I often wonder who reads this blog.  There are a handful of diehards that have become kind of a cyber-family — I’m disappointed when they don’t leave a comment and I really enjoy the give and take around different issues.  In an overwhelming number of cases, the feedback I get is very positive, but every once in awhile I get knocked down a peg and am given ample opportunity to remember to be humble.  In about a twenty-minute period of time, I met three different people who are, well… let’s say, NOT fans. 

I was walking across a hotel lobby heading to lunch, when a young woman approached me, and without any other greeting said, “You believe in evolution, don’t you?”  Now, I am almost certain that there is nothing about my appearance or apparel that would suggest such a thing, so I figured the question was based upon, a) she knew who I was, and b) she’s read what I’ve written, and c) a desire to tell me a thing or two.  I was right on three counts.  Taken aback, I paused for a moment, then said,

“If depends on what you mean by “believe in.”  If you think I place my faith and understanding of the universe upon the principle of evolution through natural selection, that would be wrong.  If you mean that I believe there is scientific evidence that supports evolution and that I do not find it incompatible with my Christian faith, then yes.”

She scowled at me, mustered her forces, and said, “So you don’t believe the Bible?”

I knew this wasn’t going well, and that I was walking a fine line, but I slogged back in.  “Okay, once again, if you mean do I believe that the Bible is an inerrant book of historical and scientific fact with no errors that affirms slavery and prohibits women from speaking in church, then no.  However, if you mean do I believe that the Bible contains revelation of truth and beauty from God through the faithful and insightful men and women of a premodern culture in language and concepts that they could grasp and comprehend, then yes, I believe fully in the Bible.”

She narrowed her eyes and pursed her lips.  “You shouldn’t tell people that science is more accurate and true than religion.  If you believe that, you shouldn’t be a pastor!”

“It’s not a matter of more true/less true.  I don’t believe science is a threat to God, but a gift from God — to be used wisely and well.  My religion offers me a foundation for spiritual growth, relationship to God, and an ethical frame by which I try to live.  Science explains to me many of the mysteries of life and creation, and I find it to be miraculous in the varied answers and complexities it reveals.  Science doesn’t diminish God in my eyes, but makes me marvel at the immensity and intricacy of all of creation.”

Her brow furrowed.  This obviously wasn’t going the way she had planned, and while I obviously was not winning her over, I was making it more difficult for her to launch her next concern.  While she was thinking, I noticed a twenty-something woman standing a few feet away, looking at us.  She said nothing, but stood silently by.  My immediate friend said, “I think what you are doing is wrong.  You’re telling people something is true that isn’t.  You make people think knowledge is better than faith.”

“Well, what I try to do is tell people that knowledge and faith are not enemies — that we don’t have to choose one or the other.  In fact, what I try to teach is that to use the gift of our mind and reason is an act of faith — honoring God with the faithful stewardship of our intellect, thinking, and lifelong learning.”

With a “ppffffuuuhhhhhhh” raspberry-like closing comment she walked away without another word.  As she did so, the young twenty-something slid into the void she left, and (at least) she politely asked me if I wrote United Methodeviations.  When I said that I did, her face clouded, her smile disappeared, and she asked, “Are gays sinners or not?”

I paused, having a Job-moment, a “why-me-oh-Lord-what-has-your-faithful-servant-done-to-displease-thee” kind of thing.  I dropped back to my default.  “Well, we’re all sinners.”

“So, being gay is a sin?”

“If being human is a sin — if we are all fallen and all stand in need of the forgiveness of God — then yes, being gay is a sin.  If we are going to play games to decide who is better than whom, then I won’t go there.  I defer to my ignorance about what is normal and what isn’t.  I won’t say left-handed people are inferior to right-handed people, that blond hair or blue eyes are ‘sinful’ ( I was speaking to a blue-eyed blond), or that homosexuals are less acceptable that anyone else.  And as for the Bible, I am tired of going down that road.  We ignore too many other “commands” of God to pick and choose a few to get all hyper about.  I adopt a simple “first stone” philosophy — I will listen to the opinion of any Christian without taint or blemish about who is a sinner and who isn’t.  Anything else is base hypocrisy.  I have yet to ever meet in my personal experience an “evil” gay, a “sociopath” lesbian, or any fundamentally “corrupt” homosexual.  Labels and categories don’t work.  The gay and lesbian people I know are fantastic people, most of whom love God and others in the best possible ways.”

“So, we should let gays in the church?”

“We shouldn’t “let” anyone in the church.  We should be the church with open arms to any child of God.  This is God’s church.  I don’t know of anyone God doesn’t want.”

“And ministers?  Should gays be ministers?”

“Well, y0u may not agree, and that’s fine, but I have to be consistent.  If a person is acceptable, they are acceptable.  If they aren’t, they aren’t.  If you hold that homosexuality is a sin and that a person in sin should not be a pastor, that’s fine — as long as you apply the same standard to pastors who gossip, divorce, are in debt, don’t keep a Sabbath, take God’s name in vain, lie, cheat, show favoritism, etc.  Clean out our pulpits and let the faultless fill them.  For me, the issue isn’t one of morality, but of justice and core values.  If we are all created in the image of God, then let’s act like it.  If we are all fallen and in need of grace, then let’s acknowledge our brokenness and treat each other better.”

“So you disagree with the Book of Discipline?”

“I guess I do, and I disagree with the old Books of Discipline that affirmed the superiority of whites and males.  Luckily, a number of other people disagreed with those Disciplines so that we are no longer quite as racist and sexist as we were for the majority of our history.  Look, I can’t debate you on this.  This isn’t a matter of the head, but the heart.  Information and opinion aimed at changing your mind is a waste of time.  Only experiences and encounters that touch your spirit and change your heart make any lasting difference.  All the rational arguments fly right out the window for me when I think of real flesh-and-blood people I know who are gay and lesbian.  They all make my life richer, they are good people, and I don’t have any desire to see them change.  So, it is my personal opinion, for what it’s worth.”

We talked for a couple more minutes.  She made clear to me that she disagreed with me and that she thinks it is irresponsible for me to put pro-gay sentiments on my blog.  I told her that blogs are where people share what they think and believe, and we parted agreeing (I think) to disagree.

By this time, any hope for lunch was past, so I headed back to the meeting room area.  As I was coming out of the stairwell, a young guy raised his chin at me and said, “Yo.”  I hooked a thumb at my chest and raised my eyebrows adopting the universal “who, me?” pose.

“Yeah, yeah, you’re the guy who hates RETHINK Church, right?”

“Um, no.  I’m the guy who has raised questions and am troubled by some of the rhetoric, but I have never said I “hate” the campaign.

“But you think it’s a stupid waste of time, right?”

“No, I think it could be improved and I’m not sure it is having the impact on the target audience it is designed for.  I actually have no strong feelings about it one way or the other.  I get in trouble for reminding people that it’s just a marketing campaign.”

“But you don’t think we should do it, right?”

“No, I think we should do it as well as possible, with the most integrity possible — and be honest about what it is and isn’t, and not be afraid of open dialogue and criticism.”

“But you don’t think we should do it.”

“My personal opinion is that there are way too many things that are more important.  I will promote it where I can, but I won’t give a lot of time to it.  It’s a nice feel good campaign, but I am not confident that our denomination is willing to make the necessary changes that a truly “rethought” church will demand.  We’ll see.  Anyway, what I think won’t impact the ad campaign one way or the other.  It is what it is.  Why are you so interested?”

“‘Cause I think it’s great and my conference thinks it’s great, and we couldn’t figure out why you hate it so much.”

So, there you have it.  Perception shapes reality.  I think I try to apply critical thinking and spiritual reflection to the big issues facing the church because I love the church and want to see not only a future, but a bright, powerful, transforming future, and some see me as a science-loving, gay-loving, church-hating threat to all we hold dear.  Isn’t this a great country, a great church?  All three of these people sought me out.  All three of these people read my blog (or at least read it once!) and cared enough to challenge me.  Did I change any minds?  Did they?  Who knows.  The encounters stay with me, and I am reflecting on them, desiring ways to build bridges across the chasms of misunderstanding and miscommunication.  So maybe I have been changed.  Maybe they have, too.  But how wonderful we can disagree, not fight, not let things turn ugly, and part company no worse for the exchange.

28 responses to “How To Get In Trouble Without Really Trying”

  1. deborah Avatar
    deborah

    I don’t really need to read another blog written by someone I agree with 100%…I do need to hear voices from within our denomination that challenge me to really think about how I am living my life as a follower of Jesus Christ!

    Keep it up! A daily must read…

    now if we could have more intentional opportunities for dialogue we may learn how to live better with one another…

  2. Todd Anderson Avatar
    Todd Anderson

    Dan

    I also read your posts often (linked from THE WESLEY REPORT — (unabashed plug) and haven’t commented much to date — but that can certainly change!

    I especially like your take on ……..”And as for the Bible, ………….We ignore too many other “commands” of God to pick and choose a few to get all hyper about.” SELECTIVE HYPER — what a concept…………if only we would take the time to learn/discern and become HYPER PASSIONATE about what is really important.

    Glad to have you in the Wisc Annual Conference.

  3. Jay Avatar

    Pastor Don makes my point well. There is no reasoning with folks who believe there is no in between. The fact is that you and I are rooted in the Scriptures in our beliefs, living faithfully in our traditions as we attempt to follow Jesus, whether Pastor Don believes so or not. As long as Don and others believe that the definition of being a real Christian is about how we approach science, our attitudes toward gay and lesbian folks, and our willingness to encourage our church to be faithful to the gospel of Jesus, then the ability to talk along the divides is difficult if not impossible.

    This is not about “evangelicals” versus “liberals.” Every week I gather with a group of pastors who represent a broad spectrum of belief, but primarily are conservative Baptists and Charismatics. Our task is to pray for our community for 90 minutes every week. In coming together, we recognized that we differed on questions of belief and ethics, but we put that aside by recognizing a common starting point: 1) we all worship Jesus and are attempting to live as disciples of Jesus; 2) there is one universal church (John 17) with many different expressions, thus we are united in Christ whether we want to be or not; 3) God has placed us all in Antioch, TN, a place of great need. It’s not that we don’t talk about other things and beliefs, but we recognize that our commonality is found in Christ alone, not the various interpretations of what it means to be a true Christian. And, in praying with one another, crying with one another, laughing with one another, we have seen each other’s hearts and been able to recognize the presence of Christ in one another.

    The best example for me of this was a story told by the Baptist pastor down the street. His is a large church and he has been a leader in conserving issues along the way, yet comes with a humble heart in solidarity with all in the group. One day he was confronted by a church member who asked him how he could soil himself by praying with that pagan, liberal pastor (me!). The pastor’s first response was “He’s not a liberal! I’ve prayed with him and he’s a child of God and follower of Jesus.”

    Now by most accounts, I certainly lean left of center (although I generally think of myself as a raving moderate). But what this pastor was trying to say is that the labels such as “gay-lover” or “liberal” fall aside in the face of being on our knees together crying to God to be present in our communities and in our churches.

    As long as we see other children of God as problems to be fixed, we will never experience the reality of God’s kingdom here on earth.

  4. Pastor Don Avatar
    Pastor Don

    But see, you are the problem. You want our church to be destroyed. You can’t be a Christian and believe in science and think homosexuality isn’t an abomination and that it is okay to criticize the church. You do need to believe the Bible and do what it says. You shouldn’t make fun of real Christians because they call you to account for your lies and evil. You may think you “love the church and want to see not only a future, but a bright, powerful, transforming future,” but those of us who “see you as a science-loving, gay-loving, church-hating threat to all we hold dear,” are seeing you clearly.

  5. Jay Avatar

    John, the problem is that some of us are prepared and comfortable to recognize the divides and live in the midst of them. The problem is that the folks in this article aren’t. In their way of understanding, there is only one “right” (orthodox) way and everyone else is wrong (or, although they probably wouldn’t use the word, heretical). So how is it possible to live in the midst of the divides when there are those who believe that living in the midst of them is a sin that dooms one to eternal punishment?

    What is interesting to me Dan in all the conversations above is that there is seemingly an inability of those confronting you to articulate an alternative vision beyond “you’re wrong” and “we think it’s great.” Critique is a part and parcel of the Wesleyan notion of conferencing, but critique without reasoned basis for that critique is simply calling names.

    The problem in all the above is that we proposing a way of thinking that recognizes complexity and doesn’t shy away from it. Unfortunately, too many people simply want bottom line answers and pronouncements, leading to a lowest common denominator form of faith.

    1. doroteos2 Avatar
      doroteos2

      Thanks, Jay. This is one reason I keep on writing the way I do. I am pleasantly surprised at how few people complain, and to date I know of only one real concentrated effort to censor me. I believe one of the reasons that the people in the three examples struggle is that in my blogs I take fairly linear, rational approaches to deeply-felt emotional issues. Many people don’t “know” why they “feel” as they do. Taking a “head” approach to “heart” issues rarely works well. My own problem is that I want to reason with people about trans-rational issues. I can only fault people for not being more like me! (Which is what they’re doing, so maybe that explains why we don’t get further.) It is learning the fine art of living in the “in between” spaces that would be so helpful to achieve in our church.

  6. John Meunier Avatar
    John Meunier

    Your observations all point to interesting problems for the very thing you try to do. You try to bring critical thought and analysis to what you see as problems in the UMC. But that presumes critical thought and analysis are persuasive.

    But when faced with a person who disagrees, even you are forced back on it being a heart thing rather than a head thing.

    If that is true, do we have any hope other than power games and pragmatism to resolve the divides in the church?

    Perhaps resolving divides is a misplaced goal. We are broken. The church is broken. We need not to close divides but learn to live in the midst of them.

    I’m just going stream-of-consciousness now, so I’ll stop rambling.

    1. doroteos2 Avatar
      doroteos2

      In my response to Jay, I say many of the things you do here. I am a firm believer that what we need in our church are healthy processes for disagreement, rather than unrealistic (and often naive) tools for resolution. The dividing walls of hostility may all be broken down, as the author writes in Ephesians, but the hostility behind them is still very much alive and well. How we treat each other should be more important than winning, but that is definitely counter-cultural. So we struggle on to learn to do better.

  7. Mrs.C Avatar
    Mrs.C

    I read it!

Leave a reply to jeff r Cancel reply