Jesus: An Unraveling Revelation

Colossians 2: 2-3 (NIV) My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

This Lenten Season we look at the revelation that is Jesus.  Lent begins on March 6^th with Ash Wednesday; we are going to set the Lenten stage on Transfiguration Sunday (March 3^rd).  In our reading that morning, Jesus will be encountered both on the mountain top and in the valley (Luke 9: 28-43). 

On that mountain top, the voice from the heavens will say:  “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.”  For the rest of that scene, Jesus is silent but the next day, when they come down from the mountain, Jesus is frustrated by a failure of the disciples to sustain healing powers displayed earlier in the Gospel.  Jesus says:  “You unbelieving and perverse generation, how long shall I stay with you and put up with you?”  The disciples were previously able to heal people “everywhere” but now, they fail.

The text is unclear, at least to me, as to what has gone wrong:  one scene, they have it, a few scenes later, whatever they had, is gone.  Jesus calls them “unbelieving and perverse.”  I understand “unbelieving” but perverse is less used in our 21^st Century world.  One definition is the “showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences.”

“A deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences.”

The disciples have just themselves healed others.  Three of them have been on the mountaintop and heard the voice of God pronounce Jesus as divinely chosen and, given their first shot out of the barrel to show they get it, they stumble. 

What happened in that movement from mountain top to valley? 

I’m just guessing here mind you but I wonder if it just wasn’t life.  Don’t we often have a deep and fundamental desire to behave unreasonably and unacceptably?  We glory in mountain top moments, but journey into that valley, unbelief.

The reality is that Jesus is an ongoing mystery with a revelation of knowledge and wisdom.  That knowledge and wisdom might be revealed to us is in testing while listening to the prophetic voice of Jesus himself.  My personal take is that the more I study Jesus, the more I realize I don’t know, I don’t understand.  I am sure that at times, Jesus could accuse me of being faithless and perverse. 

Are we in the United Methodist Church being faithless and perverse, and if yes, who?  My knee jerk is it must be those who do not agree with me, but that is less than gracious. 

I am saddened by the most recent experience in St. Louis this week by the United Methodist Church to reach some kind of accommodation with how we understand human sexuality, specifically, homosexuality.  We are clearly not of one mind on this.  I am frankly, still digesting what happened.

But even in my despair, I invite us to urgently refine the prophetic call of the mysterious but revealed Jesus.  I believe that means being in, but not of, the world.  Instead of being so vanilla and bland we might be a church in the “middle of anywhere”, I believe we are called to be a church on the "edge of somewhere” with that somewhere located more in valley than in mountaintop.  That somewhere is emotionally closer to despair than exhilaration. 

Join us in March as we try to unravel that revelation that is both the mystery and beauty of Jesus. 

Selah, Pastor Dennis

My Tuesday eNote -- Pastor Dennis

While this note has been "overcome" by the events of Tuesday in St. Louis, I think it provides an accurate assessment of where we ended up:

Friends:

This is a brief note to provide you an update on what has transpired so far in St. Louis at the special, called United Methodist General Conference on Human Sexuality. 

The Special Session has until 5:30 PM our time today to wrap up, but I think it is fairly safe to forecast that the current status quo will be maintained.  Multiple “plans” were discussed and considered but only the Traditional Plan reached the floor of the General Conference as potentially approved.  The Traditional Plan would retain the current homosexuality as “incompatible with a Christian life-style” wording and would attempt to make enforcement of violations of the Discipline more uniform across the connection.  When we talk about the connection, we are referring to all of us who call ourselves “United Methodists.”  The Traditional Plan, particularly the enforcement element, keeps running into problems in how the United Methodist Church is organized, with Conferences having wide latitude and authority constitutionally. 

Progressives lack the voting power to bring about the desired policy changes, and Traditionalists lack the voting power to bring about the constitutional changes needed to accomplish enforcement across the connection.  The UMC Constitution, like the US Constitution, has a high bar for change, and neither side has the votes to do it.  About 2/3 of the US Church is in favor of more inclusive language, but only represents about 60% of total delegates.  The final count on most issues keeps settling in at the 55/45 percents with inclusive being the 45%.  Differences exist here, but that is about right. 

My own assessment, unless something unexpected happens this afternoon, is that where we were last Friday, is where we are going to be tomorrow:  very divided on the topic of human sexuality. 

I have already had a person or three express reservations about continuing in a denomination which espouses a position of homosexuality as “incompatible with a Christian life-style.”  I am mindful that others feel that if the UMC were to move to what is labeled a “more inclusive view” would cause others to consider leaving.  As I said a few weeks ago, we are going to lose people no matter what happens, and here “we” means “the church” not necessarily “Hilltop.” 

I humbly ask for all of the events of the Conference to be digested and processed, with “where next” considered after the passions of this week have subsided. 

I propose that after the 10:30 AM service is over this Sunday, we grab some coffee and return to the sanctuary and talk, listen, pray, and confer.  I would think some kind of “question/answer” format would work best.  I am disappointed with where we are, but not without hope.  I hope our talk and time together can be constructive and helpful. 

In the words of the confession of the Korean Methodist Church:  “we are not alone, we live in God’s world.” 

Selah, Pastor Dennis

Strange and Foreign

Isaiah 28:11 -- For by people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue the Lord will speak to this people.

Methodism grew out of two “Great Awakenings:” The first in England in the 1730s and the second in the United States in the early 1800s.  Both awakenings were marked by enthusiastic response to the word of God preached and offered to everyday people.  Unstated then but understood now the Methodist movement focused on ‘The creation of disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.’ Transformation marked the Methodist movement.   

For example, Gertrude Himmelfarb, writes “[T]he miracle of modern England” is “the fact that England was able to survive the economic revolution of the eighteenth century without succumbing to a political revolution [the best example is France].”  She places much of credit for this on John Wesley, the people called Methodists and the Methodist blend of Justification by Faith and Good Works. 

Wesley accomplished this through field preaching, the creation of active small groups, and high personal accountability – all of which were as “strange” or “foreign” to the people of his day as in our own. 

Wesley, and the people called Methodists, accomplished this national transformation by starting a movement.  Wesley and his people changed a nation -- for the better. 

America was also changed by Methodists – providing spiritual support in a growing foreign and strange land.  Francis Asbury was one of the first two American Bishops and the most movement focused.  He was tireless in his leadership of the church.  Like in England, during a time of religious awakening, a good man was prepared to lead a movement. 

My friend, the Reverend Doctor Bob Kaylor of Tri-Lakes UMC in Monument, CO, sees “humility, confession, repentance and surrender” as critical to our Christian experience, and I offer those four words framed the Methodist movement implicitly if not explicitly.  Those words of “humility, confession, repentance and surrender” often sound as “strange” and “foreign” to our ears bombarded with the constant worship of self.  Jesus words of unconditional grace sounded “strange” and “foreign” in his time as well. 

I think it is safe to say that the movement part of Methodism seems to have “gone out” and our flame needs to be re-kindled.  Our leadership sees our goal as:  We will re-ignite a Christian movement that begins with grace, offers abundant life, and reclaims the life-changing love of Jesus Christ for ALL people.  Key there is re-ignite acknowledging that the flame has gone out. 

How do we re-ignite this flame?  I posit it is by looking at our history.  Wesley and Asbury were driven by an interest in individual souls lovingly cared for and brought back to the bosom of God.  I am their theological and biblical child. 

I once heard a person say about being a Texan as “I wasn’t born here, but I got here as fast as I could.”  I confess, I wasn’t born a Methodist, but I got here as fast as I could.  I love the Methodist movement that focuses on Grace and Faith in Action.  That is exactly what Himmelfarb is driving at when she talks about Wesley’s combination of Justification by Faith and Good Works – Grace and Faith in Action. 

But let’s be clear – the ideas espoused by Wesley, Asbury and Jesus that include humility, confession, repentance, and surrender – sound strange and foreign to us.  Those are not words with worldly endorsement, in fact, the opposite is true.  Our call is to be foreign and strange in the land in which we sojourn.  There are times in this movement leadership people will look at us and say “you are not making any sense.”  If our marks are humility, confession, repentance, and surrender, they might sound foreign and strange, but that puts us in good company, as Jesus sounded foreign and strange in his own time. 

“You are not making any sense” is a badge of honor if we are witnessing in the spirit of Wesley, Asbury and Jesus, especially Jesus! 

Selah, Pastor Dennis

United but not Untied

Recently, my wife and I went to the Turks and Caicos to reaffirm the wedding vows of two friends. Great people.  

That Sunday morning, most of the community gathered from across the United States was Roman Catholic, so that was where we went ... the local RC Church.  

The experience was transcendent.  The music had a local flavor but used ancient words.  The liturgy was powerful and the sermon orthodox.  The gathered community was multi-cultural and young. I was strongly touched by the remembrance of what God has done mixed liberally with our anticipation of what God is yet to do, making our now a special, worshipful, grateful, place. 

Following communion, the priest invited those who could not take communion to come forward and receive a blessing.  About 25% of those present came forward ... 

People don't have a tattoo that says "I am divorced" but I wonder if that wasn't a significant element of this sub-community, that was still seeking the blessing of the church? I felt like I was witnessing beauty.  

This observation led me to wonder how is it that Jesuits and Franciscans can get along? It intrigues me that Catholicism can at times be so both/and rather than always either/or. I am mindful RC can be either/or, just not always.  

Catholicism can truly be quite orthodox in what it tolerates (or doesn’t), but at the same time, seek a big tent approach on many things.  

I wondered then if the second most famous quote that John Wesley never said might potentially apply: 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials liberty, and in all things, charity.'

Elements of our community seem in a rush to declare schism the reality and that we should proceed as such. I do get it.

While I get it, I not so sure I agree with what I get. I vote slow down, please.  

What if we instead tried to reach some agreement (I didn’t say consensus for a reason) about what we agree on – and define these as elements of unity, granting liberty on those issues we did not declare to be essential. 

Baptism of former members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS is the preferred term at least in Utah, preferred over Mormons) might be a United non-essential, that would be quite essential to the UMC in Deseret (the name for the LDS footprint in the West).  For me, what does the person receiving the LDS baptism think of the theology behind the action words of ‘baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’?  I am not saying it IS a non-essential, just it might be.  Deseret is probably Utah, Southern Idaho, Western Wyoming and Colorado, Northern Arizona and Eastern Nevada and there it would be an essential, but for the national “United” church, I think ‘meh’ might be the general reaction to this issue.  At least to most members of most non-Deseret touched conferences, I suspect. Trust me, for the United church to essentially say 'the baptism of your parents, grandparents, and other relatives is not a Christian baptism [our current position]' may make sense to some, but it is problematic in the extreme in Deseret.

I intentionally chose a regional issue rather than a national one, so we could potentially see one such issue through different lenses.  

   

What if our #nextmethodism/#dreamumc modeled an organization of local churches within (still) regional conferences who had a common set of non-essential values.  We are United on essentials, but on what has been agreed to be non-essential, we are not.  We are in effect, on non-essentials, Untied. 

We could then I think evolve into a system where certain national and international boards and committees are united between the two untied elements.  The United Methodist Committee on Relief comes to mind, but maybe the board that manages our health and benefits?  I would hope that we could hold United that which provides hospitals in Africa.  The United Methodist Church says this is an important essential of who we are and we are going to fund this.  I think the fewer illustrations I offer here, the better the dialogue will go.  A lot of hobby horses out there for sure. 

I probably don’t get it, but is the potential loss of our ability to link the needs of the world with the passion of our hearts a risk we wish to take over doctrinal issues of tradition and scripture?  I think most of us, if not nearly all of us, can agree that Jesus called on us to reach out to those in need and hear in their voice, their needs, and their calls for justice.

Can’t we find a way to stay United on the essentials and agree to a Grace-filled state of being Untied over the non-essentials? 

If we want to find solutions, I think we can.  I confess often, I hear voices that are uninterested in finding solutions.  Show me where I am mistaken. 

If Catholicism can simultaneously embrace Jesuits and Franciscans, I wonder if we are not able to simultaneously embrace two sides which see the world on some issues, very differently  

Selah, Dennis

Understanding our Nature

There is a story from Medieval times  ...

Two monks were washing their bowls in the river when they noticed a scorpion that was drowning. One monk immediately scooped it up and set it upon the bank. In the process he was stung. He went back to washing his bowl and again the scorpion fell in. The monk saved the scorpion and was again stung. The other monk asked him, "Friend, why do you continue to save the scorpion when you know it's nature is to sting?"

"Because," the monk replied, "to save it is my nature."

I see myself in this story as both the scorpion and the monk.

For about half of my life in the military, it was my called nature to be a scorpion.  Leaders used my nature to sting people who messed with the policy views my corner of the military was putting forward.

Let's make no mistake about my effectiveness:  I was a very good scorpion.  My scorpion nature was recognized on the day of my retirement with a Legion of Merit, the second highest level of recognition for non-wartime competency.  For sure, it doesn't say 'we are recognizing Dennis for being a scorpion' but that is what it was for, pure and simple.

But I confess, I did not like that nature of myself that was called to be a scorpion.  On July 1st, 1994, I decided I was being called, invited perhaps, to have a different nature. The road from that day to this has not been easy, but it has by and large, been fruitful.

I am still working on the exact details of what it means for me to "save" are but at the end of the day, the nature of who I am is more about nurture and care, than stinging and pain.  I am still a work in progress here.  

I would hope that we can agree that our nature is not static, fixed and locked up for life. Isn't change what we expect to happen when we take part in spreading scriptural holiness across the land? Wesley saw it as this beautiful threefold fullness of Grace which is Prevenient (preceding bending our knee to God), Justifying (saying to God, 'Abba, Father') and then getting started on our life project of Sanctification ('thy will be done')? 

Paul is dealing with the basic nature of the church in Corinth when he discusses with them the idea of the "body of Christ" in 1st Corinthians 12.  The debate is about gifts and how those gifts fit into lifting up the body for its true purpose.  The issue is how this body works in totality, not in its individual parts. Our nature is to see ourselves as the most important but Paul is trying to bring this group of individualist focused leaders over to a more communitarian, common good, approach.  

I love sports, and Paul's 1st Corinthians 12 passage works in terms of sports -- baseball in particular -- but it also works in terms of music.  The church is an orchestra and the woodwinds are not more important than the strings. Yes, we could have an entire orchestra of woodwinds, but if we did, we wouldn't ask the other sections to show up for that piece of music.  The church is like an orchestra but not only in terms of instruments themselves, but also in terms of the need to listen to each other and to perform together.

Music performed by groups that is about 97% right, can still sound pretty bad.  

Music has a high expectation for suppression of the individual for the nature of team and community.  A man with perfect pitch who couldn't count, once told me that I was not singing an A flat in the right sequence, and while he was right, he was singing the right A flat at the wrong time. The right note at the wrong time, is the wrong note.  

I bring all of that up, just to explain that my nature is to focus on the group, the community, and trying to stay in harmony and on pitch at that time.  

My nature is also to endeavor to try and honor the community rather than the individual.  

Offering a team oriented thought to Paul's imagery from 1st Corinthians 12, a former left fielder for the Los Angeles Dodgers, Manny Ramirez, would do odd things during a game.  When asked why Manny was doing this, his manager, (now) Hall of Famer Joe Torre would say "it's just Manny being Manny."  

Paul is saying to the church in Corinth that 'Manny just being Manny' is not the way for us to be church.

If Paul were in the 21st Century, he would probably see by and large the nature of the US Congress in his dealing with nature in the church in Corinth.  I have heard Congress described as 535 Valedictorians who still think they are the smartest person in the room. 

To my way of hearing some of the current debate in the (almost) Untied Methodist Church, it is this "Manny being Manny" at one level (it's just who I am after all), meeting "I am the smartest person in the room."  And the meeting at times has collateral damage.  People -- logically I believe -- feel cutoff, estranged, and not welcome.  

Here is what I aspire for as it relates to  all focused on a constructive dialogue about a hopeful future i.e. #nextmethodism, #dreamumc, & #CurrentUnitedMethodism, is that we can alter the nature of our dialogue so that we can truly speak to each other.  I hope that we can speak to each other in such a way that opens space for dialogue, rather than closes it off.  Please know that my observation here is not restricted to "either side."  The nature of vitriol is not isolated to one side.  The other day, I took a generic invitation to be in dialogue on this topic to be totally sincere and welcoming; I replied; and felt welcomed.  Thank you.   

I personally have gotten to a place where I think retaliatory jousting with sharp spears is making all of us blind. At some point, the 'he started it' must give way to shared values within the social capital built up over time. The Common Good matters. Or at least it does to me.

We seem to be using the US Congress as the model for dialogue, rather than Paul/1st Corinthians 12. At some point, our using the US Congress as the model for how we are in dialogue needs to be rejected, discarded and called out for what it is: sinful. 

The UMC through all of these renewal efforts -- #nextmethodism, #dreamumc and remembering where we are #CurrentUnitedMethodism -- should model what we aspire to, not sink to increasingly lower and lower levels of snark and combativeness. 

As soon as somebody says 'but they started it, and besides that have you been reading how mean they are' dialogue leaves the room, and we move to monologue. In effect, they might be saying the right note here, without regard to time, is this offering [whatever it is], and I wonder if they understand the idea of the right note, at the wrong time, is still the wrong note? 

I am in. I want to be in this conversation. I was invited in by inference by Dr. David Watson, but I was also invited in by colleagues across the connection: "your voice needs to be present here." 

But I return to my confession at the start of this: 

I did not like that nature of myself that was called to be a scorpion. On July 1st, 1994, I decided I was being called, invited perhaps, to have a different nature. The road from that day to this has not been easy, but it has by and large, been fruitful. 

My purpose with this particular blog today is to frame the nature of how I hope we can converse, and what the nature will be that I will use in this conversation ... 

Peace be with you ... 

Selah, Dennis