I Believe

David Burns on January 19, 2017

I’m sharing excerpts from my new book, Creed: What Christians Believe and Why, on the blog in these next few weeks as we approach the Lenten season. Today, I’m including the Introduction in its entirety from the book. Click here to read last week’s post, which included my introduction for the blog series.     Credo is the first word of the Apostles’ Creed in Latin. It means “I believe.” Before we explore what Christians believe, why they believe it, and why it matters, let’s pause to think about belief itself. What do we mean when we say we believe? How does belief affect the believer? What are the sources of belief—the reasons for belief? The word believe can have multiple layers of meaning and can be applied to everything from the silly to the profound. For example, I believe my favorite baseball team might make it to the World Series again this year. In this sense belief expresses my hopes, which may be at least partially rooted in my assessment of the skills of my home team. Often we use believe to express our preferences or opinions or predictions about things that are not of ultimate importance. I believe a particular car brand is a better value than another. I would not die for my convictions about a car brand, and these might be easily changed if the right new product from another carmaker came along. There are deeper and more important beliefs we all carry. You might believe that small government is important, or you might believe that government must do more to ensure the welfare of the people. You might believe that every citizen should have the right to carry guns, or you might believe that we need more restrictive gun laws. You might believe that one of the greatest threats to our future is global warming and that humans are having a significant impact upon the environment, or you might believe that global warming is a hoax or that it may be a real phenomenon but that humans have very little impact upon it. Many deeply held beliefs have the power to motivate us to action, sacrifice, and service. I think of the convictions held by the Founding Fathers in the United States, who spelled out some of their fundamental beliefs with these words that nearly every American has memorized: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Leaving aside the question of God for the moment, what are some of your most deeply held beliefs or convictions? How did you come to hold those convictions? For many of us, our parents played a key role in shaping our fundamental beliefs. It may have been a particular writer who shaped our convictions. Many of our beliefs have been shaped by personal experiences, particularly those experiences that most deeply touched our hearts—the most painful, but also the most loving, beautiful, or gratifying. These deeply held beliefs can shape us for good or for bad. Some fundamental convictions lead people to do great harm, and other beliefs lead people to live sacrificially in service to others. One set of convictions shapes the Ku Klux Klan, and another shapes the Sisters of Charity. What we believe matters. From the earliest times Christians made attempts to summarize their essential beliefs. Beginning in the late second or early third centuries these summaries of the faith are found in the creeds of the Church. The most enduring of these, still studied and recited today, is the Apostles’ Creed. I have used it as the basis of the book because it provides a concise and very early outline of Christian theology. While the Apostles’ Creed likely took its current form during the 400s, an earlier version, usually called the Old Roman Symbol or Old Roman Creed, dates back to the second or early third century. I’ve included a copy of its text in the appendix, along with some other creeds of the church. I wrote Creed thinking that many might wish to read it during Lent. Lent is the forty-day period of fasting, penitence, study, and spiritual growth that prepares Christians to commemorate Christ’s death faithfully and meaningfully and to celebrate his resurrection. In times past, and still in some churches today, this was also the season in which converts were prepared for their baptism the evening before or early on the morning of Easter. Since the Apostles’ Creed was likely written, and certainly popularized, for use at baptism, Lent was a central part of that preparation. Our most important beliefs, whether expressed in the Apostles’ Creed or in other ways, affect our understanding of what it means to be human and our convictions about values, morality, and relationships. Ultimately our most deeply held beliefs or convictions shape our goals, ambitions, hopes, and dreams. These kinds of convictions are seldom scientifically verifiable; nevertheless, we should carefully consider and question them and should be able to make a compelling case for them. Since these convictions cannot be completely verified scientifically, there will always be some measure of doubt associated with them, some question as to whether they really are true. Regardless of what we believe about God, or humanity, or our world, we will lack certainty, and that lack of certainty should rightly lead us to humility in our convictions and in our interactions with those who disagree with us. I appreciate Albert Einstein’s words: “I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am.” There were some things about the universe that Einstein believed with a high degree of certainty, while many others represented reasonable convictions based upon what he could observe. In the end, belief is a decision of the will. I choose to believe certain things. Thirty-five years ago I decided that I believed the tenets expressed in the Apostles’ Creed. That decision has had a significant impact on my life every day since—on the person I married, the career I chose, the way I see right and wrong, how I parent my children, what I do with my time and money, and how I face adversity. Those beliefs have led me to say no to many things I may have said yes to, and to say yes to things I might otherwise have said no to. For Christians, the beliefs expressed in the Apostles’ Creed are foundational. In the book we’ll consider those beliefs and begin a conversation about what Christians believe, why they believe it, and why it matters. Click here to find more information and links to purchase all Creed products, including the primary book, a Leader Guide, a Children's Leader Guide, and a Youth Study book. To see the two-minute promo video for Creed, click here, and to view my one-minute video overview of the book, click here. 

Making The Case for Christian Faith

David Burns on January 12, 2017

It was the spring of 1987. I was finishing the second year of my three-year Master of Divinity Degree at Southern Methodist University. The major requirement, not only for systematic theology class, but for graduating from seminary the next year, was a 35-page paper called simply, Credo – Latin for, “I believe.”  My professors, Schubert Ogden, John Deschner and Charles Wood, had set up an altar in the hallway outside their offices.  A basket atop the altar was where our papers were “offered” to God and to them.  A kneeler was before the altar – we students thought it was intended to mock the students as if the professors were saying, “You’d better pray hard before we get out our red pens and start grading this paper.”  It was only years later that I finally understood that the altar and kneeler were intended to remind the students that our credo was an offering to God, and the writing of it an act of worship and prayer. The credo was both a summary of the student’s own understanding of the Christian faith and a test of one’s ability to make an intelligent and compelling case for the Christian gospel. I believe I received an A- on the paper, but I recall thinking, as I completed it, that after two years of seminary and tens of thousands of dollars expended, I still found some elements of Christian faith confounding. Twenty-nine years later I was engaged in the same work, though this time not constricted by the 35-page limitation imposed by the professors.  I sought once again to make a compelling case for the Christian gospel as I wrote the book, Creed:  What Christians Believe and Why.  Unlike my first credo, which was based upon what I had learned in just two years of seminary, this book was written in the light of twenty-eight years of pastoral ministry.  It drew upon thousands of hours I’d spent over the years reading the Bible, commentaries and Christian theology in order to prepare over 1,300 sermons. The book was birthed out of my desire to make a case for Christian faith for a new generation of young adults who are increasingly identifying as non-religious or nominally religious – “nones.”  I hoped to make an intelligent case not only for what Christians believe, but why they believe it and how this faith enlivens and positively impacts every dimension of life. My hope was that Christians might read the book to grow deeper in their own faith; that they might share it with their friends and family members who are open to, but struggling with, Christianity and they might come to embrace Christianity and I hoped it might be a resource for local churches, Sunday school classes, confirmation classes, Bible studies and book clubs.  While the book can be read at any time, I thought it would be a particularly good read during the season of Lent.  It was during this season that the Church has traditionally prepared converts for their baptisms at Easter by using the Apostles’ Creed.  There are six weeks of Lent and six chapters in the book based upon the Creed. And just as Lent ends at Easter with the resurrection, the Apostles’ Creed ends with the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting, which is the focus of the final chapter in the book. I did kneel at the altar as I turned in my credo all those years ago praying that I might pass Systematic Theology. Twenty-nine years later, as I wrote this book I also prayed as I wrote each chatper, asking God to use this book to help others make sense of, and embrace, the Christian faith that by embracing it they might find life in Christ’s name. I have included here two one-minute videos that you might find helpful introductions to the book. Just click on the triangles on the images at the top of the blog post.  Click here to find more information and links to purchase all Creed products, including the primary book, a Leader Guide, a Children's Leader Guide, and a Youth Study book.

Will It Be Okay? Reflections Following a Divisive Election

David Burns on November 9, 2016

One of my good friends, a lifelong Republican, texted me today saying, “Tell me this is going to be okay!!!”  I think he captured the feelings of many in our country on this day after a stunning upset victory by Donald Trump, a victory that surprised even many of his supporters.  Clearly 48% of voters are happy with the results of the election.  Many felt disenfranchised, fearful or frustrated over the last eight years.  Many felt we’d been headed in the wrong direction as a nation.  To them this election brings the hope that Donald Trump can in fact, “make America great again.” The other half of our country is confused this morning, disappointed, angry or hurt. I heard from one young woman who took her daughter with her to the polls yesterday to vote, explaining how much this election meant for women.  The results hit her really hard.  Another, having seen the last eight years as a time of positive change, was in tears, angry and confused as she spoke to me about the election results. The pundits and politicians will analyze the election results, seeking to tell us what they mean in the hours and days ahead.  But the questions for me are, Where do we go from here?  How does our nation come together?  And, to my friend’s point, Will it be okay? Yes, it will be okay.  I appreciated Donald Trump’s acceptance speech and the spirit it conveyed; a lofty vision, a humility, a willingness to work together and a desire to represent all Americans.  I also appreciated Hillary Clinton’s concession speech, which was moving and which reflected, despite the disappointment and pain of loss, a hopefulness and confidence in America’s future. It will be okay because we live in a democracy whose founding fathers wisely created a system of checks and balances in government that are meant to spread power across the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Presidents do not rule by decree, they seek to lead and influence, and if they are ineffective, they and their party are voted out.  It’s a good system that has served us well for more than two centuries. It will be okay because, despite his shortcomings and unsettling rhetoric, Donald Trump has strengths that he brings to the presidency.  As I noted at the end of worship Sunday, in elections no candidates are as bad as their opponents paint them, nor as good as they believe themselves to be.  I do believe his strengths in negotiating deals will serve him well in Washington and perhaps help find win-win solutions to challenging issues we face. I believe it will be okay because my hope and faith has never been primarily in politicians and political parties, but in Jesus Christ and the kingdom he proclaimed.  He has a knack for working in and through people and in history in surprising ways.  I’m praying today for Donald Trump and his team — that God will ennoble them, and prepare them and guide them as they prepare to lead our country.  I’m also praying for Hillary Clinton, her team and her supporters.  Finally, I’m praying that we as Christians can be instrumental in bringing healing to the divisions in our country today, rather than making the divisions even wider.  We have a mandate to forgive, to love, and also to “speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves” and “to do justice, and practice loving kindness and walk humbly with God.”   There are challenges and opportunities ahead of us.  Today is a day of deep disappointment for some, and a day of elation and celebration for others.  But tomorrow we have to come together as Americans to face the challenges, to seize upon the opportunities and to, together, find a way to help our country live up to its potential. 

Facing Issues That Divide: Christianity and Guns

David Burns on July 27, 2016

For American Christians, few issues highlight the intersection of legal rights and faith concerns more sharply than gun ownership and regulation. The debate has reached a fever pitch after mass shootings such as the one in Orlando on June 12 of this year that left 49 dead and 53 wounded, the deadliest mass shooting by an individual in U.S. history; and after shootings of police officers in Dallas on July 7 and in Baton Rouge on July 17. We live in a nation where a “right to bear arms” is expressly included in the Constitution. Among the roughly one-third of Americans who own guns, the vast majority do so either for sport or to protect themselves and their families. They remind us that it is people who kill; guns are inanimate objects.  As was seen on a recent attack in Europe, if guns were not available those intent on killing would use other means (a truck in Nice, France, and a knife and axe in Germany).  Some of the gun advocates feel that the violent crimes and mass shootings that have occurred make the case for gun ownership as a means of protection. On the other side of the issue, guns raise questions for many Christians.  How does gun ownership relate to Jesus’ words not to “live by the sword” and to “turn the other cheek”?  They point out that knives and other weapons cannot kill dozens of people a minute as semi-automatic weapons can.  They note that without proper training the average person is unlikely to be able to fire their gun accurately in self-protection and hit what they are firing at.  They raise the question of whether guns make us safer, or only create the illusion of safety. In this final post of a five-part series on issues that divide us, we’ll take a closer look at how Christians can approach guns and gun laws—and what guidance we can gain from the Bible. For a more thorough exploration of this topic, you can follow the links below to Scripture and video from a sermon I delivered at the church I serve. If you’d like to explore the issues in a group setting, you can also download a free leader guide to the series. Here are some thoughts to get you started: According to the Pew Research Center, the reasons that some Americans own guns have shifted. In 1999, nearly half of all guns owners cited hunting as the reason they own guns, and barely one-fourth cited self-protection. By 2013, those numbers had flipped, with self-protection as the main reason for gun ownership. The Pew Center also found that 85 percent of the public favored requiring background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows. Two-thirds of those in the United States who die from gunshot wounds are victims of suicide. Even though the legal system by itself cannot eliminate gun accidents and gun crimes, good laws can still have a positive impact. The Bible has been used on both sides of the argument about gun ownership and regulation. Do our peace and security come from owning guns or from trusting in God? In last year's shooting at the Emanuel A.M.E. church in Charleston, South Carolina, if the victims had been carrying guns, things might have turned out differently. Does the idea of Christians bringing guns to church trouble you? Why or why not? Ready to dive deeper? Click here to see my sermon series “Facing Issues That Divide,” and then select today’s sermon, “Christianity and Guns.” Want to discuss these topics in a group? Click the link below or here for a free downloadable leader guide.

Facing Issues That Divide: Christianity and Health Care

David Burns on July 20, 2016

What will happen to the Affordable Care Act after the 2016 elections? How should we address the health care needs of Americans? How should we balance individual freedom and responsibility with our faith imperative to care for the sick and the helpless? For the fourth in a five-part series of blog posts on issues that divide us, we will explore these questions (and others). Christians may not all agree about the answers, but they do care about the issues raised by these questions. You can go deeper into the issue of Christianity and health care by following the links below to Scripture and video from my sermon on the topic. If you’d like to explore the issues in a group setting, you can also download a free leader guide to the series. Here are some thoughts to get you started: Americans remain divided over whether the Affordable Care Act (familiarly known as “Obamacare”) should be repealed. A Quinnipiac poll in July 2015 showed that Americans favored repeal by a margin of 49 percent to 43 percent. Nearly a year later, the same poll found that Americans favored keeping the law by a margin of 48 percent to 46 percent. Health care has always been a focus of Christianity. Following the example of Jesus, for whom healing the sick was a frequent activity, early Christians made a practice of caring for the ill and infirm. Changes in health care during the twentieth century—including dramatic cost increases, the emergence of prepaid health insurance, and a rise in the number of uninsured Americans—created conditions that the Affordable Care Act was designed to address. The Bible teaches that our bodies are a “temple,” a gift from God. As a result, taking care of our bodies is a faith issue. As the parable of the Good Samaritan exemplifies, caring for the vulnerable is part of what it means to obey Christ’s command to love our neighbor. Ready to dive deeper? Click here to see my sermon series “Facing Issues That Divide,” then select today’s sermon, “Christianity and Health Care." Want to discuss these topics in a group? Click the link below or here for a free downloadable leader guide.

Facing Issues That Divide: A Christian Response to Islamic Extremism

David Burns on July 13, 2016

Most of us believe it’s wrong to judge an entire category of people based on the actions of a relatively small number of extremists within that group. At the same time, terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists within our midst have heightened our concerns about future attacks. They also have contributed to fear and suspicion of all Muslims—to the point that many Americans believe there should be at least a temporary ban against people of the Islamic faith entering the United States from other countries. For the third in a five-part series of blog posts on issues that divide us, we’ll look today at Islamic extremism—and how we as Christians can respond to it. Along with some questions and ideas to think about, you can take a deeper dive into this issue through a link to relevant Scripture and video from a sermon at the website of the church I serve. If you’d like to explore the issues in a group setting, you can also download a free leader guide to the series. Here are some thoughts to get you started: A CBS News poll in December 2015 found that more than 35 percent of Americans favored a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S. from other countries. Yet the same poll also found that only 28 percent of respondents believed that such a ban would make the nation safer from terrorism. Meanwhile, 44 percent of Americans believe the government should maintain a database with the names of all Muslims in the U.S. Our Bible contains stories from Joshua involving what we would describe today as genocide against nonbelievers (such as the Canaanites in the conquest of the Promised Land). However, few Christians today believe that these passages are a call to kill nonbelievers. By the same token, most Muslims today do not view the Quran’s passages about violence against Islam’s opponents as permission for violent activities. Islam is far from monolithic. Just as there are many divisions among Christians, the same is true among Muslims.   Americans agree that extremist groups such ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) represent a grave danger that must be dealt with. Whatever the military solution to ISIS may be, our aim on American soil must be to show a better way to that small number of Muslims who might be drawn toward extremism. Paul’s words to the Christians of Rome—“never avenge yourselves” and “overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:19-21)—show us what a Christian response to Islamic extremism looks like. Ready to dive deeper? Click here to see my sermon series “Facing Issues That Divide,” then select today’s sermon, “A Christian Response to Islamic Extremism.” Want to discuss these topics in a group? Click the link below or here for a free downloadable leader guide.

Facing Issues That Divide: Immigrants and the Bible

David Burns on July 6, 2016

We are a nation divided. As Christians, we don’t have to agree with each other, but we do need to listen, respond with respect, and act as Jesus did, with love. This is the second in a five-part blog series looking at hot-button issues that divide us. I’ll introduce one issue per week on this blog, give you some initial thoughts, and then invite you to dive deeper by linking to Scripture and a recent sermon at the website of the church I serve. If you’d like to explore the issues in a group setting, you can download a free leader guide to the series. Today’s issue is immigration reform. There’s a second, related issue regarding refugees from Muslim countries, which we’ll talk about next week when we discuss radical Islam. Today we’ll discuss immigration reform, particularly as it relates to what should be done concerning the undocumented immigrants in America. Here are some thoughts to get you started: A recent National Public Radio report noted, “Immigration is shaping up to be one of the most contentious and emotional topics in the 2016 presidential race.”   All Americans are descended from immigrants—from Siberia in the Ice Age, from Europe as Pilgrims, from Africa during the slave trade, from Ireland in the mid-1800s, from China during the late 1800s. A plaque on the Statue of Liberty reads: Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned racial criteria for immigation. From that time on, people would be admitted “on the basis of their skills and their relationship to those already here” and to find refuge from oppression.   There are approximately 11.3 million persons in the U.S. today without authorization—without some kind of Visa or Green Card. Of these, roughly half came here on a Visa or Green Card that has now expired, and half came into our country by crossing the border without authorization. The Bible has many references to immigrants—in fact, foreigners, strangers, and aliens are mentioned more than 150 times.  In Leviticus, God says: “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” (Leviticus 19:33-34 CEB). Ready to dive deeper? Click here to see my sermon series “Facing Issues That Divide,” then select today’s sermon, “Immigrants and the Bible.” Want to discuss these topics in a group? Click the link below or here for a free downloadable leader guide.

Facing Issues That Divide: Practicing Politics, Keeping Faith

David Burns on June 29, 2016

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Quick, who said that? Yes, Abraham Lincoln said it. But who was Lincoln quoting? That’s right, Jesus. This week and the next four weeks, I’ll be using this blog to discuss a very political subject: issues that divide us. Together we’ll explore how we can practice politics in a way that’s true to our Christian faith—how we can follow not only the ideals of Lincoln but also the words of Jesus. We’ll look at four red-hot issues—immigration, Islamic extremism, healthcare, and guns—and we’ll talk about ways to discuss these issues as Christians even though we may strongly disagree with each other. Here’s how we’ll do it. Each week I’ll use the blog to introduce one of the issues and give you some initial thoughts. Then, after you’ve read the blog and considered the initial thoughts, I’ll link you to the website of the church I serve, where you’ll find Scripture and a recent sermon that takes a deeper dive into the issue. I’ll also link you to a free downloadable leader guide for the series, to help you discuss the issues in a group. This week, let’s look at our divided nation and try to put it into context. Here are some thoughts to get you started: Differences of opinion are healthy. But when we stop listening, when we question the motivation of others, when we see them as evil and are unwilling to work together—that’s when we begin to falter. Twenty years ago, approximately 17% of Republicans and Democrats viewed the opposing party “very unfavorably.” Today the number is 43% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats. We’ve forgotten how to have thoughtful, respectful discussions and dialogue. We share our thoughts on social media without thinking about how our messages might affect others. Rather than winning others over, we push them away. Paul said, “Let no evil talk come out of your mouth, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, that your words may give grace to those who hear.” (Ephesians 4:29 NRSV) John Wesley said, “Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may.” (Sermon 39: Catholic Spirit) Ready to dive deeper? Click here to see my sermon series “Facing Issues That Divide,” then select today’s sermon, “Practicing Politics, Keeping Faith.” Want to discuss these topics in a group? Click here or the link below for a free downloadable leader guide.

A Hopeful Path Forward? – Part Three

David Burns on May 20, 2016

Today’s post is Part Three in a series. You can read Part One here and Part Two here.   This was a remarkable week at the United Methodist Church’s General Conference.  It was clear as the delegates gathered in Portland that the debate about human sexuality was likely to consume a tremendous amount of time and energy.  There were at least 56 petitions and pieces of legislation submitted by conservatives, progressives and moderates addressing same-gender marriage and the ordination of gay and lesbian people.  Protests were planned by progressive groups.  Some conservatives were preparing to call for the division of the denomination.   On Tuesday of this week, the day before the human sexuality petitions were to be addressed before the delegates, a motion was made and approved by the delegates asking for the Council of Bishops to assert leadership on this issue.  The motion passed with a strong majority.  This was an historic event; it was the first time in the history of Methodism that a General Conference had made such a request of the Council of Bishops. The bishops accepted the challenge and mandate and had two special meetings.  On Wednesday morning they brought forward to the body a response with specific recommendations.  This document, which you can read here, was supported by the vast majority of bishops, including most of those in Africa.  The recommendations included: The formation of a special Commission, named by the bishops, made up of representatives from across every region and the various perspectives in the sexuality debate. The possibility of a special called two- to three-day General Conference to meet prior to 2020 to address the issue. The deferral of all human sexuality legislation before the General Conference, referring it to the special Commission. The bishops would explore ways to “avoid further complaints” and trials while upholding the Discipline.  After some intense debate, the delegates eventually passed a motion accepting these recommendations.  With this vote, the General Conference deferred action on the most divisive issue at the conference and accepted the leadership of the bishops in finding a better way of working through the issue.  Protests were called off.  And delegates were free to focus on the mountain of other petitions that needed attention. So, did the bishops simply kick-the-can down the road as some suggested?  Or did they assert real leadership, keep us from further harming each other, and offer us a mechanism that could help the United Methodist Church find a long-term solution to our differences over human sexuality, one that will allow us once again to focus on making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world?  I believe they did the latter.  I believe their proposal is the best hope we have of moving away from the endless infighting, to find a genuine compromise that the majority of United Methodists can live with, and which may fundamentally reorder our life together as a church. There’s still anxiety around this proposal, mostly around who will serve on the Commission.  I believe the bishops will earnestly choose recognized leaders from the various factions in the church who can ensure the plan addresses their concerns. In order for this effort to have a chance at success, the bishops and this Commission must find a long-term solution upon which all sides can agree. That solution may include a fundamental re-ordering of our life together as a people called Methodists.  All of the options brought to this General Conference should be considered, as well as things no one has yet considered.  There is a tremendous opportunity the bishops have been provided to “rethink church,” and I pray the Commission and the bishops take advantage of this.  The work of the Commission will be challenging, with so many different voices around the table.  There will be a continuing need for leadership from our bishops and whatever proposals come before a future General Conference must be ones which the bishops have stacked hands on and own as their proposal for the future of the United Methodist Church. Is it possible for the United Methodist Church to stay together?  Yes, but it is also possible that some on either end of the theological spectrum may leave, no matter what.  Some came to General Conference making plans to leave.  But the vast majority of churches and pastors I have spoken with long for the unity the bishops speak of in their proposal.  I pray that the bishops and Commission seize the opportunity to create a path forward that the vast majority of our churches can unify around.  We are a church of the via media – the middle way – a church that values and holds together in tension ideas and impulses that seem like opposites. The United Methodist Church has been described as a church of the radical or extreme center.  That extreme center is a place of tension, but it is also one of great spiritual depth and power precisely because it draws upon seemingly opposite impulses and holds them together.  We are stronger because we have both liberal and conserving impulses.  We have a more holistic approach to ministry because we hold together the evangelical and social gospel.  We are better for insisting that we are a church of both the head and the heart.  I would suggest that we need both the left and the right, and it is my prayer that the church’s bishops will help us find a way to live together maintaining “the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.” Photo credit: Book of Discipline photo by Mike DuBose, UMNS  

Five Things the General Conference Could Do Regarding Same Gender Marriage — Part Two

David Burns on May 9, 2016

Today's post is Part Two in a series. You can read Part One here.   As General Conference begins this week in Portland, so much of the focus will be on the debates regarding the church’s position on homosexuality.  If I could wave a magic wand, I’d remove all references to homosexuality from The Book of Discipline (which was how The Discipline read prior to 1972).  Imagine the United Methodist Church without the incessant fighting over homosexuality; we might actually focus our attention on “making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” But given that this is an unlikely outcome at this General Conference, here are five things I hope the General Conference might do in the next eleven days:    1. At minimum we should insert in the Discipline, both at Paragraph 161F and at Paragraph 304.3 that “United Methodists are deeply divided on the issue of homosexuality, but at this time a simple majority of General Conference delegates hold that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. …”  This insertion acknowledges where a significant minority of United Methodist stand.  Additionally, a similar insertion should be made as a footnote at the bottom of page 110 in the Discipline at paragraph 161F where the sentence reads “… only within the covenant of monogamous heterosexual marriage.”  I’ve heard from some conservatives who would support this, as would most moderates and progressives in our churches. 2. A second change would be to replace the “incompatible” language with something that is not so painful to gay and lesbian people and their family and friends. If the General Conference intends to maintain a conservative position on homosexuality, I would suggest we replace the incompatibility sentence at 161F and 304.3 with something like the following: “United Methodists are deeply divided on the issue of homosexuality, but at this time a simple majority of General Conference delegates hold that same gender sexual relations are not God’s intended will for human sexuality.”  Again, many conservatives understand the need to find a better word to describe their position than “incompatible.” 3. A third step that the General Conference could take that would require minimal changes in the Discipline would be to eliminate from the list of “chargeable offenses” in paragraph 2702 the words, “conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual unions; or performing same-sex weddings.”  This would not change the official position of the church, but it would encourage bishops and Boards of Ordained Ministry to find other ways of addressing violations of the Discipline regarding same-gender weddings.  Church trials for officiating at same-gender weddings harm our witness to the broader community and are likely to become increasingly ineffective as a means of enforcing the Discipline. If we did these first three, it would be an important conciliatory step for healing the divide in the United Methodist Church.  Yet these three are just a short-term fix.  Here are two more changes that I believe should be made at this General Conference and which would have a very positive longer term impact upon the church: 4. Make the United Methodist Church in the United States a Central Conference, just as United Methodists outside the U.S. are organized into Central Conferences.  With this change, the General Conference should grant all Central Conferences greater autonomy as they adapt Part VI of The Book of Discipline to best serve the needs of their mission and context.  We already make allowance for some adaptation of this part of the Discipline in the Central Conferences.  There are many important reasons to approve this aside from any connection to the debate about human sexuality, but I do hope that this structure would allow each Central Conference to have their own debate about human sexuality in their particular context.  5. Finally, I hope General Conference would stop trying to set wedding policy for local churches and clergy.  Paragraph 340.3 is right to say that, “The decision to perform the [marriage] ceremony shall be the right and responsibility of the pastor.”  Let local church pastors decide who they will and will not marry and protect that right going forward.  This would guarantee that conservative pastors would never be required to officiate at same-gender weddings.  But it would also allow those who hold different convictions to officiate at such weddings. To accomplish this, paragraph 341.6 would simply be removed.  This is a part of the Connectional Table proposal.  I’ve only addressed same-gender marriage in this post.  I agree with the recommendation of the Connectional Table that the Annual Conference is responsible for ordination and that annual conferences, not the delegates of General Conference, should be determining who they will or will not ordain. In my next post, which I’ll post after the first five days of General Conference, I’ll offer a few words about what is likely to happen if nothing changes at this General Conference.