Love as Lip Service and the Divide in the UMC

Last night I was scrolling through my social media feed and one of my "friends" (who I have never met, but with whom I am a co-laborer) posted this passage from Romans:

9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. (Romans 12:9, NIV)

And it got me thinking, in the UMC, both sides like to affirm their righteousness with regards to the inner-turmoil by publicly saying things like, "I love all my colleagues" and "we are better together;" however, these phrases are little more than lip service.

The truth is that in progressive safe spaces, there is no love lost for traditionalists who are keeping the denomination in the dark ages.

And behind traditionalist closed doors, there is little more than vitriol for progressives who have forsaken their first love for an Oprah-fied version of Christianity.

I once dated a girl who didn't really like me all that much.  She might say that she loved me and daydream about an idyllic future with 3 kids and 2 dogs in the suburbs, but when it came down to it, I was an interchangeable piece to her future puzzle.  It wasn't me that she loved, it was the idea of what she could turn me into.

And this is where we are as a denomination.  We love the idea of a truly United Methodism where (if you lean to the left) everyone is united in self-discovery, living one's personal truth, and living in harmony with nature and neighbor; or where (if you lean right) we are united in self-control, spreading scriptural holiness throughout the land, and orthodox affirmations.  But, we don't love our adversaries (and yes I chose this word on purpose) enough to allow their vision of the future to influence our shape our own.

Rather, in private text messages and while carpooling to conference events, we angrily decry "those people" who are killing our denomination in the safety of our echo chambers.

I ended up breaking up with the girl.  It was a really good decision.  In the freedom of no longer trying to live into her vision for me, I was able to embrace a more authentic, less anxious version of me. 

Neither faction of United Methodists are willing to live into the other side's vision for the church, which has meant that at every opportunity, we flex our muscles to demonstrate that we won't submit to the other's vision for our denomination.  What might happen if we did just break-up? What if these competing visions no longer had to coexist under the same roof?  Would we too have the opportunity to embrace a more authentic, less anxious version of ourselves, both individually and corporately?

I have friends in both camps, and it will be a bummer to miss out on our annual excursions for ice cream and to play shuffle board; but, for the sake of the mission(s), because we seem incapable of loving each other sincerely, it is probably time to break up.

Now, I admit that I could be wrong.  So, by all means please leave comments that are kind and truthful and if there is a way to keep this thing together, we can figure it out together.

Big Hairy Question: What does the Bible say about Science?

This month, we are working through big hairy questions.  One that came up a couple times in survey responses was, "What does the Bible say about science?"  There were questions about climate change, evolution, and what happened to the dinosaurs.

What does the Bible say about science?  I recognize that this may be unsatisfying, but the short answer is that the Bible says very little about questions that we view as part of the scientific inquiry.  One of my professors in seminary said it well when he said that science is the study of how the universe works; however, science is incapable of answering the question of why the universe works the way it does.  On the other hand, religion tells the story of why the universe is the way it is, but is not primarily concerned with the processes that govern how the universe works.

A prime example: in the first two chapters of Genesis, we get two different origin of the cosmos stories.  In the first story, the universe begins as a wet, chaotic, formless nothing, which God hovers over and by speaking, introduces order.  God separates light from dark, day from night, sky from surface, land from sea, plants from animals, birds from fish, mammals from reptiles, and as the final act, God separates, from the rest of creation, a human.  All of these acts are seen as good and all of them flow from evening into morning.

In the second account (beginning at Genesis 2:3), the earth is dry and dead, but God brings forth life, water flows from the surface of the dry, dead surface of the earth, and God takes dust from the dry, dead surface of the earth, forms that dust into a human form, and breathes life into Adam.  In the first narrative, everything is good, but in the second, Adam is working in the garden and God says, "it is not good for man to be alone, I will make a helper suitable for him."(v.18) God then brings forth even more life out of the dry, dead ground.  Animals of every shape and size, but no animal is found a suitable companion.  Until God finally puts Adam in a deep sleep, removes one of his ribs and from the rib creates a woman.

Now, science might ask the question, which of these creation possibilities is true?  Was the earth a wet, formless void that God separates to create order, saving humans for last?  Or was the earth a dry, dead planet that God brought life to, beginning with humans?

But religion asks the question what is true about these creation stories?  As Christians we don't say that one creation narrative is true and the other is false, we recognize that neither narrative is presented as a scientific or historical telling of the origin of the universe, rather these two creation stories are given to us to teach us from the very beginning of the Bible some fundamental truths about who God is.  And what are these truths?

• When God speaks, things happen.
• God is a creator of order, not of chaos.
• Creation is good.
• God is a giver of life.
• God has created humans in the image of God.

And if we continue reading, the next set of stories teach fundamental truths about what it is to be human.

Additionally, we should point out that the vast majority of scientists throughout human history and according to a 2009 study, 60% of scientists working today believe in the divine and 40% have a religious practice.  Science and religion aren't the competing worldviews the media makes them out to be.  Science and religion continue to exist as partners in the pursuit of truth.  We need not be afraid of learning about how the world works from our brothers and sisters pursuing the scientific inquiry.  We shouldn't feel the need to defend the narratives of the Bible against scientific scrutiny.  The Bible is a religious text, whose primary purpose is to tell us about God.  It wasn't written as a scientific hypothesis, and it is unfair to treat it in that way.

Rather, we can affirm, like St. Augustine, that all truth is God's truth and sincerely do our best to understand how the world works, and praise God throughout the process for God's creativity and care to even the smallest details.