"The Authority of Scripture" v. "Do No Harm"

I just read the letter Dr. Tennant, president of Asbury Seminary, wrote in response to the letter of a large number of alumnae and alumna of Asbury.

It is disappointing that he does not acknowledge that there might be harm being done to people because of his stance that the authority of Scripture is at stake in this controversy within the Church.  "Do no harm" is John Wesley's FIRST General Rule.  Wesley does not prioritize authority of Scripture in his General Rules at all.

If Dr. Tennant could acknowledge that there is harm being done, that could start the discussion in a new direction: Is the word "homosexual" and the related passages taken to be "Scripture" properly translated and understood for their primary intent as indicated in the original languages which underlay our translation?

Dr. Tennant might find as I have that the original intent of some of the passages was to discourage sexual acts that did not lead to live births to help the people of Israel to survive in the desert, something Israelis do not subscribe to now (they practice birth control legally in Israel).  In addition, passages referring to same sex acts have words in the original language which were used primarily to identify people who preyed upon children, something nearly every culture has sanctions against, and about which there is no argument in the UMC.  No one is supportive of sexual exploitation of children by adults.

Dr. Tennant has felt that even such arguments, apparently not spelled out in the alumnae letter or his own, are insufficient for him to give up his view of what the Scriptures say and his persistence in then super-prioritizing the "authority of Scripture."  

That is indeed very disappointing.  And is leading to harm being done in the name of the Church.

The UMC "Split"???

If you come to me for scholarly attention related to the recent actions of the special-called 2019 General Conference, I will disappoint you.  I have read a number of articles in the main stream media, the church media, and on Facebook on the several sides of the controversy but have not followed all the possible wisdom imparted.  

There is a lot of fear, a lot of worry, that I think needs to be put into perspective.  

I have three points to share in hopes to take the anxiety over a potential split down a notch or three.

One, I think the “traditionalists” overplayed their hand, much like the Republicans have with their mindless support of President Trump.  Two, a split of consequence is not likely to happen in any case.  Nearly every congregation and annual conference is too split (or soon will be) to go one way or the other.   Three, legal wheels grind very slowly.  

One, many Americans and some people around the world who watch us closely are aware that under President Trump’s administration, the right has flexed its muscle because their advocacy of control and judgmentalism are not being discouraged.  As a result, Republicans in Congress have sat on their hands when it comes to realistic responses to the various wild and criminal actions of the President.  The most clear sign of where Republicans are in their radical approach to governance is in the realm of abortion rights, notably the passage of laws in their state legislatures that are anti-women,  Their presumption based on their sense of power has shown them to be so far from the middle that the losses the Republicans had in 2018 appear to be even more likely in 2020.  I see that the same drive by the right wing of our Church for control based on a wedge issue.  That drive motivates much of the legislation that the Judicial Council sorted through recently but the General Conference passed anyway.  

I’ve contended that the “traditionalists” in the UMC face a rapidly changing social milieu so that this year may have been their last real chance to make a permanent change (they believe) in the United Methodist Church.  America had swung from anti-gay to marriage equality in less than a decade.  And because of social media and international travel, the prospect of changes in Africa and Asia are likely to be even more rapid.  As I write, the Philippines has a significant pro-gay movement going.  And my contacts with Africans encourages me to believe the more they know, the more they are unlikely to support anti-gay legislation as soon as 2020.  Notice that the votes at General Conference 2019 were close.  

I am sure both sides pressing the homosexuality issue will do all they can to get their delegates elected for 2020’a General Conference.  The dynamic of change on the view of homosexuality is going on world wide now, mostly the younger generation against the older generation.  Most of the legislation supporting the “traditionalists’” position does not go into effect until Jan. 1, 2020, with one exception, and within months after that, the 2020 General Conference will go over much of the same ground with possibly different results.   I think the conservatives have overplayed their hand.

That doesn’t mean we will avoid a great deal of pain and disruption in our church life, not dissimilar to what we face in our political life in the U. S..  As long as “controllers” (those with the psychiatric issue of having to bring everyone to their point of view and have to be the only ones who are right) have any power, only dissension and other harms will result from it.  The struggle for reasonableness is not over but it may prevail much sooner than the “traditionalists” wish.

Two, many older experienced people just shake their heads as they watch the sound and fury of those most outspoken on both sides.  For one thing, there are few geographic signs in the United States that the Church can be split regionally as it was split before the Civil War.  At that time, the southern states were a geographic focus for slavery.  While certain counties in the deep south remained loyal to the Union and did not join in the war of the rebellion with the rest in their state, the denomination had a strong basis for splitting.  No such thing is true now, at least  in Europe and the U. S.  There are some churches that have strongly taken sides for and against homosexuality.  Some have actually chosen to leave the denomination already.  But by and large, possibly with the exception of certain ethnic congregations still under the influence of the older generation, most congregations are very mixed.  They would have a terrible time making up their mind to even take a vote to align with one faction let alone split away from the denomination.  The same is true of annual conferences.  The chances of there being a wholesale leaving of the denomination by one side or the other is highly unlikely.  Oh, the feelings can be very high and individuals within nearly all churches can get very upset over the disagreement, but most United Methodists will be pretty slow to even hold meetings to discuss the issues to say nothing of the option of leaving the Church.

I am aware that certain pastors have cultivated their churches to understand the issues from their point of view to the point of becoming identifiable to one side or the other.  I know from long experience that even in those churches, there are people who are not all in with that one side and do not like being forced on this issue to take sides.  As in the parts of the world that tended to support the 

“traditionalists’” legislation, the growth against anti-gay beliefs is very strong among the younger generation even in local churches.  

I also think that science and experience are taken seriously by more and more people as gays have come out of the closet.  Those who feel there is no real problem would prefer not to get into a fight about what for them is settled.  

I really do not see a massive shift of whole congregations or annual conferences into a new denomination nor into other denominations.  

Three, it has been pointed out in many places that a split on any scale within the denomination will tend to have long dragged-out legal hassles.  Who gets the Publishing House?  Who gets Wespath (the Board of Pensions)?  Who gets the properties, especially the really valuable sites in New York and Washington?  Who gets the seminaries?  

But the area not really thought through in the new legislation is that each allegation against a pastor or bishop will still end up having to be handled by fair process and appeals.  Each will likely be looked at in terms of the viewpoints of the annual conference and officers handling the respective cases.  And what may appear to be “egregious” to one side may appear to be reasonable and fair to the other when tested in our denominations’ court and appeal systems.  A bishop built a huge case unrelated to homosexuality against a pastor only to see it stretch out to nearly three years.  Making the laws more rigid, as the traditionalists have done, is likely to trigger stronger legal responses.  In this era when change occurs rapidly because of modern technology, three years is a very long time and the milieu can change dramatically while a case is winding slowly through the judicial system.  I cannot see the judicial system speeding up despite the efforts of the “traditionalists.”

Prior to the 2019 General Conference, I argued that millions of dollars and hours were being used to deal with an issue that pales in the face of the most recent projections by climate sciences that we have only a decade to change our carbon-based world economy or the climate will be so damaged it will lead to our extinction.   The next three years of that decade are going to be critical for humanity’s survival, to say nothing of the shift in thinking on homosexuality. 

In conclusion, I think the “traditionalists” won’t be able to handle their own overreach, the distribution for the various parties is too wide for any kind fo coherent split, and the very legalities the traditionalists have applied to their agenda against homosexuality (no longer just the practice of homosexuality) will take years.  

Of all I have read about the fears of the denomination splitting, in light of my observations, I like the following statement by the Rev. Dr. Chomingwen Pond, retired pastor, for missionary, and former professor of theology at Africa University:

“What we need now is the Gamaliel Solution (Acts 5:34-39). When Peter and the Apostles were arrested and the religious leadership wanted them killed, Gamaliel, a highly respected teacher of Israel, reminded them that they had faced similar situations at least twice before, and that when the leader was killed, their followers melted away. So in this case be careful. If it is of human origin, it will disappear of its own accord; if it is of God, it will endure--and you may find you are fighting God!”

Disgust Phenomenon and Homosexuality

DISGUSTING! The difference between liberals and conservatives is the degree of disgust they feel about many things.

That is simplifying the differences and does not cover the complexity of how people take their political stances. But research* is showing that the "disgust" reaction is a built-in self-defense mechanism. Those who are different, have a different appearance, or have some other physical traits that are unfamiliar and not proven to be safe tap that self-defense mechanism in our psyches.

"Disgust" is a close cousin of fear. And as people learn from experience that something is not worth being afraid of, experience with things that appear to us to be disgusting like leprosy or physical deformities on people, helps us discover that our first impression of "disgust" diminishes the more we are with them.

"Disgust" is as potent as fear is when we decide to feed it with excuses, rationalizations, false theories . . . and religious beliefs. I remember when I finally realized that my feeling of distaste about homosexuality was unfounded. I didn't have to be homosexual and deal with the behaviors I imagined they had. Then I discovered people who were homosexual found my heterosexual impulses were distasteful to them. That was a surprise!

I have always believed that the ""Yuck Factor" was an important part of why so many people believe homosexuality is wrong. What this science about disgust is saying is that it is not just a matter of taste but a full-fledged defense mechanism which keeps us separate from something strange that we are afraid could cause us harm. It is not something that is easily overcome with rational discussion, especially when those feelings are buttressed by Scripture and church leaders who speak out against homosexuality as if they were speaking on behalf of God.

There's an irony there in that God is described as both male and female in Genesis!

The way I was able to continue my journey toward overcoming the "disgust" my body provided as a shield was to have a couple years to know a political science professor, a janitor who had severe cerebral palsy, and a fantastic singer, all of whom were gay and I would not have known it if they had not told me. I attended a Metropolitan Church service attended by many people, some gay, mostly parents and siblings of gay people because they were made to feel unwelcome in mainline churches. The pain I felt there among those folks really hammered home just how much our "disgust" was both misplaced and unreasonable.

I know this bit of information that the natural "disgust" response to the unfamiliar is something like fear that can (and should) be overcome will not be enough to change anyone's mind about the seriousness of the split within our denomination over homosexuality. But maybe it will help us all move a little further along in our Christian journey.

*I discovered the research in a report on NPR today which I cannot further document. I've been around social sciences since college over 60 years ago and the report sounded valid. And it adds a new layer to the research noted when one Googles the phrase "disgust research."

Unity Out of Chaos, A Look at JCD 1341

"Warning," I wrote on an earlier draft I shared with a friend, "this contains mature materials that some will find offensive."  In my experience, both the far right and the far left hate my point of view, because each has decided to set in stone their respective basic premises.  Eventually, of course, both will fail because they are not based on reality.  That is, if we survive the next ten years.

UNITY OUT OF CHAOS, A LOOK AT JCD 1341

When the Rev. Dr. Karen Oliveto was elected bishop, there were challenges and charges brought and all kinds of legal mayhem.  Like in any other chaos situation, things began to pattern out.  The fact that the South Central Jurisdiction forwarded a request for a declaratory decision meant the focus would fall upon the Judicial Council.  That meant that complaints against her and others involved in her election, consecration, etc. could be put on hold pending the decision of the Council.  And everyone sort of relaxed for awhile, except for those preparing briefs for the Council's session of last Fall.  Only there was a deferral to allow the Council time to study the issue.  From the length of Decision 1341, they needed that extra time.

My reading of the original motions stating the request left me feeling that the Council could not take jurisdiction. By long precedent, the questions had to be conference specific, affecting what was going on in their own precincts.  The intent of the request as I read it was to remove Rev. Oliveto.  The Council is an appellate body, not a trial court, so it would note her fair process rights and not remove her.  

Speculation about this new Council raised several concerns.  For one, there is the depth of the politics surrounding homosexuality.  It is such that it would be hard for Council members to refrain from acting.  The prospect was that the Council would be very conservative.  Would that manifest in the kind of polarization we saw with the Holsinger Council or would there be a strong emphasis on precedent?

For a second concern, there was the problem I've experienced with a Council that felt it had to give a little to both sides.

A third fear I had was that the Council would feel beholden to its respective nominators, usually the Council of Bishops, and lay out a decision helpful to them rather than to the whole Church.

Finally, there is a skeptic's rule of thumb about appellate bodies, that the Council would first decide what they wanted and then twist and bend Disciplinary passages and prior rulings to make it sound like the decision was based on law.

After years of studying decisions, upon reading Decision 1341, I felt that the majority of the Council acted in good faith and tended not to be affected by the concerns I've noted.  It felt like good-hearted people were trying to find their way through what the General Conference had given them in the way of laws, what prior Councils had decided, and the multifaceted request for a ruling on actions in another jurisdiction.  If so, their ruling could show us where we are in our experiment with use of law to define our nature as a denomination.

The decision is relatively simple.  The Council said that it and the SCJ are limited in their options.  It said that at most the only issue that could be interpreted as having general applicability was regarding consecration.  But the Council pointed out that the bishop is due fair process.  Only the Western Jurisdiction could act on that and she could not be removed from office without fulfillment of the complaint process against her.  Even her marriage license was only presumptive, something that could start a review but could be rebutted upon review.

In effect, the only thing changed by the request and the decision is that now the Western Jurisdiction's College of Bishops will have to act on the complaints they had shelved.  

There are several things I see in the main text and the opinions added at the end which deserve more attention.  I will do that when I prepare the commentary of the Council's whole set of decisions.  You will find them at www.aiateam.blogspot.com when I get done later this spring.

But there is one phrase that the Council used again and again that struck me: "highest ideals."  I got to thinking, as I'm sure others have.  What are the highest ideals to which we should aspire?

In Jesus' day, which were the higher ideals, to respect the men, the husbands, or to also respect the women, wives, and children?

In Jesus' day, which were the higher ideals, to respect Jews or to also respect Samaritans?

In Paul's day, which were the higher ideals, to respect the slave holders or to also respect the slaves?

In our day, which is the higher ideal, to respect the married or to also respect the divorced?

How about this: which are higher ideals, to respect the heterosexual singles in their chastity and the married in their fidelity, or to respect both heterosexual and homosexual singles and marrieds in their chastity and fidelity?

Which is the higher ideal, the view that practicing homosexuality is against nature or Navajo recognition of four sexes: male/males, male/females, female/females, and female/males? 

These last two questions have as their premise that, as with the eunuchs of Jesus' day that some were made by God and some were made by man, there are at least some homosexuals who are made by God. (Note: Most God-made Gay people are aware of their predisposition before they enter junior high.)  

These two questions are also based on the contemporary experience of encountering all kinds of different people who just do not fit into a simple categorizing as "male" or "female."  Science is helping us discover that sexuality is more on a continuum, and expresses itself in many more outcroppings than just as "men" and "women."

In the old days, the actual numbers of these variations could be hidden.  Now with the population explosion, we have a greater chance to encounter more of these variations.

Science is also aware that there are people who, against their own predisposition, choose to emulate those whose nature is different.  An African friend pointed it out to me as a major bad influence in his country.  In my own country I saw a man claiming to be Gay rather than face the reality of his children's genetic illnesses.  I saw people claiming to be Gay in order to get or keep their jobs in certain parts of the country and in some occupations.  

Yes, God-made and man-made homosexuals exist among us and that really complicates our perception of the reality around us.

But the goal of establishing the highest ideals touches all of us and requires that all of us have to rethink just what those highest ideals are.  If we are to be perfect in loving our neighbors as God is, that makes all of us realize how far short of God's highest ideals our laws are.

Maybe our homework as a denomination is to re-evaluate our highest ideals and let that re-unify us.

Talk about chaos!  What new ideals do we need to consider?  Which ideals are higher?  How will we know?  Who will decide?  

It will all pattern out.  Just as we did with other moral dilemmas, we will figure out something.  And we won't necessarily have to divide over it like we did over slavery.  How did we get past all the other conflicts like divorce?  By looking at the realities because we cared as God cares.  And then we changed our laws accordingly.

Thank you, Judicial Council.  You may have provided the right new focal point for our search for unity: highest ideals.

Why the Roman Empire Fell

Those of us who have done any traveling or watching of travel programs on television have encountered the ruins of ancient civilizations.  It is not uncommon to hear possible explanations for the demise of those great cultures.  And it is not surprising that many really have no clear explanation. 

The fall of the Roman Empire has been the subject of much scholarship.  For most people, Gibbon’s explanation, the moral decay of Rome, is enough.  But those of us who have stood in the empty pueblos in New Mexico sites or walked the steps of Mochu Pichu or stood beside effigy burial mounds in Wisconsin have wondered if Gibbon’s theory applied to them too.

Looking at the history available and at sociological insights that have or have not been discussed or put into books, I got to wondering if there is a common thread that might be far simpler, an idea needing some serious consideration.  Let me carry this thought forward.

Every successful culture featured significant population growth.  They were successful in our eyes because evidence exists to some of them lasting centuries and becoming vast, crossing major portions of the continents where they prospered.  To survive so long and expand so much, they needed imaginative sources of food and water as well as technologies. 

Some writers, Malthus among them, posit that such expansion of population had limits and that with disease and war, each expansion came to a halt.  As significant as those limits have been in human history, population has continued to grow even with the demise of those great cultures

Maybe rather than looking at characteristics of culture, such as technology, political structures, or even societal values, all of which can be easily criticized in hindsight, maybe we need to look at something far simpler. Maybe we need to look at growth of the sub-groups as populations expanded.  The longevity and complexity of great cultures like the Mayans and Egyptians would show that the genius group of engineers, political leaders, and exemplars of cultural values grew apace as their cultures expanded.  Those capable of algebraic thought, the technicians upon whom everyone depended for consistency and adequacy of adapting and expanding, also grew.  But let me point out that another group was also growing all along in every great empire: the stupid.

Before I expound further, let me admit that this particular term is loaded and offensive to most folks.  So let me illustrate the concept of sub-group growth with that of another sub-group, homosexuals.

Those of us over 65 years old grew up in times where homosexuals were seldom known.  Reference to them was usually in the form of bullying with swear words none of us ever personally experienced or even thought were real. 

I posit that the reason American society has changed so dramatically in a half of a century is because with the expansion of population, and hence the expansion of each sub-group, the number of homosexuals reached the point where there were enough of them to be noticeable, first to themselves, then to everyone else.  By sheer numbers, they burst out of the closet and the rest of us had to deal with that.  Of course not all have dealt the same way, but enough have now met homosexuals and have begun to realize they are just Richard and John and Judith and Diane.  They are really no different than everybody else, just maybe in one aspect of their lives, like left-handers. 

Every group expands as populations grow. 

If you now understand that concept, then you can apply it to those who do not have the capacity to think things through beyond the first and most obvious possibility, who do not trust anyone else for what is true but what they feel is true.  In fact, they tend to operate on emotional terms more than thoughtful terms and hence do not argue but presume, do not question, but accept what they are most comfortable with, true or false!

Imagine the problems that the geniuses and technocrats of any culture face when the stupid find a way to dominate, either by fearful ignorance or by force.  The values of listening and learning, of diplomacy over armed conflict, of flexibility and compromise over rigidity and true belief, values that with technology brought the culture to greatness, crumble before the onslaught of ignorance and emotion.

Imagine the pueblo people, the Anasazi (ancient ones), who faced persistent draught and were unable to sustain their population with corn, had to leave the security of their cliff dwellings in order to find a place where they could subsist and then thrive again.  The genius group would see the necessity and be flexible enough to consider such a major change.  The stupid group would not.  If the stupid group is large enough to prevent any changes, the culture will eventually die out.

Imagine the Romans, unwilling to admit that another nation (tribal horde) could defeat their great army because they stupidly believed they were they greatest on the earth, and refused to listen to the ones who knew what was actually happening.  Such an empire despite its former greatness, would crumble. 

Of course one could throw in stories of people who refused to move away from Mt. Vesuvius, people who could not survive the ravages of war and disease such as the Aztecs when faced with the Spanish, and other catastrophes that even the genius group could not fully adapt to (though there are remnants of nearly all the great cultures still living in our midst). 

But finally, my simple premise holds: the stupid who choose not to adapt can bring down the greatest civilization.

Now if only I can find a better term than “stupid.”  Or if this concept of small groups growing into larger and more influential bodies as a population grows could be better stated and illustrated . . . .   We need a good macrosociologist.