The Central Untruth that Unravels Centrism

The Uniting Methodists met over the last two days in Georgia, and I didn't attend.  I like most of the people associated with the caucus group, and find their goal of discerning a solution that will save the United Methodist marriage to be noble.  However, it is pretty clear that their efforts are doomed; and they are doomed for one central reason.

Compatibilism is not a theological position.

According to the "centrists" there are essentially four theological positions in the UMC with regards to the question of affirming the practice of homosexuality.  Tom Berlin, says more here, but the gist of what he says is this:

• Position 1 is progressive non-compatibility, meaning one believes that full affirmation of the practice of homosexuality is the correct course of action and the only solution is for every UM church and every UM pastor is fully affirming LGBT practice.

• Position 2 is progressive compatibility, meaning that one believes that full affirmation of the practice of homosexuality is the correct course of action, but is willing to let individual churches and pastors make their own decision.

• Position 3 is traditional compatability, meaning that one believes that full affirmation of the practice of homosexuality is not the correct course of action, but is willing to let individual churches and pastors make their own decision.

• Position 4 is traditional non-compatibility, meaning that one believes that full affirmation of the practice of homosexuality is not the correct course of action, and that churches and clergy should be held accountable to the current standards of the denomination.

Here in lies the problem.  Compatibilism, by definition, is not a theological position.  Because there are only two possible theological claims with regard to the full expression and practice of homosexuality:

• Claim A: God can be glorified by the full expression and practice of homosexuality. (Given a kind, self-giving, committed relationship)

• Claim B: God can not glorified by the full expression and practice of homosexuality. (Even in the presence of a kind, self-giving, committed relationship)

Now, it is legitimate to be unsure which of these claims is true.  But it is wholly insincere to suggest that both claims can simultaneously be true.

Compatibilism is a strategy of progressives to keep the institution together, with the assumption that those who do not agree with them will one day "grow up"

And honestly, it is far and away the best strategy for UM progressives.  But it is a strategy, not a theology.

Because a sincere progressive is unwilling to let the official position be that churches within their denomination may exclude an expression of God's creativity and grace.

And a sincere traditionalist is unwilling to let the official position be that churches within their denomination celebrate sin.


A Caveat

I do believe that there is a significant number of people who find the evidence muddy and have chosen to withhold judgment, and for this group especially compatibilism is very attractive.  Why not let both my friends on the right and the left do what they feel is right?

But even for the person who finds the evidence inconclusive, compatibilism should be a frightening proposition, because compatibilism institutionalizes relativism.  How can the official position of the church be that M Barclay and Rob Renfroe are both right?


To be fair, I don't think the Uniting Methodists are actually saying that both M and Rob are right.  I think what they are actually saying is that M is right, but that we don't have the guts to tell Rob he is wrong.  Which gets back to the whole issue of truth telling...

#NextMethodism will have a Better Logo

The bureaucrats in the United Methodist Church love our logo.  See here, here, here, and here.

And if you follow these links, you will find really good theological foundations for a logo with a cross and a flame.  And there in lies the problem, we have really good theological reasons for a cross and flame branding; however, I will never forget bringing a friend of color to my home church and his first reaction being, "Caleb, why is there a burning cross on your church?"

Consistently in the methoblogosphere (I think that is a word) we find folks lamenting the lack of diversity within the UMC.  And while we might assume that the church is slowly getting more diverse, the data says otherwise.  In 1998, the UMC's North American membership was 87% white.  By 2008, it was 90% white.

Surely there is a plethora of reasons for our shameful history of connecting with minority populations; however, one might assume that having a logo that approximates a symbol of terror against black bodies in the United States has something to do with the pasty whiteness of the United Methodist Church.

Again, the theological underpinnings of our current logo are great, and I would suggest that we keep them in the design of a new logo.  Christocentric, excellent. High view of the Holy Spirit, fantastic.  But, isn't there another way to brand these virtues that doesn't look painfully similar to the klan's device of terror?

I think there is, and I think we will see it in #NextMethodism

#NextMethodism will be about both Self-discovery AND Self-denial.

I have been hesitant to say anything publicly about what is happening in the United Methodist Church, in large part because I realize that most of the people blogging, making videos, writing articles, giving speeches, and the like are far more intelligent than I am.  But, this afternoon Dr. Watson issued the invitation for the sharing of hopes and ideas about the future of methodism, and said nothing about staying silent if you are kinda dumb.  So, here are my kinda dumb ideas...

#NextMethodism will be about self-discovery AND self-denial.

I have lurked in the shadows reading the thought giants from across the spectrum in our church, and I have come to believe that ultimately we are not going to divorce over issues related to LGBT acceptance, rather, this split is the result of two very different perspectives on holiness.  And the difficulty is that they are both pretty good perspectives.  Both potentially lead to healthier, happier human beings.  But these visions of holiness are radically different and have ultimately led to a great deal of tension.

Our friends on the left have (generally) defined holiness as self-discovery leading to self-acceptance.  From the born this way movement to the #calledout rallying cry, the picture of holiness as defined by RMN, Love Prevails, and the MFSA is marked by learning how to love ourselves the way God created us and from a place of self-love being able to fight for a more equitable society which is how one pleases God .  This is a pretty good vision and it has Biblical roots.

Our friends on the right have (generally) defined holiness as self-denial leading to Divine conformity.  WCA, Good News before them, and the Confessing Movement before them have all put an emphasis on dying to self, with the understanding that a cruciform life is the kind of life that pleases God. This too is a pretty good vision and it has Biblical roots.

And before you break your keyboards telling me that the left has elements of self-denial and the right has elements of self-discovery--you are correct.  The folks who make up the whole of thinkers on both sides have a wide array of perspectives on holiness, however, I continue to argue that generally when we talk about the life that pleases God, the life of holiness, those on the right will focus on self-denial while those on the left will focus on self-discovery. (We also might say that the difference lies in the left seeing the salvific act of Christ as being primarily liberating and the right sees it as transforming)

But here in lies the problem with Biblically based self-denial removed from a process of self-discovery.  It is too easy to make a list of things one should deny themselves, without really having an understanding of how one's own selfishness has impacted the shaping of said list.  To be painfully blunt if a person is talking about the sinfulness of homosexuality but hasn't made tithing a priority, they would be wise to search their own heart and commitment to living in the light of God.

And the problem with self-discovery that doesn't get filtered through the Bible our practice of self-denial is that God really does want to transform us into the image of Jesus, and if our best hope for personal holiness is learning to love ourselves, we have missed the point. If one doesn't need Jesus for anything other than liberation from the oppression of white guys and their lists of self-denial, they are practicing the most meager form of Christianity.

But #NextMethodism will rediscover the Wesleyan vision for perfection, which Kevin Watson beautifully articulates saying, "[it is the practice of] giving all that I know of myself to all that I know of God."  This twin emphasis on knowing oneself and knowing God, so that we can both embrace the roll of God's grace in wiring us in unique and beautiful ways and identify the marks of the fall that keep us from living in the light of God.

Wesley famously wrote that we should be rigorous in judging ourselves and gracious in judging others.  If you feel that I have failed in describing the position of your tribe, I apologize, and invite your correction.  If your hopes for the future of Methodism are not in allignment with mine, I would like to hear why.  If  you read to the bottom, I appreciate you time.

Caleb