambiguity, but life is not that black and white. Context is a cauldron of many values, and they aren’t necessarily consistent.One of the most profound analyses of existential ambiguity can be found in the third volume of Tillich's Systematic Theology entitled Life and the Spirit (especially pp. 30-110 if you care to read it). When it comes to justice, there are five irresolvable ambiguities surrounding any ethical decision (whether by the Supreme Court, your local pastor, the baker, or the candlestick maker).
Ambiguity over inclusion and exclusion. Every act of inclusion is also an act of exclusion. Every inclusive or exclusive act simultaneously builds and undermines social cohesion. This is why it is a mistake for a church to claim to be "inclusive" while criticizing other churches for being "exclusive." Each has made a choice about who is included or excluded. But for every choice there are people who are left on the boundary, in that gray area, who force you to hesitate drawing that line. It is in that gray area that any church, liberal or conservative, lives with the fact that they are inevitably just and unjust at the same time.
Ambiguity over competition and equality. Every person might be equal to another in principle, but the conditions of existence always force us to prioritize in reality. This is why it is a mistake for a church to boast preferential treatment for a particular segment of society (e.g. the poor, broken, hungry, marginalized, etc.) because in practice they are constantly forced to decide which poor, broken, hungry, or marginalized people come first. In the struggle of life to survive or thrive, there is a gray area of competition. Whatever rules of social engagement you choose, churches are inevitably just and unjust at the same time.
Ambiguity over leaders and authorities. Credibility is fluid based on accumulated experience and the wisdom to apply it to the future; but it cannot change anything until it solidifies into a structure or office that makes concrete decisions. Yet the longer it solidifies as "authority," the more distant it gets from the cumulative wisdom of leadership. This is why it is a mistake for a church to claim to be "prophetic" or "traditional" because in fact institutions live in the ambiguity of rejection of authority on the one hand and the desire for wisdom and role models on the other. There is always a gray area between protest and trust in which church leaders are simultaneously faithful and unfaithful at the same time.
Ambiguity over law and vindication. Legal form is an imperfect expression of justice because even the best laws can result in both justice and injustice. This imperfection creates a gray area of ambiguity in the development of public policy. This is why it is a mistake for a church to assume that influencing public policy inevitably leads to vindication. Human rights can never be guaranteed. They can only be approximated, and this demands constant humility and radical forgiveness. Churches are simultaneously professing and confessing at the same time.
Ambiguity over humanity and humanism. The former is an existential condition and the other is an intellectual conception. This is why it is a mistake for a liberal church to boast about its compassion, or for a conservative church to boast about its purity. Being human (defined by limitation and the yearning for transcendence) overlaps with being humanitarian (defined by power and the yearning to fulfill inner potential). But to reject humanism is not the same as being inhuman, and to be a humanist is not the same as being humane. There is a gray area between who we really are and what we might become.
The bottom line is that justice rises out of ambiguity, but never overcomes ambiguity. All this brings us back (hopefully with greater humility and awareness of complexity) to the Supreme Court "Baker" decision.
Culture today is terrified of ambiguity, and to be left in ambiguity is abhorrent both to the extreme left and the extreme right. The Supreme Court decision is unacceptable to the extreme left because the court did not guarantee the right of every individual to construct their personal “play list” of morality and expect everyone to listen uncritically to its music. The Supreme Court decision is unacceptable to the extreme right because the court did not provide a handy “litmus test” of morality that will decisively reveal the acidity or sinfulness of every action.
Both the left and right are so desperate for that certainty that they pretend to have it by using slogans for "freedom of speech" or "freedom of religion" that are enshrined in the Constitution but murky in daily life. In short, their claims of certainty just camouflage their fear of ambiguity from which there is no escape.
It is a great mistake (repeated over and again through history) for leaders to assume that the goal of the church is to achieve certainty. In fact, the church has always been called to have the courage to live in the midst of ambiguity. That is where Jesus is. He is on the boundaries and in the gray areas of life where there is the most need for paradoxical expressions of compassion and respect, relationship and risk, continuity and originality, protest and trust, confession and absolution.
The Supreme Court decision could have gone either way, but Justice Kennedy’s closing remarks would still be valid. Justice will not resolve ambiguity this side of heaven. Judicial decisions will not resolve conflicts of interest in every bakery in America. Public policy, by itself, can neither guarantee nor deny free speech or religious choice. Meanwhile, the church must show people (especially the extreme left and extreme right) what it means to live and love in an ambiguous world.
Sponsored
Bigstock/mikdam
When we stop caring 
by Jake Owensby
Shortly after our dog Gracie adopted us, I learned that a friend of mine refuses to have a dog. He loves dogs, and there lies the problem. Caring can be painful. by Jake OwensbyFor over a decade, my friend and his Labrador Retriever had been inseparable. Then his constant companion died. My friend was devastated. His wife told me, “He just can’t go through that kind of pain again.”
I get it. When we care, our hearts are braided into the life of another being.
Gracie and I speak the same language and share daily routines. She tells me when it’s time to go for a ride or to play fetch or to take a walk.
We eat breakfast together and watch Animal Planet together.
In my blue moments, she rests her head on my lap. During thunderstorms I hold her tight.
We care about each other. If she dies—when she dies—it will shatter me.
Somebody once said something like this: you will lose the things you care about the most; you can only be grateful that you had them at all. When we care deeply—and we are built to care deeply—we become frightfully vulnerable.
My friend hasn’t given up on caring. On the contrary, his sorrow points to how deeply he still cares.
Since he continues to care for others, the grief he bears is being woven into a larger fabric. That pain will never go away. But in time, he will feel his sense of loss less sharply. And he will care even more tenderly.
My friend senses a crucial truth: caring makes us human. When we stop caring, we stop being human.
That may sound odd. How could a human stop being human? A frog will be a frog. Elms don’t become pines or armadillos. Each being in this world has some essential trait that makes it what it is. Right?
Aristotle, for instance, said that humans are the rational animal. Or, less grandly, the featherless biped. We have something no other creature possesses. Right?
Well, actually, it is more helpful to think of our humanity as a vocation. We will lean into what we can become or we won’t.
The philosopher Martin Heidegger said that care makes us human. Care is about letting this world—human and non-human—really matter to us. Care is about being woven spiritually into the world around us. That’s why he was fond of using the phrase “Being-in-the-World” instead of “human being.”
"A Resurrection Shaped Life: Dying and Rising on Planet Earth" (Abingdon Press, 2018). Pre-order here: http://bit.ly/2K2M3wB
We can resist caring. With our lips and with our lives we can say, “I don’t care.” When we do, we say that some people don’t matter. Their suffering and misery don’t affect me. There’s nothing in it for me, so I’m indifferent.Recently, we’ve heard political and media figures express indifference toward children who have been ripped from their immigrant parents’ arms at our borders.
Some have blamed the parents for their children’s terror. Others insist that the children are just actors. They’re using strategies to dodge care and to justify indifference. It’s an indirect way to say, “I don’t care.”
Now that the policy of separating children from parents has been suspended, hundreds of children remain lost to their parents. Our political leaders seem to be shrugging their shoulders, refusing to do what’s necessary to reunite these families. Their inaction says, “I don’t care.”
Indifference degrades the soul.
Kindness becomes selective, conditional, and insincere. Compassion gives way to manipulation and exploitation.
When it’s habitual, indifference descends into contempt. Contempt leads us to dehumanizing others. We deny others the rights that we claim for ourselves, put them in concentration camps, exterminate them.
When we stop caring, others pay a terrible price. And so do we — we surrender our humanity.
We might ascend to positions of great political power, accumulate enormous wealth, and enjoy privileges unimaginable to 99% of the world’s population. We might get away with murder and laugh all the way to the bank.
But you see, we will have amassed all of this clout and stuff and status to prove to ourselves that we really matter, that our lives count for something. But at some point, we’ll have the dreadful realization that we can’t take any of this with us and that if we lost it all today, we’d be eating lunch alone tomorrow.
That is when we will cry out like the disciples once did to Jesus. Their tiny boat is battered by a storm. They seem to be going under. “Do you not care that we are perishing?” (Mark 4:35-41) In other words, “Don’t we matter?”
Let’s face it, we all want to matter. But we can be tragically wrong about what makes any of us matter.
The truth is that we will know that we matter when somebody else cares about us just because they do. Not because of what we’ve achieved or we’ve accumulated. And paradoxically, our ability to feel that kind of care increases when we give that kind of care ourselves.
Sadly, by saying “I don’t care,” we set ourselves up to feel, “I don’t matter.”
The life of Jesus conveys the message that each of us matters to God. Infinitely. Eternally. No exceptions, no conditions. We discover this truth when we say, “I care.”
"When We Stop Caring" originally appeared on Looking for God in Messy Places. Reprinted with permission.
Bigstock/Corey Ford
Unicorns at Annual Conference 
by Melissa Maher
The annual conference season is nearly over across the connection. The Texas Annual Conference (TAC) took place May 27-29, 2018, where I heard calls for crusades, cries for justice and met a few unicorns. Just your typical gathering. Unicorns? The term was coined in a May 2017 article by Chris Ritter. Chris is one of many voices offering reasoned approaches to the way forward of the United Methodist Church. His article defined traditional compatibilists as a rare find in the United States, hence the term “unicorns.” However, turns out there are many in the TAC who desire to stay in the United Methodist connection, even in the midst of our disagreements, who also hold a traditionalist view point. by Melissa MaherI entered this year’s annual conference more informed than years past by reading the rulings, statements, and reports of the Commission on a Way Forward and Council of Bishops. TAC fell two days after the Judicial Council ruling of May 25, three weeks after the bishop’s statement of May 4. Most importantly it came six weeks before the July 8 report from the Council of Bishops, which contains the details of legislative plans presented.
The palpable sense of a looming decision cast a shadow on most conversations with one question: “What do you think will happen?” Responses varied from those resigned to schism and others hopeful new life can enter a beleaguered institution. One thing is clear: We are in a wilderness period, a liminal space. What will be is not entirely clear and how we engage with one another will be just as important as votes to be cast.
Here are three practices a group of my colleagues and I engaged in during annual conference and are committed to until February 2019:
1. Holy conferencing
Admittedly I’ve logged this as an excuse to skip business sessions in order to meet a colleague for coffee and bemoan the politics of annual conference. However, skipping business sessions only left me uninformed and resigned to an echo chamber of my current beliefs.
Holy conferencing is not a term for polite disagreement. So make it a habit to attend the business sessions, and make time later for coffee too. Trade stories of how you are feeding your soul with the means of grace. Here are some of the life-giving conversations I had with fellow clergy:
- A deacon entering a detention center for adolescent women in order to introduce spiritual practices which nurture the soul scarred by trauma.
- An elder developing training for children and adolescents on steps to take if they come home from school and their parents have been deported.
- Congregations working to reform systems to provide treatment and support for persons and families suffering from substance use disorder.
- Discipling leaders whose biblical literacy and practical theology ignites the mission of the church in congested cities and self-contained suburbs.
This term may have originated in the Council of Bishops and was offered as the root of our collective prayer by Bishop Scott Jones. Bishop Jones called for more engagement not less during times of high conflict. The Commission on a Way Forward has modeled for us (local churches) how to engage in dialogue. Start with a smaller group (four to six persons). Read the biblical basis of viewpoints. Be inquisitive. Listen to stories. Look for the unspoken fear. Embody empathy for the other. Many resources are already available for group discussion.
Our convictions are rooted in biblical interpretation of the core tenets of our faith which guide our ecclesiology to create disciples who proclaim and demonstrate a Wesleyan expression of grace and salvation. Our humility is guided by the Spirit. She softens my heart to recognize I might be wrong or blinded by my ego. A posture of humility fully recognizes Jesus is the head of the Church, the Body.
3. Posture of heart
Posture not political positions. Attend a breakfast or luncheon sponsored by a group you wouldn’t normally attend. In my conference a new breakfast was hosted in order to hear from members of the Commission on a Way Forward and conduct round-table discussions with delegates to General Conference. For a first-time event, the attendance was surprising — just over 450 persons from all perspectives.
Many of us are pastors of churches that disagree on the biblical understanding of sexuality yet want to engage in the mission of the church for and with all people. My eyes are wide open to the critical time we are in. There will be no fairytale ending, and by God’s grace for his Church, just maybe there will be a revival of the Spirit for our churches to display a prophetic message to the culture of polarization.
Texas Annual Conference resolutions:
Some annual conferences ruled votes on resolutions out of order during the run-up to the special General Conference in 2019. The Texas Conference voted on four resolutions that came forward (five were submitted, one was withdrawn before conference began).
Resolution 1: Affirmation of the Holy Spirit in Scripture, our Tradition and Current Context. Voted down 391 to 782. The vote of 33% - 66% is within the historic trend line of TAC.
Resolution 2: Gracious Accommodation. Voted down by only 10 votes, 558 yes to 569 no. The close vote signals perhaps space to continue to engage in dialogue and not agree to divorce terms before General Conference 2019.
Resolution 3: Heart and Mind Listening Sessions with delegates across the conference. Overwhelming supported. 965 yes, 135 no.
Resolution 5: Suspend the rules to consider any petitions. Voted down as current AC rules allow for the suspension of the rules by 2/3 vote at any point during the conference. Perhaps this signals an unwillingness by the body to have an open-door approach to any petitions to be considered and risk filibustering an entire annual conference.
Bigstock/Lora Sutyagina
Weak enough to lead 
by Rebekah Simon-Peter
What makes for a strong leader? I’m especially interested in that question as I train church leaders around the country in the skills of congregational intelligence, leadership smarts and culture shifting. A recent conversation with noted pastor, James Howell, author of Weak Enough to Lead: What the Bible tells us about Powerful Leadership (Abingdon 2017), gave me a brand new perspective. by Rebekah Simon-PeterHere’s a bit of our conversation.
Rebekah Simon-Peter: James, how can this book help me as a leader?
James Howell: Rebekah, this book won’t help you “succeed” or improve your metrics. But it will help you grow as a leader in the sense of living in close solidarity with the biblical story, and to dig deeply to discern how you as a leader are both afflicted and gifted by the kinds of brokenness you share with biblical leaders like David, Paul, Moses and so many others. I think a heightened intimacy with God and a deep immersion in the realities of Scripture may be the real stuff of authentic, faithful leadership.
RSP: How has knowing that the biblical story gives preference to leaders “weak enough to lead” impacted your own leadership and shifted your understanding of church?
JH: Well, at 62 years of age, I’ve spent years trying to be as good a leader as possible. I’ve been told that I exhibit strength and charisma, and I’ve led by force of will. At the same time, I come from a family that’s just a disaster; I carry that stuff around. I used to think of it as an enemy to overcome, but now I see that my strength in ministry comes from that broken place. I understand human brokenness. Everybody’s got dysfunction. And it’s not all about getting better, it’s about being community together. The church is broken people being real community together.
RSP: What’s the main thing you want people to get from reading this book?
JH: I want leaders to understand God’s ways more profoundly, and thereby not be demoralized by snazzy leaders they don’t measure up to, but buoyed by the mercy of God, the fact that throughout the Bible God uses the weak and unlikely, and the knowledge that even the greatest of leaders are sinful, flawed, foolish and broken.
_ _ _
Reflecting on my conversation with James, and my own imperfections, emphasizes for me the importance of self-awareness and personal spiritual growth for leaders. The kind that twelve-step communities specialize in. Next week, come back to read about people who follow Jesus in a community modeled after the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.
_ _ _
Charles Wesley / Image via Wikimedia Commons [Public Domain]
The Journals of Charles Wesley: Prophetess Lavington's Case 
by Richard P. Heitzenrater 
Randy L. Maddox 
Frank Baker
Editor's note: As a primary record of one of the founders of the Wesleyan/Methodist movement, Charles Wesley’s Journal is crucial to an understanding of the beginnings of that movement. It is an indispensable interpretive companion to John Wesley’s Journal, diaries, and letters. Since it provides important background to the context of Charles Wesley’s own lyrical theology expressed in sacred poetry, it is likewise absolutely essential for anyone who wants to understand the context out of which Wesleyan theology, worship, spirituality, hymnody, and conferencing emerged. by Richard P. Heitzenrater Randy L. Maddox Frank Baker"In 1685 Louis XIV repealed the Edict of Nantes, subjecting Protestants in France to renewed persecution. Protestants in the isolated Cévennes region of south-central France in particular raised an insurrection, encouraged in part by some prophesying the soon return of Christ to set up a millennial reign. The insurrectionists came to be called “Camisards.” As the revolt was put down, many sought refuge in England, where their distinctive practices led to them being called the “French Prophets.” This stream intermingled with other continental immigrants like the Moravians and pietists, especially in London and Bristol. Thus both [John Wesley] and [Charles Wesley] encountered them in the initial years of the revival. This document was prepared by [Charles Wesley] in the midst of a particular encounter with a colorful prophetess."1 (Randy Maddox)
June 1739
I.N.I. (2)
The first mention I heard made of Mrs. Lavington3 the prophetess was, if I remember, by a child of God who had received the Holy Ghost while a Quaker but is now baptized into the visible church of Christ.4 He told me he much feared our brethren would be seduced by her, for he knew her to be a wicked woman, and now to live in adultery with one [Mr.] Wise, a French Prophet; who himself confessed that he had lain with her.
Upon this notice I thought it my duty to inquire farther; “not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits whether they were of God.”5 His providence, without my seeking it, cast me upon one Anne Graham who has been a child of God these seven years. She informed me that she had been carried to the prophetess, as to a most experienced Christian who knew the state of every one’s soul; that she was at first greatly taken with her, as were the strongest of our brethren and sisters who flocked after her, some or other of them, continually, and received her prophecies as uttered by immediate inspiration.
She spoke as in the person of the Most High God, ushering in her prophecies with “The Lord saith”; sometimes singing, sometimes expounding her songs. She flattered a person present most excessively, telling him he should be another Whitefield.6 Some of her words were, “I say unto thee, it shall be so. Thou shalt come to Jacob’s well and drink. Thou shalt be married to Christ. Thou shalt receive a white stone. The Lord shows me that I should call thee sea-horse. ….”
After every prophecy her audience expressed their approbation by crying out, “The Lord speaketh good things! Glory be to the Lord!”
Several advices she gave them, as: 1) That the men and women should not be separated in the societies (because they were not in the church triumphant), for the Spirit of God would not work till they were brought together again. The men and women must (as she called it) “set shoulder to shoulder.” 2) That all should marry at all hazards. “Let them take wives out of the streets, but let them marry.” 3)A third advice was that they should not sing psalms in the societies.
Her advice to Anne Graham in particular was: 1) To dress as fine as she could—that being a part of Christian liberty, and you are now (said she) fit to wear any thing. Her whole discourse to her and all others whom I have as yet spoken with tended to breed and nourish pride. By this mark Mr. [Westley] Hall7 said he found her out immediately.
2) She bade Anne Graham advise her mistress “not to go so often to the sacrament, which did her hurt.” Anne might go—for Anne had still a veneration for our Lord’s command, and therefore the prophetess could not speak so plainly to her as she did to others, whom she found better disposed to cast off the means of grace.
John Cheney told me that she expressly dissuaded him from going to the sacrament, which she blasphemously called a beggarly element. She said in the hearing of Anne Ellis and Mary Cades (as themselves informed me) that if they could not yet go without crutches, they must even use them a little longer. But as they grew stronger, they would be called from the means of grace, and in particular the sacrament—concerning which she used this horrid expression, “What, shall I feed upon husks with swine, when I can feed upon the fatted calf?”
3) A third advice which she pressed upon Anne Graham was, “By all means to marry any one she could get.” She told her she should know the man she was to marry, should find in herself whom God would join her to; and denounced terrible woes if she did not marry whom God should choose for her. When Anne mentioned St. Paul’s advice, 1 Corinthians 7, the prophetess replied, “I do not believe St. Paul there.”
She pretends (as Anne farther informed me) to know people’s thoughts (which is the incommunicable attribute of God) and boasts that she can call the angels and archangels, and command Christ himself to come unto her. She puts all her followers upon looking for visions and revelations only, says she always sees a little angel with a cap and a feather on the top of a ladder when her prayer is answered. “For I” (says she) “am like unbelieving Thomas; unless I see with my eyes, I cannot believe.”8
I asked Anne Graham how she came to suspect her for a false prophetess. She answered that God had showed it her. She had heard that Mrs. Lavington was a bad woman and lived in adultery, but it was God convinced her and opened her eyes by his word. The second time of her going she endeavoured to try the spirits, and instead of joining with the prophetess, cried earnestly to God to save her and the others from giving heed to seducing spirits, and that he would send true ministers into his church. She went home in great trouble of spirit, but could not sleep all night. Examined herself and all that had passed. Found her intention was pure, and she in perfect charity. Thought of consulting me, and prayed earnestly for direction when that scripture came strongly into her mind, “Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.” (Revelation 2:20ff.) She was immediately filled with joy in the Holy Ghost, had the strongest assurance of faith, and saw through the whole in a moment with conviction that it was all a delusion of Satan.
She was tempted not to tell me, because (thought she) he will not believe me; besides the others will certainly tell him. She prayed again and perceived it was of God that she should communicate it to me, for she clearly saw the imminent danger the societies were in from this woman’s getting among them, and the infinite scandal it would occasion, if she was not immediately cast out. She prayed almost continually for my coming, sent after, but missed of me, till Wednesday, June 6. I providentially went toward the society down the market (a way I never used). She saw, and called me as I passed by, told me of her danger and miraculous escape from this deceiver.
"The Journal Letters and Related Biographical Items of the Reverend Charles Wesley, M.A." (Abingdon Press, 2018). Order here: http://bit.ly/WesleyJournal
From her I went (not to Fetter Lane as I intended, but) to Mr. [John Bray]’s society,9 where I unexpectedly found the prophetess. I spoke a few words from Romans 6. Upon my insisting on holiness being the great mark of faith, Mr. Wise asked me whether a man could attain perfection here? I answered, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”10 The prophetess seemed very uneasy while I expounded, groaning and swelling, I suppose through the operation of the Spirit. I turned upon her and said, “If you have any thing to say, speak in the name of Jesus.” She began her outcry with great violence of action, speaking in the person of God. “My children look for perfection, I say for absolute perfection. You may attain to absolute sinless perfection. ….” She went on wresting several scriptures to favour that arrogant doctrine of devils. I was once minded to have rebuked her in the name of Jesus that she should hold her peace. But God repressed me, and gave me uncommon recollection and command of spirit. So I sat quiet and let her go on, replying nothing, but offering to sing when her prophecy was over. “Yea” (said she, still in the person of God) “sing, my children. By all means, I say, sing.” We did sing “Creator Spirit, by whose aid…,” which I chose for the sake of that verse, “Chase from our minds th’ infernal foe.”11 I observed she did not join with us, but continued kneeling from the time she ceased prophesying. Mrs. S[ellers]12 and others were in raptures while the spirit was upon her. They all knelt down with great devotion. I stood till I should know how I liked it. She prayed with most pompous expressions borrowed (as it should seem) from the mystics, and flattered one present in a gross shocking manner. Her prophecy she concluded with an horrible laugh (as if the devil in her mocked his foolish admirers). She endeavoured to turn it off by saying she “could not but smile at God’s marvellous goodness.”G. Cawdry was there before I came. The prophet and prophetess fell upon him and vehemently blamed him for being baptized,13 telling him that he was past it. He was quite above it. She highly complimented him upon his gifts, assuring him that he was called to preach, and preach he must. After I was gone, she said in Mr. Okeley’s14 hearing she “would not go by St. Paul, but by the spirit in herself.”
I must not forget the behaviour of Anne Graham while I was taking down her relation. She appeared under strong temptation, the enemy labouring with all his power and subtlety to disturb and hinder her. I was forced to bring her back ten times before she could finish any one thing she had begun to say. She cried and prayed and trembled, continuing in an agony all the day, as I imagined she would. The tempter tried all ways to deter her from writing down any more particulars. She told me she now knew what it was to wrestle with principalities and powers and spiritual wickedness in high places,15 for the devil had been upon her as a roaring lion,16 filling her with all manner of evil suggestions. He asked what it signified to take down any account. And when she did begin, he caught from her what she was going to write. Then he darted such horror into her, as she had never known before. Her body likewise was full of violent pain, which she believed he inflicted, and which she said explained to her what was meant by St. Paul’s thorn in the flesh,17 the messenger of Satan to buffet him.
One impudent suggestion she often began to tell me, but forgot it again immediately. At last the devil could hinder her no longer. It was, “You see what it is to be a Christian. You had better be still in your natural state, than thus tormented.” She had several scriptures brought to her remembrance which strengthened her in her conflict, such as, “Lo, I am with you always.”18 “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.”19 “Rejoice not over me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall rise again.”20 “God shall bruise Satan under your foot shortly.”21
A farther account of the prophetess I received from one Mrs. Rigby, who has known her these sixteen years. Her behaviour was so scandalous that their people (the French Prophets), she told me, could not bear her. Her business was to join men and women as spiritual spouses. All marriages to any but the spiritual spouses God intended, she declared null and void; and accordingly took upon her to put asunder whom God had joined,22 taking a man from his wife and children, a woman from her husband and children, and giving them to whom the spirit bid her. Of this she gave instances, particularly that of one Scholey whom the prophetess took from his wife and children, and joined to another woman, with whom he lived in adultery seven years. The prophetess herself, she told me, lived in like manner with the prophet Wise.
This exactly agreed with the account I had first from Cawdry and then from Scholey. This latter had been awakened by Mr. Whitefield’s ministry. He informed me that the prophetess had laboured to persuade him he might innocently lie with his own sister, and did actually induce him to leave his family and live seven years in adultery. First of all she brought him off the sacrament and the other means of grace, telling him when he was in deep despair that it was sent by God as a punishment for his going to the sacrament. Whereas he ought to give himself up entirely to her and his spiritual father, the prophet Wise.
The way she took to seduce him was to puff him up with pride, telling him he should be a preacher and do great things. She likewise preached predestination to him. To others of different sentiments, I hear, she preaches free grace, or universal redemption.
June 11. I went with Mr. Oxlee23 to Mrs. Scholey’s who confirmed the prophetess’s title to the character of a notorious bawd, and named several persons whom she had attempted to join in spiritual wedlock. Some of her words to Mrs. Scholey were, “I am in that standing that I can go to any one” (and so are you). “I am in the very highest standing of any person upon earth.”
June 12. I had another of our brethren who gave me a correspondent account of her. She foretold in his presence that God would shortly destroy all outward things. The dispensation of Whitefield, she said, would soon be over, God only using him as the forerunner of greater persons. She hinted that he would be lost at sea.
One more testimony I need produce against the prophetess, which is the testimony of the prophetess herself. On Tuesday evening, June 12, I called at Mr. [John] Bray’s and found Mr. Hutchings,24 [John] Robson,25 and several others there. Soon after the prophet Wise came in. I asked him before them all, whether he had not owned to Cawdry that he had lain with the prophetess. He could not deny it. While he was abusing me with much scurrility, the prophetess entered. She flew upon me, as if she would tear me to pieces, and laboured to outsaw26 the truth with unparalleled confidence. Scholey and Cawdry confronted her, and repeated Wise’s confession. She was all rage and fury, raving against them as villains and hypocrites, with the utmost excess of passion and outrage. She was not more lamb-like towards Mr. Hutchings and me, whom she slighted fools, blockheads, blind leaders of the blind, whose only design was to put out the eyes of this people. As for me, she said the devil was in me. And all this by inspiration from God who, she said, had revealed it to her what we were about and spoke in her.
That I might not misrepresent her, I asked whether she was immediately inspired? She answered, “Yes.” But as immediately as the prophets of old? “Yes.” And does God as really speak in you as he did in them? “Yes.” Was what you uttered last Thursday of sinless perfection by the immediate Spirit of God? She insisted it was, and went on in flat contradiction to the written word, asserting that if we say we have no sin, we do not deceive ourselves, but the truth is in us.27
I repeated to her the most shocking particulars of the forgoing account, which she owned and justified. As that she can call the angels and archangels, and command Christ himself to her in whatever shape she pleases. That God appears to her, sometimes as a dove, sometimes as an eagle. That in prayers she sees a little angel on a ladder with a cap and feather denoting the swiftness of his motion. That she was utterly above the use of means and ordinances. That the sacrament was a beggarly element, and God would shortly destroy all outward things, means, ordinances, and churches. Upon our answering her with, “It is written,” she fully proved what Mr. Okeley testified he heard her say, namely that she would not go by what St. Paul said, but by the spirit in herself. “Away with your apostles” was one of her expressions; and others she used, equally blasphemous, to the full conviction of her hearers.
Mr. Hutchings asked whether that was the spirit of meekness by which she spoke? “No!” said she, “but it is the lion of the tribe of Judah.” That there was a roaring lion in her, seeking whom he might devour, I readily granted, for I never saw the devil so strong in any human soul. She demanded by what authority I taught the societies; said she would come among them in spite of me; and foretold, if she did not, they would all go down. I stayed asking her questions till all were thoroughly satisfied of what spirit she was of, and then asked “Who is on God’s side? Who for the old, rather than the new prophets? Let them follow me.” They all did so. God was remarkably present with us. Not a soul among us but was sensible of it.
The lesson for the day which I expounded was 1 John 4[:1–2], “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God. Because many false prophets are gone out into the world. … Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.”
By this mark I proved the spirit of Mrs. Lavington not to be the Spirit of God. She doth not confess Jesus Christ. By her mouth she doth, but not in heart and life—unless adultery is a confession of him. This is the test our Lord himself gives us. “Beware of false prophets.”28 “By their fruits shall ye know them.”29 Hereby I know this woman to be a false prophetess. As likewise by her giving God the lie in contradicting his written word. Why therefore seek we farther witness? To the law and to the testimony!30 If they speak not after this word, it is because there is no light in them. Mrs. Lavington speaks not after this word, therefore there is no light in her. Therefore she is a child of the devil. Therefore she is false, if God is true.
***
Footnotes:
1 For more background, see Hillel Schwartz, The French Prophets (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980); and Kenneth G. C. Newport, “Early Methodism and the French Prophets: Some New Evidence,” WHS 50 (1996): 127–40.
2 “In Nomine Iesu”; “In the name of Jesus.”
3 Newport suggests that her first name was Mary (“Early Methodism,” 130), citing this manuscript. CW uses only her family name. Little is known of her beyond the accounts here and in the journals of JW and CW.
4 I.e., G. Cawdry, mentioned below.
5 Cf. 1 John 4:1.
6 Rev. George Whitefield (1714–70), who preceded the Wesley brothers by three years in his evangelical conversion in 1735. Ordained deacon in June 1736 (and priest in 1739), he began preaching in London in various churches with almost immediate success. This success carried over to Bristol in Jan. 1737, and then across the Atlantic on his first journey there. In Feb. 1739, back in Bristol, he turned to field preaching and soon convinced JW and CW to join in this new setting. Despite their shared passion in the revival, the Wesley brothers and Whitefield held divergent theologies (Arminian and Calvinist). These soon caused tensions (and eventual divisions) in the broad Methodist movement.
7 Rev. Westley Hall (c. 1710–76), a native of Salisbury, became a pupil of JW at Lincoln College on Jan. 26, 1731. Within a year he was closely involved with the “Oxford Methodists.” An apparent model of Christian piety, JW gladly introduced Hall to his family; only to find him courting Martha and Kezia at the same time in 1734–35. Hall married Martha on Sept. 13, 1735, days after being ordained both deacon and priest, professedly in order to accompany JW and CW to Georgia. Within a month Hall withdrew from this venture. More importantly, he eventually proved unfaithful to Martha, justifying his actions by appeals to polygamy in Scripture. In addition to fracturing his marriage, this led to an end of his service as an Anglican priest and supporter of the Methodist cause. Hall kept up some correspondence with Martha until his death.
8 Cf. John 20:25.
9 CW identifies the society in MS Journal, though there he places these events on Thursday, June 7. John Bray (fl. 1738–44), a brazier of Little Britain, London, was one of the founding members of the Fetter Lane society. He was very helpful to CW, who was lodging in his home at the time of his conversion on May 21, 1738. In Dec. 1739 Bray emerged as a leader in the “stillness” controversy, which eventuated in the Wesley brothers leaving the Fetter Lane society in mid 1740. The next three years were marked by Bray seeking leadership roles among the English Moravians, finding those doors blocked, and seeking reconciliation with the Wesleys. Financial difficulties led him to leave London in late 1744, and he receives no further mention by CW.
10 1 John 1:8.
11 John Dryden, “Veni Creator” which JW included in CPH (1738), 40–41.
12 CW gives the full last name in MS Journal; her first name was Lydia.
13 Cawdry, a Quaker, had been baptized by Rev. Scott on June 4; see CW, MS Journal.
14 CW interacted with both Francis Okeley (1719–94) and his brother John (1721–92); it is not clear which of the brothers is intended. CW spells “Oakly.”
15 Cf. Eph. 6:12.
16 Cf. 1 Pet. 5:8.
17 See 2 Cor. 12:7–9.
18 Cf. Matt. 28:20.
19 Luke 22:32.
20 Cf. Mic. 7:8.
21 Cf. Rom. 16:20.
22 See Matt. 19:6.
23 William Oxlee (1713–78), a clog-maker and one of the early members of the Fetter Lane society, became a leading London Moravian layman. CW spells “Oxly.”
24 John Hutchings (b. 1716) matriculated at Pembroke College, Oxford in 1734, where he became involved in the “Oxford Methodists.” Receiving his BA in 1738, he became Charles Kinchin’s curate at Dummer, Hampshire. He was present at the origins of the revival in London in 1739, but soon sided with the Moravians and stepped out of leadership. CW spells “Hutchins.”
25 John Robson (b. 1714), matriculated at Lincoln College, Oxford on May 17, 1732, where JW became his tutor. Over the next eight years Robson had a vacillating relationship to first the “Oxford Methodists” and the emerging Methodist revival. Robson received the BA in 1735, and the MA from New Inn Hall in 1742; but there is no record of him taking a parish.
26 To see beyond, or surpass in foresight.
27 Cf. 1 John 1:8.
28 Matt. 7:15.
29 Cf. Matt. 7:20.30 See Isa. 8:20.
Bigstock/zimmytws
Weekly Preaching: July 1, 2018
By James C. Howell
At least for us, July 1 will be a low attendance Sunday. Also for us, on the Sunday closest to July 4, we get dinged for not being sufficiently patriotic. I wonder, with the fourth falling mid-week, if a bit of that will be mitigated. I do try to draw on something July 4-ish (like the reconciled friendship between Jefferson and Adams, wonderfully retold in Gordon Wood's new book) so the disappointed will not feel entirely disenfranchised. The Old Testament opens a little window to talk about the sorrowful loss of life in a national battle. Delicate stuff. By James C. HowellGrief marks all three texts: 2 Samuel and Mark directly (albeit with a quick cure in the latter) and 2 Corinthians indirectly (as Paul is fundraising for people who are dying from the famine).
***
We begin with 2 Samuel 1:1, 17-27, David’s moving, eloquent elegy over the tragic death of his beloved nemesis, Saul, and also the one he loved more than women, Jonathan (although David’s love for women veered toward the manipulative and abusive, didn’t it?). David has passed on his own opportunities to dispatch Saul (1 Samuel 24, 26), and now grieves his passing. No gloating, no triumphant mood. David is a broken mess; mothers don’t want their daughters to marry such a man — and yet his deep emotion, his contrite grief at sorrowful moments, seems to me to be genuine.
In his splendid Brazos commentary on 2 Samuel, Robert Barron speaks of David as “a forerunner of Lincoln or Churchill.” We may not recall Lincoln’s military decisions or Churchill’s practical direction of the war, “But is there an American who does not know the words, rhythms, and cadences of the Gettysburg Address? Lincoln led as much through poetic speech as through canny administration.” And who could forget Churchill’s stirring eloquence? “Leadership is a complex, multifaceted skill involving management and vision but also the capacity to engage the imaginations of those to be led.”
Indeed, when Neville Chamberlain, Churchill’s worst political foe, died just six months after his resignation in shame, Churchill summoned a marvelous tribute. Speaking of Chamberlain’s disappointed dreams, he spoke of them as “surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart — the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour.”
Barron dissects David’s lovely song: “Glory” could also mean “gazelle,” intimating Saul was like a graceful animal finally tracked down. The “heights” were where Israelites often foiled their plains-preferring enemies (although there could be a hint that worship at the “high places,” which led to Saul’s and Israel’s repeated downfalls, lingers in there as a warning). David sings of Saul’s sword “not returning empty,” though of course it had when he tried to kill David! The “daughters” weep over Saul, an obvious echo of their earlier chant when they praised David killing even more than Saul (1 Sam. 18:7).
The song is intense, pulsating with sorrow, perhaps especially over Jonathan. I love David Wolpe’s insight (in his fabulous biography of David) which notes the way David as a boy is full of music, and even here he produces a marvelous song for the occasion. But as his own life breaks down, as his kingdom suffers one shock after another, and then when Absalom finally dies, “Now he can barely speak.”
Preaching feels the pain. Preaching doesn’t trivialize loss. Preaching provides words for the people out there, every Sunday, who very deeply feel the absence of someone they have loved, often someone with whom the relationship was, like’s David’s with Saul, never reconciled.
***
Before looking to the Epistle, let’s touch on the Gospel, Mark 5:21-43. Scholars rightly point out the artistic brilliance of Mark’s narrative, but should we better speak of the complex and brilliant wonder of Jesus’ life?
The interruption on the way to Jairus’ house: is it Mark’s artistry? Or was Jesus the ultimately interruptible one?
My mentor in scholarship, ministry and life, Father Roland Murphy, was stunningly interruptible. It was part of his goodness to me and others. Anne Lamott wrote, “If you want to make God laugh, tell her your plans.” Maybe there is a discipleship element in having plans but being ever ready to have them interrupted?
"Weak Enough to Lead: What the Bible Tells Us about Powerful Leadership" (Abingdon Press, 2017). Order here: http://bit.ly/2rYxHac
A woman, who surely is sick and tired of being sick and tired, living in an era when physicians (despite their best efforts) did more harm than good, presses through the crowd and touches the hem of his garment and is healed. This semi-magical touch isn’t characteristic of the Gospel way. Of more interest is the way the disciples never comprehend the press of the crowd, and how Jesus doesn’t mind. Children aren’t to be hushed or sent away. Jesus notices the one in the throng, reminding me of G.K. Chesterton’s lovely assessment of St. Francis: “He couldn’t see the forest for the trees; he didn’t want to.”Who could fail to be moved by the dramatic scene of so much wailing at Jairus’ home? Or the way Jesus’ glimmer of hope elicits laughter, an echo of the cynical laughter turned to giddy delight in the story of Abraham, Sarah and Isaac (Gen. 17-18, 21). And how tender that Jesus speaks simply to the little girl – and Mark preserves his original Aramaic words, Talitha koum, which means “Young woman, get up.” For me, that little detail at the end gathers up so much of Jesus’ tenderness, children’s real needs, and even some Eucharistic undertones: “Give her something to eat.”
***
Finally, we come to the unseen grief of unknown people, which is what so much of Christian mission is about. Our Epistle, 2 Corinthians 8:7-15, is a subsection of the greatest fundraising letter in history. How radical was Paul’s request for funding? In my exploration (in Worshipful) of the meaning of passing the offering plates, I point out:
“In the ancient world, where charity just didn’t happen, and where the wealthy endowed games, parades and marble temples but never assistance for the needy, Paul asked people he’d recently met to give up hard earned money for people they had never met and would never meet… Whatever we might think about the poor and charity, Paul established giving as a holy obligation. Never forget that for Paul, the poor also are required to help the poor! Some of the most courageous, impactful ministries for the poor I’ve seen in my lifetime are fully carried out by people we’d think of as poor. I have a friend in Lithuania who engages in startlingly effective ministry with the poorest of the poor — while she herself is poor. And when I’ve preached in Haiti, we take up a collection for, yes, the poor.”
Of course, we move beyond toxic charity when we heed John Wesley’s counsel that it is better to deliver aid than to send it. But the increasingly popular notion that the poor should fend for themselves is unholy, unscriptural, and grieves the compassionate heart of God.
In our Epistle, we are treated to the theological basis, motivation and necessity for giving (all rooted, not in charitable moods or tax reduction, but in Jesus who “was rich, and for our sakes became poor so we might become rich”). I love Paul’s finger-wagging urgency: “Do something! Finish it!” The mood matters: Paul wants “eagerness.” I hope all clergy understand that an annual stewardship sermon is a tactical mistake. We preach money and stewardship all year along, or not at all; it’s not nagging people to give, but understanding the holy exchange between wealth and poverty is the Gospel life and the missional delight. After all, July 4 is coming and Americans need a radical cure from the bogus notion that I’m free to do what I want with what is mine.
Sixth Sunday after Pentecost: 2 Samuel 1:1, 17-27; Psalm 130; 2 Corinthians 8:7-15; Mark 5:21-43
Ministry Matters
***
No comments:
Post a Comment