A Lying Spirit and Short Staffs

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions. (2 Tm 4:3)


It sounds dire, the Apostle's warning, and maybe a little harsh. But when it comes to accumulating teachers to suit the spirit of our times, it seems that we now can choose among 33 new ones on offer: the retired bishops of our connection who authored "A Statement of Counsel to the Church - 2011". (It is easily found on the internet; you can read it here .) They, in what passes for collective wisdom in the UMC these days, call for the removal of the statement in paragraph 304.3 of the Book of Discipline 2008, declaring the practice of homosexuality to be incompatible with Christian teaching.

At this point in the post -- paragraph 2 -- the usual move would be to offer a word or two bordering on being a disclaimer, about how this is a tough issue that Christians of conscience struggle over, the real pain and difficulty it engenders from a pastoral perspective, etc. All of which is true; but frankly, the heart to engage in that kind of irenic dialogue gets cut out by the bits of the statement which are disingenuous, even dishonest.

Take, for instance, the call "to affirm that the historic tests of 'gifts and evidence of God's grace' for ordained ministry override any past or present temporal restrictions such as race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation". This is wrong-headed in two ways. One, the slippery language about "any past or present temporal restrictions" -- in application, this would extend to both behavior and character. And two, sexual orientation per se is not now an impediment to ordained ministry, only acting it out. The bishops know this (and elsewhere in the document as much as admit it); to gloss it over and pretend that orientation itself is a bar to ordination is really inexcusable.

The bishops refer to a "39-year exclusionary stance", a completely bogus reference which is a bit like saying that the teaching of the divinity of Jesus was cooked up at the Council of Nicea in 325, or that John Wesley invented sanctification. The UMC's position on homosexual behavior tracks with classic consensus Christian teaching, and was only articulated with precision as a result of pressure from groups within the denomination which wanted to recognize the "gay" lifestyle as normative. Again, the bishops do -- or should -- know better.

It's tempting to dismiss these folks as has-beens whose leadership has run its course, the last gasp of '70's liberalism before it (blessedly) departs from the church scene. Alas, it is not so easy. Bishop Grove represents one of the brighter intellects among our episcopal lights of recent years, and is the lyricist behind a moving hymn. Bishop Yeakel, who ordained me, I found to be a leader of great compassion and wisdom, and may well be one of the top two or three experts in our denomination on the Discipline. Bishop Schafer shepherded our conferences in Southern Europe during the latter days of a divided East-West confrontation. That this list of bishops includes personalities which can in no way be considered lightweights in our connection, only adds to the sense of sadness and disappointment.

They want to tell us that people are leaving in droves over our present stance, and that young adults (in particular) find it embarrassing and offensive. David Kinnaman of The Barna Group in his book unChristian (1987) amply documented the latter -- but does not address the degree to which this attitude is a function of poor and inept catechizing in our churches -- failing to make a winsome case for sound Biblical ethics with our youth -- combined with a goodly dash of pop culture and media spin. Aside from those who have left the UMC because of the palpable shift toward "liberal" and unscriptural theology and teachings -- often vapid and not life-transforming -- it is impossible to measure those who have seen the United Methodist name or label and passed us by because of our reputation for squishiness on matters of doctrine, discipline (other than organizational!) and ethics. During my time as a pastor, I have my share of stories about those who have left the denomination over our Scriptural anemia -- often when changing locations and churches -- as well as those who visited and joined the churches I or colleagues have served and later revealed, "I/We visited only because (1) we didn't realize it was a UMC or (2) we thought there was no danger of ever joining such a liberal church." They changed their minds after discovering that the Bible was honored and taught, at least in some of our churches.

In the days of King Jehoshaphat of Judah and King Ahab of Israel, as recorded in 2 Chronicles 18, Micaiah the prophet was summoned to bring a favorable word to the two kings, that God would bless their coming battle against Ramoth-Gilead. His presentation must have been ironic and sarcastic, because he is rebuked by Ahab for not being straight with them. At that point, Micaiah reveals that a "lying spirit" had been permitted to take hold of Ahab's court prophets, to seal his destruction because of his rebellion against God.

We live in days when a lying spirit has taken hold in much of the Church of Jesus Christ, as those who are called upon to champion, defend, and commend Biblical teaching find that they have no interest or ability in doing so. This spirit of our age promises success from all sides, while it sets up the Church for tragedy and loss. We need our leaders to stand firm against this lying spirit, not to be taken in by its siren call.

Christian ethics is difficult and often painful. Leadership in the church -- pastoral, episcopal, or other -- often places us in positions where we face (either personally or standing with others) painful choices and challenges which are not negotiable apart from the grace and power of Christ. But the alternative -- selling out to the lying spirit of the age -- results not only in pain and disappointment for individual lives, but tragedy and disaster for multitudes who are influenced by our ministry.

Several times in recent months, I have seen circulated on the internet a e-mail of drawings showing people carrying heavy crosses across a bleak landscape. The central figure in the little strip of pictures says over and over how hard it is to bear his cross -- and proceeds to slice off pieces of it to make it easier and lighter. Then, coming to a chasm which his cross is meant to bridge, he finds that it is suddenly too short. It's a sobering (and in some ways disturbing and problematic) illustration. But there's an element of truth to it which is unmistakable.

The 33 who have signed the "Statement of Counsel" are, I fear, doing something similar with the shepherd's staff of their office as bishops of the Church. By slicing off pieces of the staff of discipline, they may make it appear less formidable, but they also compromise the Church's reach into some of those very areas of culture and practice where our society, our nation, even our congregations most need their loving and faithful guidance and accountability.

The 33 call for other episcopal leaders to follow their example. Prayer and action are both in order. Meanwhile, I pray their call is ignored.

(See also my colleague Ray McDonald's blog on this.)

(Western Shores, Maryland)