The book focuses on David Starr Jordan and her own life. I would uncharitably summarize the book like this: how do you find meaning when you believe life has no inherent meaning, entropy will eventually destroy all order in the universe, and everything might head to a big freeze? Fighting chaos by bringing a little order to the world might be one way (as meaningless as the gesture is in the grand scheme of things). Jordan’s life might offer lessons if you can look past more red flags than a Chinese V-Day parade.

The point behind the book’s title is that from a taxonomy perspective, fish do not exist. What the layperson calls fish are different animals in different taxonomic categories. For animals to be labeled together as a taxonomic category, the animals must share a common ancestor. Fish might have some connection to each other related to water and backbones, but they don’t all come from a common ancestor-like mammals do.

Subscribe now

As humans, we love categories and labels. We are good at lumping people together. In the chaos of our lives, it is one way to bring order. It is easier to talk about a group of people than it is to talk about hundreds, thousands, millions, or billions of individuals. When you lump people into large groups, you paint with a broad brush; when you look at people as individuals, you find a lot of difference and distinction.

One thing that drives me crazy in life is the way people attack “the Democrats” (often shortened to “Democrats”). Like that label really means anything. There are organizations and legal entities that might align with the Democrat Party. People might choose the label Democrat for themselves. Yet, there is not some nefarious cabal of puppet masters pulling strings entitled “the Democrats.”

In trying to understand people who see the world differently than I do, I listen to The Dispatch podcast. I keep listening to it, so overall I must like it on some level. Infuriating as it can be. One of the podcast’s tropes that drives me crazy is that if they spend too much time criticizing MAGA or conservatives, they feel compelled to complain about the wrongs of Wilson/FDR, “the Democrats,” non-conservative media, and/or anti-Trumpers. Both sides-ism at its best.

What really drives me crazy is in conversations about lawfare. How “the Democrats” used lawfare against Trump, so if Trump uses lawfare against them, that somehow mitigates Trump’s actions. “The Democrats” did not go after Trump. And from a logic perspective, comparing a NY prosecutor to the President of the United States is absurd, let alone crediting all Democrats with the action.

Individual prosecutors (some of whom might identify as Democrats) went after Trump. Federal government investigators and prosecutors investigated Trump, but they are/were not partisan. Regardless, they were all acting individually. Their ambitions, judgements, ethical frameworks, and/or moral convictions are their own.

Some folks are upset at some Senate Democrats capitulating in the government shutdown. Whether you think they won or lost, their communication strategy left much to be desired. The key though is that it was “some” Democrats. Not “the Democrats.” We could get into a cynical argument about how many Senate Democrats wanted to capitulate; it’s amazing they had the magic number needed and no more, but it was not all senators who caucus with the Democrats. Definitely not all House members.

Individuals act with individual motives. Our society labels some individuals; some individuals claim labels for themselves. We sometimes like to talk about these labels as if they are entities on their own, like “the Democrats.” Again, “the Democrats” do not exist. We might use it for smearing and attacking, we might use it to channel our collective feelings, but it just does not exist.

This goes beyond fish and politics. In the United Methodist Church, people often complain about annual conferences. They like to attack “the Conference.” Just as “the Democrats” do not exist, “the Conference” does not exist. Sure, there are ecclesiastical and legal structures. Leaders and committees act under the auspices of the annual conference. Members of the annual conference make up the conference. The yearly gathering of the annual conference empowers people to act on behalf of the conference and allows folks in the conference to fulfill their duties and responsibilities both in the conference and in the larger United Methodist connection. There is no “the conference” acting nefariously on its own. Individuals and groups are acting in the ways the church’s polity and decisions of the annual conference empower them to act.

We are always looking for scapegoats. It is easy to construct nefarious entities in our imaginations that are causing our problems. In truth, we are the source of our own problems. People may be unhappy with the government we have, but we got the government we elected.

Folks in the church might not like the decisions of the annual conference or those empowered to act, by the polity on behalf of the conference, but each church member takes part in the system that makes it happen. Folks in the United Methodist Church live with the collective consequences of these decisions over the years.

Genuine change starts at the individual level. Individuals deciding they individually need to change. Collectively, changed people can work for and be change in the world. Change will not happen though if we cannot name the proper sources of our problems and take them seriously. It is more fun to imagine smoke-filled rooms with power players plotting to immiserate people’s lives as they fold their fingers in a pyramid ala Mr. Burns. Reality is less fun. Instead of looking for others to blame, we need to look inward.

I found the book of Ezekiel overwhelming. The visions, especially the ones related to the glory of God, are hard to wrap my mind around. At one point, I asked myself the question, why would God send a prophet?

Prophets are hard to understand. If I had been in Babylon to hear Ezekiel share his prophecies, I might have questioned his sanity. You were by the canal, and you saw what? Were you hydrated? Have you been around moldy rye bread? Are those mushrooms?

One thing I wrestle with as a pastor is what can my parishioners hear? If my words are too divisive, too challenging, too controversial to the point people tune me out or stop coming to worship services, is it worth saying those words? I question the utility of words that people cannot receive.

Subscribe now

Prophets in the Bible do not share this concern. They share the word of the LORD, whether the audience can hear the words or not. Sometimes, like with Jonah, it works; often they upset and alienate the rulers and power brokers. People dislike being told they are doing something wrong or are on the wrong side of God.

Why does God send prophets who have visions that are hard to put into words and say things that are hard to hear? If the leaders and the people are going in the wrong direction, why not send leadership experts? People who have MBAs or PhDs in leadership from prestigious academic institutions. Why not raise up leadership gurus with mass followings and hit podcasts to give deep insights into the art of leadership?

Both leadership experts and prophets are interested in change. God did not commission prophets because everything was hunky-dory and each day leaders and the people were getting closer to who God was calling them to be. Why not raise up the first leadership experts to tackle the problem? Why send prophets who seem a little crazy and say things that are hard to hear?

Because what needed changing (and still needs changing) was the hearts of the leaders and the people. Leadership experts might be good at changing minds, sharing information, giving strategies. But they really cannot change hearts.

Prophets who faithfully deliver the word of God offer the possibility of a changed heart. God’s word has the power to change hearts. In Ezekiel, God promises new hearts to replace hearts of stone. Genuine change comes from a changed heart.

When I entered full-time ministry in 2007, studying leadership was all the rage. Leaders in the denomination pushed programs, books, and conferences. With just a little more head knowledge, perhaps we could make changes, and change the long-term trajectory of the vitality of the United Methodist Church. Institutional anxiety was high; leadership was the release valve.

It has not worked. The demographic disaster/death tsunami continues to wreak havoc. Disaffiliation made things even worse. Church leaders continue to push new programs and contend that God is doing something new, but the long-term trajectory is not going in a new direction.

Prophets sharing the word of God did not always lead to changes right away. Hearts are hard to change. Their words, though, had staying power. Over time, people would recall their words, share their words, understand their words in new ways.

We live in a world that values head knowledge. Studies and statistics. Immediate results. Return on investment. God values changed hearts. Perhaps instead of embracing the world of secular leadership, people who desire change in the church need to seek changed hearts. Embracing anew the word of the LORD.

President Roosevelt told Congress they were “at a moment of unprecedented in the history of the Union, because at no previous time has American security been as seriously threatened from without as it is today.” He gave an overview of threats to the United States in the past and contended that past threats were not that threatening to American independence and autonomy to act in the world. He believed, though, that the current conflict was different. FDR contended, “the democratic way of life is at this moment being directly assailed in every part of the world–assailed either by arms, or by secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations that are still at peace.”

Subscribe now

If Americans did not prepare to meet the moment, American freedom and democracy were on the line. While the United States was probably safe if the British navy protected the seas, if the United Kingdom fell, could the Atlantic and Pacific oceans really protect the United States? Roosevelt imagined the threat in phases. Over time, the enemies of democracy would create the conditions that allowed the invasion of the United States.

American security required meeting the moment. International affairs were now threats to America’s domestic agenda. The moment was so extraordinary that this should be the focus of the American government. He outlined domestic priorities to meet the moment. Basically, prepare for the possibility of war. Also, be an arsenal for the democratic countries under siege.

Would this upset the oppressor nations? Probably. But America had to be free to act in her own interest. The oppressor nations attacked Norway, Belgium, and the Netherlands without provocation. Surrendering our autonomy and freedom to appease oppressors was not a guarantee of future peace and security. Our best bet was to support other democracies standing against the oppressors.

In preparing for war, the US needed to continue to work on “the social and economic problems” at home. Those problems not being addressed in other countries led to social revolution, and this factored into the conflict the world was experiencing. He then offered his understanding of the “foundation” a “strong and healthy democracy” required. He offered the following examples:

· “Equality of opportunity for youths and others.”

· “Jobs for those who can work”

· “Security for those who need it”

· “The ending of special privilege for the few.”

· The preservation of civil liberties for all.”

· “The enjoyment…the enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.”

Roosevelt then offered concrete ways to make these examples real. It would require personal sacrifice. More tax revenues would be needed for the government to act. He believed that while most people are not fans of increased taxes, if Congress did this in the right way, their constituents would support these efforts.

The speech is famous for the next part. He laid out “four essential human freedoms” to found a future world in. These four essential freedoms are: 1) freedom of speech and expression, 2) freedom of religion, 3) freedom from want (economic security for everyone), and 4) freedom from fear (which FDR-in the speech-meant nation states should not need to fear other nation states).

In the unprecedented times we live in today, I have been thinking about these four freedoms and how they are under assault in our own country, let alone the world. FDR saws these four freedoms as goals to work towards as the foundation of a new post-conflict world. Roosevelt believed these four freedoms are the bedrock of a world where democracies can flourish. My concern is that this bedrock is eroding in the present moment both in the United States and around the world.

For example, the freedom of speech is under assault. The current administration attacks academic institutions, and the government desires to control speech in these institutions. They also attack law firms, and what the administration wants, in part, is different speech or less speech from the law firms. Trump’s administration assaults in a multitude of ways the media’s speech. Lawsuits, FCC pressure, public comments from administration officials, social media posts from the president, there are so many assaults, it is hard to keep track of it all.

Freedom of religion is also under assault. Christian nationalists are trying to blur the lines between state and religion. There are conservative movements hoping to end the separation of church and state. Politics and religion are being enmeshed in ways that potentially threaten the health and vitality of both.

Freedom from want is under attack. The Big Beautiful Bill undermines the social safety net. Tariffs make everyday items more expensive. Going after renewable energy funding approved during the Biden administration will likely increase energy prices. Fear due to want and need is a growing specter for many Americans.

The attacks on the freedom of speech are creating a climate of fear. Will the administration go after me or my interests if I say something critical? If I challenge something? Will a MAGA mob go after me if they dislike what I say?

FDR understood the freedom from fear in an international sense. The reality for our democracy at home, though, is that the government is being weaponized in ways that create an atmosphere of fear here at home. The president ordering the Attorney General to go after critics of the president. Promises of retaliation for the Kirk assassination, even though it seems like the perpetrator was a lone gunman operating independently of anyone and anything.

Attacking freedom is folly. Freedom in a democracy requires reciprocity. In Martin Luther King Jr’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” King argued “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Once injustice is allowed and accepted by a society, how can anyone in society truly be safe from injustice? I think the same is true in terms of freedom. If we allow society to unjustly oppress one person, no one is really safe from unjust oppression in our country. Curtailing the freedom of one person threatens everyone’s freedom ultimately.

I have been thinking about Solomon Burke’s version of “None of Us Are Free.” In the song, he sings “none of us are free, none of us are free, none of us are free, if one of us is chained, none of us are free.” When we allow leaders and the government to attack the freedoms of others, it undermines our own freedom.

FDR’s four freedoms are foundational not only for the cause of democracy internationally but also at home. The freedom from fear might be the most important. If we are afraid to speak or practice our religion, both freedoms are undermined. Freedom from want was important to Roosevelt because desperate need can drive revolution and undermine civil society. I would contend that fear amplifies the danger.

In January 1941, the future did not look bright. The world was at war. Many feared the US would enter that war. Memories of World War I hovered in the background. The United States was barely out of the Great Depression and that was mostly because of the economic demand conflicts around the world created.

Roosevelt ended his 1941 State of the Union address on a high note. He believed they could make the world a better, safer, freer place. There are parallels between America on the cusp of World War 2 and now. Things look bleak for lovers of democracy. The future feels uncertain. Faced with fear and folly, we need a hopeful moral vision that challenges the fear-fueled Trump administration’s way of governing. If we could embrace Roosevelt’s four freedoms, they could be foundational to a post-Trump America.

I also keep thinking about what Governor Greg Abbott said at a press conference and what President Trump said at a roundtable when asked questions from reporters. At the press conference, a reporter asked Governor Abbott about investigations into what happened with the floods. The reporter then mentions the Uvalde school shooting investigation and then asks who is to blame (starts around 24:47) for this situation.

Personally, I don’t think it was a great question. Governor Abbott had just said there will be investigations. Without an investigation, it is too easy to start pointing fingers without really understanding all the factors that led to the tragedy. Premature pointing of fingers leads to scapegoats and possibly no changes to save lives in future natural disasters.

At the same time, if the people in power contributed to the tragedy-will they take ownership for their inaction? Will the investigations find the root causes or paper over culpability? If people in power realized the risks and chose not to act will this be exposed? If people were negligent in their jobs, will this be revealed? Will anyone explore how cuts to the federal government might have impacted the disaster?

Getting the Governor’s point of view on blame could give a sense of whether we can trust the investigations. Will they be honest and thorough? Or will they look to scapegoat their political enemies? Better questions would be: Who in the Texas legislature will do the investigations and how do we know we can trust their conclusions? Governor, what goals or hopes do you have for the investigations?

While the question was poor in some ways, Governor Abbott’s repose was worse. He responded that the Texas legislature will investigate. What does that mean exactly? Unclear. What do they hope to achieve? Unclear, beyond some generalities that say nothing and could be used in any press conference in the wake of a tragedy. It would have been nice for the Governor to give some clear goals to show that they are going to take seriously the responsibility aspect of the tragedy to address the blame question.

Then the Governor attacks the reporter. He throws the question back in the reporter's face. The Governor says, “know this, that’s the word choice of losers.” He then uses the metaphor of football to explain how losers look for people to blame. Winners, apparently say, “don’t worry about it, man, we got this. We’re going to make sure that we go score again and we’re going to win this game.” Which is not really an answer, but an insult to the reporter.

If you keep listening to his answer, he says they will respond to the floods. Not with “blame” or “bitterness”. Basically with actions done with love. Which is all good as far as it goes, but does it go far enough?

I am not an expert on football. But it is my understanding that football teams (at least coaches) watch their past games. Look for ways they could do better. I imagine if a play did not go well, they might look for how and why the play did not go well. Was it a bad play call? Did someone not execute? Did the opponents do something surprising? Were mistakes made? What factors are to blame for the play not working? Ultimately, how did we get to the final score on the scoreboard?

I believe based on my casual observations; winning teams take responsibility for their actions and preparation for the games. Perhaps they don’t “blame” people for mistakes, but I imagine coaches hold players accountable for how they play. Management holds coaches accountable for their coaching and the program’s health. A good football player holds himself accountable for his own play. Takes ownership of his mistakes or lack of preparation.

Bad things in life happen. Sometimes disasters are sui generis. No reason to expect or prepare for them. Other times, there is nothing reasonable or prudent that can be done to prevent the harms from the disaster.

With the Texas floods though, people knew this could happen (it has happened in the past). Governmental entities contemplated warning systems. Experts drew flood maps. Are there people who could have acted differently? Using the lens of reasonable and prudent actions, did people make bad choices?

Blame might not be the best way to frame this, but when a person in power attacks someone who asks a question, I wonder did the question hit too close to home? Has the Governor had the best priorities for keeping Texans safe? Should the buck stop with him or do only losers take responsibility for how they use their office and power?

Subscribe now

Governor Abbott was not the only one to attack a reporter in Texas. President Trump hosted a roundtable after the floods in Texas. He took some questions from reporters. A reporter noted families devastated by the tragedy are upset. They contend warnings or alerts didn’t go out in time. People could have been saved. The reporter asks, “what do you say to those families?”

Trump responds by not answering the question directly. Instead, he says people did an “incredible job under the circumstances.” Then he talks about the unique nature of the flood. How he admires the job people did. Then he attacks the reporter. Trump contends, “only a bad person would ask a question like that to be honest with you. I don’t know who you are, but only a very evil person would ask a question like that.” The President goes from not answering the question to attacking the reporter.

The President could have told those families how sorry he is for their losses. That he will ask some part of the federal government to investigate. State concrete actions he will take to ensure this does not happen again. Show some kind of compassion towards people who are hurting.

It is perverse to attack a reporter for asking a question (after deciding to take questions). We should desire people, let alone reporters, to ask questions to people in power. Asking questions to people in power about natural disasters is not evil or bad. Reporters need to ask politicians questions in the face of death and destruction.

We should condemn a politician calling a reporter a bad person and evil for asking a question in the harshest language possible. In the United States, we should celebrate the exercise of free speech by the press, not attack it. Again, did the question hit too close to home?

Questions will not undo what has happened. The right questions might lead to changes that can save lives in the future. Politicians who attack reporters for asking questions undermine human decency and democracy.

You might not like the question, but you should not attack the reporter. Change the framing if you think it’s wrong, but you don’t have to make it personal. Attacking questions and questioners is what losers do.

Winners wrestle with hard questions and respect other people even when they think the question is not fair. No one ever said that life is fair. If you want to wear the crown of leadership, accept the responsibility and accountability that comes with it, especially when it does not feel fair. When you attack a reporter for asking about a natural disaster, I think it is fair to ask, why are you deflecting?

The pastor tried his hardest (from his point of view) to use feminine, masculine, and non-gendered language in worship. There was a person on the worship committee who noticed especially the pastor’s use of masculine language in liturgies, scripture readings, and hymns. The pastor’s efforts to moderate the language were not appreciated by the worship committee member.

Subscribe now

Last week I had a conversation with a pastor friend. He had just learned that a family was leaving his congregation because the church had taken part in a Pride event. The pastor pointed out that it was only a few folks in the church who took part. The church forced no one to participate. They do not have a Pride flag in the building. He felt they were trying to find a middle ground on issues related to human sexuality. The family did not appreciate the pastor and the church’s moderate (from his point of view) positions and left.

In the shower this week, I had the thought that moderation doesn’t win you many friends or points. People on extreme ends of positions do not appreciate moderates (although people who are extreme rarely feel they are being extreme). They often see moderates as traitors. Moderates should know better.

I have noticed this phenomenon in my life. It is easier for me not to get upset at a conservative Calvinist than it is at a fellow Wesleyan Arminian. If you base your theology on a lawyer, you get a theology that tries to tame and contain God. Very rational, but also makes God a monster whose plan includes the Holocaust and babies dying of cancer. I don’t get it. It’s so far removed from my point of view, I just don’t get upset by it.

I get very upset at fellow Wesleyan Arminians. Who (from my point of view) are so right on so many issues but are also frustratingly wrong on things close to my heart. For example, former United Methodists who left the United Methodist church over human sexuality (at least superficially) and joined the GMC. You have a hermeneutic that allows women to be pastors/bishops but absolutely rules out the possibility that LGBTQ persons should not get married or have the church bless their ministry. How does that work? To be fair, many left for other reasons, but there again, you read the Bible to exclude LGBTQ folks from being full members of the church, but you had no issue with all the warnings about acts of the flesh in Galatians 5 and your schismatic actions? Romans 14 doesn’t apply? Jesus did not mean his words in John 13 or 17?

In politics, moderates get attacked from both the left and the right. If you are a moderate, you get little credit for your moderation. Both extremes eye you suspiciously. The base of each party gravitates towards extremes and rewards extreme positions. Your opponents will tie you to the most extreme positions of the party you caucus with, whether or not you cosign them.

The greatest challenge for moderates is not the extremes, but that our society often frames issues in binaries. You are either for or against. Pro or con. Being neutral, agnostic, or taking a non-binary position on an issue does not win you friends on either side of the binary. If you are not fully for it, you are against the position.

This goes beyond extremes. When you feel strongly about an issue and a clearly stated position, it is hard to see people who do not fully agree with you in a positive light. It is easier to read bad motives into their point of view than it is to wrestle with why they do not fully agree with you. This is especially true when it feels like a matter of justice, or rights, or basic morality.

This is all depressing to me. My views are both left and right of center. Often (in terms of American politics and social issues) heterodox. I want to live in a world where we can value moderation and folks who operate from the center. Yet, the systems we live in reward the extremes. Binary thinking rules the roost. When you are a moderate, it is sometimes hard to have a clearly stated position because you see the world in shades of gray and contextually. Nuance propels your thought. I see the world in terms of paradoxes and tensions. I am uncomfortable with going too far on either end of the spectrum. When forced to take a position framed in a binary, I often want an asterisk.

The best hope for moderates is relationship building. People might accept your complex views if they like and trust you as a person. It’s not great for collation building unless you are trying to build a cult around yourself. But, at least in American politics and American systems, it is the only hope that moderates have in gaining traction.

In my experience, most people have complicated ways of seeing the world and issues. They may appear extreme or on one side of a binary. If you talk to them though, you realize that while they may be passionate about a few issues and mulled over them; they hold many of their other positions loosely (often so they are not in conflict with their social circles). Moderates, who can build relationships and trust, can sometimes enlist people who are not moderate to support their positions or causes. I contend moderation is a better way, but it won’t win you points, but if you do it right, hopefully friends.

As a child born in Regan’s America, in a conservative area of Pennsylvania, I internalized a lot of anti-government sentiments. When I started looking for alternative political parties, the Libertarian party intrigued me. The emphasis on personal autonomy and freedom resonated with my view of the world. Their anti-government positions made sense after years of Republican attacks on the federal government.

One libertarian contention that made sense to me was the unseen costs of government spending. Government spending looked good when you saw an end result like a bridge (that led somewhere). But you could not see was how the money would have been used had it not been taxed. Libertarians ran on the premise that the money was often not used for useful things like bridges and that private actors (individuals, businesses, corporations) would better use the money than the government. There was an unseen cost to the taxes-how the money would have been used in better ways by private actors.

With all the recent attacks on government research spending, I have been thinking about the unseen costs. In a way, the other side of the coin from the libertarian attack on taxes. In the short term, we will not see the impact. We’re riding high with decades of government research spending to make our world a better place. The short-term savings might seem good if you are eyeing giving rich individuals and corporations tax cuts.

The long-term consequences will be in the future and hard to appreciate. Break throughs in medicine will not happen. New technologies and discoveries that will be lucrative will not happen, or at least not happen in the United States. Bright and entrepreneurial people will seek their success in other places.

We cannot see the price we will pay by not making investments, but our futures as individuals and as a country will be less bright. Shortchanging the future makes sense when you have animus towards research institutions, really want tax cuts, and only care about short-term gains. It also makes sense when you don’t care about the future.

It is dangerous to elect a malignant narcissist to the highest office in the country. The Shrinking Trump podcast argues that a malignant narcissist can only destroy. I also have been thinking it might compound the danger if you were to elect a geriatric malignant narcissist. Would he or she be capable of imagining the world existing without the individual in it?

A scene in the television show Community comes to mind. In the third season of the show, the former Spanish instructor, Ben Chang, takes over the community college as a tin-pot dictator. He doesn’t throw himself a military parade for his birthday, but he does instigate a big bash to celebrate his birthday and what he thinks is his ultimate victory over his opponents. As people are fawning over him, a little girl sings this verse, “Chang eats the sun and drinks the skies and they both go with him when he dies.” In his megalomania, Chang appears to eat it up. He probably wishes it were true.

A geriatric malignant narcissist also might struggle with imagining a future where the narcissist is not the center of attention. Instead of leading the country to a strong, bright future, the impulse would be to focus on what meets one’s ego needs in the present. Burn it all down. You won’t bear the consequences. The ensuing chaos almost certainly meets a deep psychological need (at least in some malignant narcissists).

It is lamentable, though. Why I left libertarianism is that I realized it struggles with the common good. If we all act in ways that are best only for ourselves, we have the tragedy of the commons. For all of us to have rights and freedoms, and not be at the mercy of the strongest or people with the fewest scruples, we must surrender some of our autonomy for a greater good.

Funding research is a greater good. It leads to a better understanding of the world. Helps us deal with our biggest problems as individuals and as a society. Creates new opportunities for business. In the TV show Get Smart, Maxwell Smart often lamented something along the lines if only the villain used his or her powers for good instead of evil. In one episode he says, “if only he could have turned his evil genius into…niceness.” Giving geniuses the ability to use their genius for the betterment of the United States (and the world) is better than many other ways we could use the money (or ways we could use their gifts and graces as a society).

Just as government’s role in harm reduction is hard to appreciate and the consequences hard to foresee, the consequences of underfunding research are hard to fully grasp. Consequences there will be. When you are facing a serious health issue, as the climate continues to change, when another country has better AI than the United States, it will be hard to fully appreciate how we created, or did not contain, future miseries and hardships by not investing in the present. The world will go on without the president, but it will be a worse place to be because we have turned our backs on the future.

One pastor listening to the presentation contended that people of his generation, when they hear the words “gun control,” they hear politics. The presenter and the person then talked about how a younger generation might see these concerns as social justice issues and a different generation see them as political issues. Their conversation gave the impression that if its politics, that is verboten in the church's life.

I did not want to get us off track, so I kept my mouth closed. But the way they framed the conversation really bothered me. On the superficial level, I think it is better to use the words “gun violence prevention” than “gun control”. While controlling guns can be part of gun violence prevention, there are a lot of other means and methods to reduce gun violence that do not involve controlling guns in the ways that immediately come to mind.

On a deeper level, I am not sure what the difference is between social justice and politics. Social justice is just a way of framing justice work. Working for justice is inherently political. One way we publicly love our neighbor. I contend that justice work is also a spiritual discipline. Watch this sermon from the season of Lent if you want to delve deeper into my thinking about this.

One of my favorite live albums of all times is Precious Friends. Pete Seeger introduces the song “Sailin’ Up, Sailin’ Down,” on the album, by contending, “but what we do is bring people together at the edge of the river. And you know when you bring people together for any purpose whatsoever, you’re in politics.” I think he is right.

Every time a church gathers it’s political. The Greek word we translate as church is ecclesia. Greek speakers did not originally use the word for a religious gathering, but civic gatherings in Greece. Going further, saying Jesus is Lord is a political statement. For the earliest Christians, they were contending Jesus was Lord, not Caesar. Anytime we talk about the Kingdom of God/Kin-dom of God/Reign of God, we are making an attack on the political powers of this world.

Being a Christian is a political statement. The issue is not politics. Christians cannot avoid being political. Where the problem lies is partisan politics. Are we being identified with Jesus or being identified with a secular political party? This is where it gets tricky.

The first Sunday School class I taught, at my current appointment, was based on Andy Stanley’s book Not In It To Win It. In the book, Andy contends that when we pick a partisan political side, we hurt our ability to share the good news of Jesus. I believe he is right. The tougher issue is that sometimes working for justice looks partisan, even when your goal and focus is on Jesus and God’s work in the world.

This was brought home to me when I saw an article United Methodist News printed. It is entitled “Why Our Church Is In Trouble.” The author contends the United Methodist church is in trouble. Uses data to make the case. Then he engages in the correlation-causation logical fallacy.

He engages in this fallacy by then blaming the justice work of the United Methodist bishops and the General Board of Church and Society. Offers no evidence that what they are doing is the reason our church is in decline statistically speaking. It’s a neat trick. State there is a problem and then blame what you don’t like in the church for causing the problem with no evidence linking the two.

His ultimate contention is that the leadership of the United Methodist church is using their power to push an ideological agenda that is political. And from his perspective, the wrong politics. I imagine, though if you asked the bishops or talked with folks at GBCS, that is not how they see their work and ministry.

This is the problem with politics. We cannot avoid it. You gather people for a purpose, it’s political. What one person sees as an act of justice, another person sees as an act of political partisanship. Justice work in the church requires grace and humility.

We need to be gracious to others when we see they trying to discern their next faithful step and it leads to political activity. Again, we cannot avoid politics. When we work towards justice in the world, we need to be humble. Are we doing this as an act of faith or for some other reason? Will this action help my ability to share the Good News of Jesus or turn people away from Jesus?

“But its political” is not an excuse for not publicly loving our neighbors. As long as we proclaim Jesus as our Lord and gather as a church community, we are engaged in politics. Pardon the tautology, but if the church wants to be relevant, we need to be relevant. One way we are relevant is to engage in the challenging work of justice in the world.

I went to visit a couple in the church. We had a lovely visit at first. In the conversation, one of the two asked why we were using matzah for Holy Communion. I thought this was an innocent inquiry and talked about my understanding of it. In my explanation, I suggested reaching out to the Communion steward to give her feedback on it.

Reach out, she did. She yelled at the Communion steward. This upset the pastor. Who did not chastise the person who verbally attacked the Communion steward. The pastor chastised me. I did not intend to have the person go after the Communion steward. The thought never crossed my mind. It was easier though to go after me than confront the toxicity of the person upset by matzah.

Early in my ministry, I encountered people who were caustic. Caustic is a harsh adjective, but it is the most fitting one for their personalities. They could be nice, friendly, congenial, but they could be nasty too. I realized quickly a reason why people would leave the church.

My first encounter with their corrosive personalities is when I met with the staff parish relations committee before being appointed to the church. The committee was asking me questions and one person asked me about my view on a controversial issue. I shared my honest, though diplomatic, perspective. The district superintendent loved my response so much he shared it with the bishop. Everyone in the room seemed satisfied with it. The person who asked was not.

Instead of having further conversation with me about it, he took a different route. Before I got to the church, he salted the earth. The man reached out to everyone and their mothers, informing them of what I said in a confidential meeting. He wanted to know how I could be their pastor with this perspective.

When I found out about his attempts to undermine me before I started my ministry with the church, I was told not to worry about it. That is just how that person is. You just must live with it. As long as I was their pastor, I did have to find a way to coexist with his caustic nature.

He would say biting and mean-spirited things all the time. Sometimes he would dress his words in humor, but often not. At one point, he went on a crusade to get a church leader to attend Sunday School. The way he hounded her did not sit well with the leader. It got to the point where she was on the verge of leaving the church.

I tried to talk with him in a reasoned and civil manner. Saying if his goal was to get people to come to Sunday School, this was not a good tactic. He was not interested in my counsel. Instead, he wanted to know who was snitching on him. After the meeting, he told everyone that I yelled at him for inviting people to Sunday School.

He was not the only caustic person. There was another person who also could say mean and biting things to people. She one time criticized me for writing her a thank you note (to be fair-my hand writing). But whenever I brought up that their behavior was not healthy or proper, people would make excuses for their words and actions. Oh, that is just that person. Don’t take it personally. The person has always been like that.

These experiences led me to think about attractional models of church. For a time, this was a buzzword in church leadership circles. You wanted to create a church community that attracted people from the outside. I started thinking about attraction in terms of health and sickness.

Some would argue only healthy things grow. So, you could judge the health of a church by its growth. Healthy churches grow and unhealthy churches decline. It’s not true though. Cancers grow. Infections grow. I would contend unhealthy leaders and unhealthy people sometimes attract more unhealthy leaders and unhealthy people.

An unhealthy church will not appeal to a healthy person. No one healthy wants to be around caustic people. Churches that care about the emotional and spiritual health of the congregants are going to create boundaries and lines to stop caustic people. They won’t make excuses for a caustic person or turn a blind eye to the consequences of their behavior.

Toxic leaders will send up red flags to someone who is emotionally healthy. An unhealthy person though might resonate with the sickness of the toxic leader. A church can grow by attracting unhealthy people to it. Unhealthy leaders can attract unhealthy people. Sickness can resonate with sickness. We get what we sow. Sometimes unhealthy seeds produce unhealthy fruit.

Up above, I argued the contentions healthy things grow and unhealthy things decline are not true. I then contended that unhealthy things can grow. I would also contend that when a person tries to be healthy in an unhealthy situation, that often can lead to decline, not vitality.

After reading Edwin Friedman’s book A Failure of Nerve, I am convinced that our best bet for making a difference in the world is to be the healthiest version of ourselves. The problem with a healthy person in a situation, though, is that the person points out, either intentionally or unintentionally, the sickness of the situation. Unhealthy people dislike their sickness exposed. A caustic person does not see themselves as caustic. Systems form/develop and people like the system as it is and do not want the system to change. An unhealthy system depends on sickness and sometimes even attracts it.

The irony is that healthy leadership can sometimes lead to a decline in a church. Healthy leadership might be what people say the church needs, but it is not what a church might want. Systems work the way they developed to work. Health is like the light in Plato’s allegory of the cave. It may be what is best, what would benefit us most, but it hurts too much to embrace. Sometimes we prefer the darkness.

One answer is nothing. We are in a time of high polarization. The electorate swings between the two parties. Neither one really captures what the median voter wants in terms of results once in office. Wait for the other party to overreach and then highlight you are not the party in power. Unless you think 2024 marked the start of a new MAGA revolution like the Regan revolution, just wait till the pendulum swings back in your favor.

A dangerous answer would be to prepare for future political battles like they are still happening 2024. The problem is that the future will be so different that the lessons from the past will not be obvious. President Trump has likely changed everything in the political landscape. You cannot release your minions to destroy our political systems and then expect things to go back to the way they were.

We live in times of high uncertainty. Firing so many people, destroying so many norms, disregarding traditions, threatening friends and allies, undermining the post WW II international social order, recklessly starting trade wars, for better or worse, we are in a new era. What can one do when the future is so up in the air?

Not go back to the past. There is a phenomenon in life where we prepare for the future by looking at our mistakes in the past. In some ways, this is proper. An aspect of building wisdom. Yet, I have noticed as a pastor, we often perhaps absorb the wrong lessons. We learn what not to do in the past, but that lesson does not translate well to future problems.

Churches change over time in terms of composition. The communities and larger society changes. Onetime anomalies and mistakes loom large in the collective mind. Past successes also loom large-especially when looking at other perceived successes in other churches. If a church in a different locality did this well two years and succeeded in our eyes, why can’t we? Congregants are just as likely to say yes to something that worked a few years ago at a different church in a different context as they are to say no to something new that reminds them of something from the past in their own context.

In the military, war planners often plan for the future based on the past. You enter a war prepared for how militaries deployed technologies, tactics, and strategies in the last war, not fully appreciating how the technology has changed or how tactics or strategies will change in this new context. Success depends, in part, on dealing with the world as it is now, not as it was in the last war.

The same is true in political battles. Until you are on the field of battle, you do not know what your opposition looks like, what tactics they will deploy, or how voters will respond to the moment. So instead of fretting about what did not work and re-litigating what happened, it’s better to be yourself and fight for what you believe in. 

Know what you stand for-what values matter most to you? What harms are breaking your heart? How can you offer a story of hope that offers a real alternative to your opponents? Are you willing to live and make real your values now? Looking behind will not move us forward. What the world needs is an alternative that is genuine and compellingly different from what is being offered in the moment.

Funny how fallin’ feels like flyin’/For a little while/Funny how fallin’ feels like flyin’/For a little while

You never see it comin’ till its gone/It all happens for a reason /Even when its wrong/Especially when its wrong

We don’t know what the future holds. There is no way to know what good, evil, or change will come from all of this. Yet, just because you think you are flying or someone is soaring, they may actually be falling. Worse yet, they may land on us.

 The biggest problem of the government is that it’s in the harm reduction business. What the federal government does best is reduce the harms of living in a complex society and world. We don’t really appreciate what makes the government great because it’s hard to appreciate the absence of great harm, disaster, or calamity. When diplomats avert a war, when bad actors think twice because of the might of the US military, when social service programs help the marginalized, when the law makes the world a little fairer, we don’t see it. Or we feel entitled to the benefits that stream from the government functioning, not acknowledging the hard work people are putting in to create those benefits. It’s easy to see where we fail as a society. Harder to celebrate that things are not as bad as they could be.

When you blow everything up, we may not see the harms right away. We won’t realize we are missing the benefits of research programs, if started now, that could change the world in ten years. Hard to say when preparing for a disaster will pay off, but when there is a disaster, you will be glad you tried. Soft power makes the world a better place, but it’s not glamorous or glitzy. Easy to attack. We will miss it if we could understand the good it does.

It’s easy to attack complicated systems. You can always identify failure points. Our world on this side of the eschatological divide will never be what we dream it could be. Harm reduction is arduous work. The end result always leaves something to be desired. But it takes a certain level of arrogance to destroy things. Have us metaphorically leap into the unknown. Claim we are flying when we are really falling. I lament what happens after a little while.

It is not wrong to be concerned about the health of others. Wanting to assist people to get vaccines, if they cannot get them on their own, is also not wrong. What makes this program morally comprised, and open to criticisms, are the reasons behind it. If your driving motivation is that General Conference needs to happen in 2022 (as stated by Renfore) and you need delegates to be vaccinated so you can have the General Conference in 2022 (and not have it canceled again)-you are using people and that is wrong. 

Again, it seems absurd this needs to be said, but the ends do not justify the means. It is wrong to treat people as a means to an end. When you offer to vaccinate people only because you need them to achieve your own end of having General Conference-that is wrong. Jesus said, “do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31, NRSV). Most of us do not want to be used by others for their own ends. 

Yes, we want resolution in United Methodist church. Living in a liminal space is challenging. Let’s be honest though, General Conference does not need to happen in 2022. The world will still spin. Tides will rise and fall. The church will still proclaim the good news of Jesus and the reign of God. 

It is so easy to get fixated on our own goal, and the potential upsides of it, we cannot see why it is morally and ethically problematic. Good people, with good intentions, can still do things that are morally problematic. We fall into danger when we justify the means by the perceived good of the goal. Let’s be candid though. Most of us are not really that good and we cannot divorce our motivations from our self-interest. Using people to achieve your own ends is wrong, even if you mean well.

Less than two weeks before our session of the annual conference, the trustees of the conference sent us an email with one paragraph announcing that they would propose a resolution to approve the disaffiliation of a church in our annual conference using paragraph 2553 of the Book of Discipline. They sent a new email this week with revisions, but still one paragraph. I found this upsetting.Last year we had churches request disaffiliation. We barely received any information about their requests other than the conference trustees approved their requests. It kind of bothered me, but I did not think too hard about why it bothered me. After seeing what happened in New England last week, I now have a better understanding of why this all bothers me. At the heart of it, we do not know what we are voting on. The disparity in the disaffiliation process and disclosure between our conference and New England is troubling. They knew what they were voting for and why. Members of our conference do not really know what they are voting for in the disaffiliation resolution.

What exactly does the congregation disagree with in terms of the decisions made at the 2019 General Conference? Are their consciences bothered the UMC became more punitive? Is it upsetting to them we strengthened the position we have had since 1972? Does this church in Perry county yearn for a more inclusive future?

Do we know what real property and assets the conference will lose? Did anyone do a missional impact study to see what disaffiliation means for the congregation, the community, and the conference? Did the congregation have a discernment process or is this an excuse, not a matter of conscience, to leave the denomination?

I discovered last week that other conferences are handling disaffiliation differently. A pastor I highly respect in the New England Annual Conference is going through the process of disaffiliation with her congregation and two other churches in Maine. As I was seeing people post on Facebook about it and the controversy in the annual conference session related to the disaffiliation resolutions, I was curious what sort of information they presented to the conference. So I looked at their pre-conference workbook. 

Looking at the Pre-Conference Workbook there is a huge disparity between what we can find in the New England Conference workbook and what the trustees of our conference have given us in terms of documentation. The church she serves submitted:

• a Disaffiliation Agreement

• Community and Constituent input from the church requesting disaffiliation

• A letter from the conference chancellor

• The theological and missional foundations for requesting disaffiliation 

• A discernment report 

• An inventory of tangible property owned by the church

• An impact statement from the Annual Conference leadership

The other churches requesting disaffiliation submitted similar documents. Again, our conference received a paragraph with very few details. I contend we do not know what we are voting on. We do not know if anyone did due diligence. Obviously, the trustees would contend that they did due diligence, but where is the work?

Some might make a case that the documentation for the New England conference is excessive. I believe I could make a stronger case that our process is inadequate and/or lacks transparency. Without documentation, we do not know what we are voting on and that is troubling to me.  

In theory, I think we should bless churches that have discerned that they need to leave the UMC. It is heartbreaking, but we reap what we sow. I appreciate how the New England Conference shows the due diligence and discernment behind the process in their annual conference. I wish the Susquehanna Conference had the same standards and/or level of transparency. When we vote, I do not think I will protest the vote or speak against it, but our approach is problematic. Again, we do not know what we are voting for or against at Annual Conference in terms of disaffiliation of this congregation.  

Where does the Reverend Adam Hamilton argue against the Doctrinal Standards of the United Methodist Church? Which centrist is arguing we abandon having doctrinal standards? Until you can prove a centrist is arguing against the Doctrinal Standards of the United Methodist Church, then it is pretty safe to assume that they would be the starting place for any conversation about boundaries.

No one, as far as I can tell, is contending for a church where there are no boundaries and consequences for violating the crossing of boundaries. Let us pretend for a moment this is not really about power and that everyone is disagreeing in good faith. The biggest area of contention is the Social Principles of the UMC and, in particular, the human sexuality section. It is not wrong for United Methodists to disagree with a social principle. Every General Conference we change the Social Principles.

Christians may disagree with each other. If you read the New Testament, we see Christians disagreeing with each other. Paul did not write his famous love chapter because some Corinthians were getting married. While Paul had clear opinions about who was right in the debate about what is acceptable to eat in Romans 14, or which day to hold as sacred, Paul encourages them to honor each other and live out their convictions as an expression of their life lived in Jesus.

Paul would not say anything goes (read Galatians). He also believes that strife/anger/quarrels/dissensions/factions are the works of the flesh, not from God (read Galatians). So we have to hold in tension that there are non-negotiable on the one hand, but also that we may disagree with each other too.

As United Methodists, we have our doctrinal standards. While theoretically changeable, they do not change easily or often. Until the Reverend Adam Hamilton or some other prominent centrist starts arguing otherwise, I think it is safe to assume that they are our boundaries. 

The bigger issue might be that the Reverend Stephen Rankin is not a fan of our doctrinal standards. They might not be as “clear and enforceable” as he would like them to be. Perhaps he disagrees with the Book of Disciplines enforcement mechanisms for persons teaching against the Doctrinal Standards of the UMC. The good news is that we may disagree with the Book of Discipline and work to change it. It is disingenuous to argue centrists do not have core doctrines, boundaries, or uncrossable lines.

When I was in policy debate in high school, an opposing team once argued that we should not be talking about a potentially dangerous situation, because the more we talked about it, the more likely it was to occur.  After hearing their contention, I was incensed.  The argument was so generic it could be used against almost any case.  I also wondered how true it was.  Can talk make a situation more likely to happen?

While there are some potentially dangerous situations that are not changed by the frequency of conversation (venomous snakes for example), some dangerous situations arise because they become part of our discourse.  Some problems will never develop unless they are named and made real by words.  In a world of almost infinite possibilities, some possibilities need the catalyst of our words for them to ever be likely.  Words can take a possibility that was on the periphery and make it the focus.  Our words can do this several ways.

First, we find power in naming problems.  Once named, we can then frame the problem.  With a problem properly named and framed, a person can offer a solution.  If you set the parameters for debate and define the issues, then it is much easier to offer a solution.  When you offer your preferred solution with your preferred outcome, you have power.  Without the naming and the framing, people might not have worried about it.  Even if they were concerned, your preferred solution seems better, because of how you named and framed the problem.

Second, naming a problem often hides other problems.  Some say that the problem in the United Methodist Church is that United Methodists are violating the Book of Discipline. These violations are causing stress and harm in the life of the church.  In naming and defining the problem this way, we are ignoring other problems that I would argue are deeper.  Problems such as an absence of love, too little compassion, diminished empathy,  a desire for power, self-righteousness, and/or a lack of self-awareness.  It is easy to name superficial problems, it is harder to deal with the problems we find hidden in our hearts.

Third, the more we talk about the problem, the more we set expectations about the problem.  If we talk about our problem using the language of schism, the harder it is to see a different end result.  When we use the language of winning and losing around the problem, it is hard to imagine a future where there are no winners and losers.  Language has power.  Using the language of “problems” gives us a different mindset than if we are using the language of dancing.

Language and words define our reality.  As we define our reality, our actions follow suit.  Perhaps our biggest issue as a church is the failure of imagination.  I wonder what would be different if the church developed and used a different set of words when talking about our ministry together.  What would church life be like if our language was built on ideas like faith, hope, love, beauty, truth, humility, justice, and creativity?  Instead, we use words rooted in war, conflict, arrogance, and power.

With our failures to imagine a different way, some want the church as it exists now to die.  They think it is beyond redeeming.  I would contend though that if we let schism prevail, we may not actually be solving our real difficulties.  If our problems are rooted deep in our hearts, then breaking up the church will not resolve them.  Those problems will still be there and they will still cause us pain.

Daring to believe that Love can change the world

One of my favorite songs is Aaron Niequist’s “Love Can Change the World.”  In the song, Aaron raises the question, “Oh do we still believe that Love-Love can change the world?”  It is a good question for United Methodists to wrestle with.  Do we believe that love can change the world?

Jesus does not spend a lot of time talking about schism in the Gospels.  He does spend a lot of time talking about love.  Love God.  Love your neighbor.  Let the world know you are his disciples by your love.  Love your enemy.  Love, in some form or another, should propel us to act in the world.

Most United Methodists know Jesus’ teachings on love.  Sunday school teachers teach the children to love.  Preachers preach on love.  Our hymns celebrate God’s love and invite us to love one another.  An outside observer might think we are a bit pollyannaish in the ways we focus on love.

Love though is not pollyannaish.  Loving God with all our heart, soul, and mind can be difficult.  Loving our neighbor proves easier to say than do.  Letting the world know we are followers of Jesus by our love proves ever more daunting.

If we give up on the call to love though, what does that say about Jesus?  Does Jesus’ teachings and ministry matter if we cannot practice the most important invitation – to love?  When we are advocating schism, setting the stage for a church split, disparaging those we disagree with in the church, naming and defining problems in ways that lead disunity, what does that say about Jesus?  Can we claim to be disciples and show so little love?

Schism does not solve our problems related to love.  It just entrenches them.  If we cannot act in love now when things are terribly difficult, how are we going to grow in our capacity for love?  By abandoning the chance to act in love when it is hardest?  Setting a precedent that when things are difficult, it is better to give up?

If the Bible is true, then the mandate to love has to be our highest aspiration.  The only way for the world to know if the Bible is true is by our actions.  How “true the Bible is” depends on how seriously we take it.  The truth of the Bible is most evident in our words, our actions, our silences, and our pauses.  When it is hard to love that is when love is most needed.  The light of Christ shines most brightly in the darkest moments.  If we are to be the light of the world then love is what gives our lives illumination.

Jesus often pointed out to the good religious folk of his day that they were missing God’s highest call to love.  They got so caught up in their understanding of God that they could not see God incarnate in their midst.  When Jesus challenged them to love and expressed love to the least and the lost, they attacked Jesus.  We are not better if love is not our driving motivation.

United Methodists should be able to agree on the importance of love.  It is at the heart of Jesus’ life, ministry, death, and resurrection.  The church needs more actions of love and less talk of schism.  United Methodists should be to agree that the world needs Jesus, but Jesus will only be known by our love.

In these fear laden speeches, we were assured that they were all for equality in the life of the church as long as gender means female and male, but we need to worry about the future.  With Facebook, states, and cities recognizing that gender might not be binary, we might regret including constitutional protections related to gender.

Using coded language, dog whistles, and fear, they wanted to scare folks about voting in the affirmative.  Without stating outright their implicit belief that we should have the right to discriminate against some people because of how they understand their gender, they tried to create a sense of anxiety about voting yes instead.  It sounds wrong to state outright what they mean.  The part of the Book of Discipline we were voting to change contends “The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth” (Article IV of the Constitution).  My l’esprit de l’escalier is “what person of sacred worth should we discriminate against?”

Folks who use fear in the life of the church should be ashamed.  Fear is the opposite of faith.  Instead of trusting in God and loving our neighbor, fear turns us inward and creates distrust between neighbors.  Opponents of constitutional amendment two should just say outright what they think, that even though everyone is of sacred worth, they should have the right to discriminate against folks who do not fit into their narrow selection of categories.  Any step towards ending discrimination now would be an infringement of their right to discriminate in the future.  It would be one more step away from some glorious and golden past they wish we could return to.

If as a church, we are going to peddle fear, we might as well just stop being the church.  We are not called to fear, we are called to faith.  Faith in Jesus challenges us not to discriminate, especially against marginalized people.  While the good religious folk of his day spent their time trying to be as pure as possible by avoiding the marginalized, Jesus spent his time with the folks no one else wanted to spend time with.  The same people the good religious folks discriminated against.  People complained about who Jesus spent his time with.  Jesus did not critique the folks on the margins, but the good religious folk who had their priorities in the wrong place.

When we peddle fear in the life of the church – are we being Jesus for the world?  Who exactly would Jesus encourage us to exclude from full participation in the life of the church because their understanding of their own gender was not binary?  If we have to use fear to make our point, perhaps our point is not coming from a place of faith.  If our point is not coming from our faith in Jesus the Christ then we probably should not be making it.  Instead, we should be praying for more faith and less fear.

A week later I received a phone call.  The pastor told me that families should be allowed to ask whoever they want to preside over weddings and funerals.  What the pastor did was not in anyway undermining my ministry.  From the pastor’s perspective, the only issue was not calling me first.

We had very different perspectives on the situation.  It was clear from our phone call that both of us had trouble appreciating the other person’s perspective.  When it was clear that we were coming at it from very different perspectives and we were not going to find common ground, we just ended the call.  I am not sure if the other pastor left the conversation hurt, but I know I did.

Perspective is one of hardest issues we deal with as Christians.  We all can look at situations very differently.  Look no further than the 2016 US Presidential election.  I was eating with some fellow Christians and one raised a concern about the election.  He said that one of the candidates was a pathological liar, and he would let us fill in the blank of who that candidate is.  It became clear that I filled in the blank wrong in my mind as he kept talking. Different people see totally different things in the candidates.  Where one person sees a candidate who could help the country, someone else sees a candidate that could potentially ruin the country.

Our differing perspectives make being a church difficult.  It is very hard to have conversations about controversial issues when the parties involved have very different perspectives on the issue.  People can be faithful disciples of Jesus, earnestly seeking God’s will, and come to different conclusions on issues.

I would argue that at the moment, the United Methodist church lacks enough perspective to make any definitive decisions about the future of the church.  As people prepare for schism, argue over who started the schism, and are really nasty to each other on social media, it would be helpful for us to put things in proper perspective.

Ideally, we want God’s perspective.  When we cannot agree on God’s perspective over a particular issue, then it might be helpful to look at what the Bible says to do when we cannot agree on issues related to our faith.  Time and time again it says love.  We are to be known by our love according to Jesus.  Paul tells a fractious church in Corinth to act in love.

Nowhere does it say fight with each other in a death match.  Unity, not schism, is held up as the ideal.  If we cannot act in love towards each other than how can we love those God calls us to love?  If we cannot ascribe the best motivations to our fellow United Methodists that we disagree with, and see their attempts at faithfulness, then what is the point of being a follower of Jesus?

We are called to love each other.  Love is not an emotion, but how we treat each other.  Instead of seeing our struggles as a crisis that needs to be dealt in hurtful ways, we could see it as an opportunity to put our faith into action.  If we can learn to love each other in the midst of differing and important perspectives, then perhaps we can offer a fractious world a witness to something different.

The problems we have over differing perspectives on wedge issues are not the real problems.  Our real problem is that our perspective is focused on the wrong things.  We should be focused on how we can act in love with each other in the midst of disagreement as a witness to what Jesus told us to do.  Instead our focus seems to be on something less than love.

Having differing perspectives is hurtful.  No matter what we do going forward, people will be hurt.  The issue though is how do we respond to the hurt and pain.  What will our perspective be in the midst of it?  Winning? Self-righteousness? Power?  God’s radical call to love?

Mr. Fritzsche frames an issue in the life of the church as an intractable dichotomy that cannot be resolved.  While acknowledging there might be deeper issues, he focuses on what he calls “sexual ethics and morality.”  In his exploration of this issue, he uses an analogy of marriage.  The question he shapes his argument with is “Can a marriage really survive with two diametrically opposed views on sexual morality?”  I respectfully disagree.  I challenge two aspects of his argument: the first is whether the marriage analogy is appropriate, and second that there are only two sides on the issue of sexual ethics and morality.

First, United Methodists commitments to each other are not the same as the commitments between two married persons.  Any United Methodist can withdraw from the church.  No one is legally obligated to be part of the church.  Persons wanting to leave can inform their pastors or bishops.

Leaving a marriage in the United States is more difficult.  It requires lawyers and the legal system.  If being a member of the United Methodist church is so onerous that dealing with the messiness of the church is too much too bear, the person can leave.  Legally, a person cannot just leave a marriage in the United States.  If we, as individuals, are together as a church, it is because we want to be on some level, not because of some previous commitment that would make leaving legally difficult.

While marriages can have more than two partners, Mr. Fritzsche frames his analogy in terms of a two partner marriage.  Marriage in this context is between two persons.  There are no two analogous persons in the United Methodist church.  The church is a partnership between millions of people around the globe.  We all freely entered it, and we are all free to leave it.

Secondly, there are not two diametrically opposed groups in the United Methodist church.  United Methodist views on any subject are different and fit on a spectrum.  Even on the issue of sexual ethics and morality people’s views in the church are varied and do not fit neatly into two categories.  It would be easier if there were only two groups with perspectives that were unchanging and the same on every issue.

Our varied views, however, are not set in stone.  They may change overtime.  A marriage might not survive if two partners have different understandings of sexual morality and act on those differences, but we are a church of millions of people with potentially millions of different understandings on any given issue.  We can survive and have survived with differing understandings on many things.

Mr. Fritzsche’s slavery example is problematic too.  The split of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1844 did not occur because one day a bishop decided he wanted to own slaves.  It is more complicated and nuanced than that.  Just because the Methodist Episcopal Church split over slavery, does not mean that the United Methodist Church has to split over the wedge issue of sexual ethics and morality (or whatever wedge issue might be used).

It is still not clear to me why we are at the point of breakup.  Why is the time now right?  Mr. Fritzsche may not be willing to live with with the messiness of our current situation, but no one is making him.  If it is really that important that he is part of a church that is not messy, then he can leave.  Not all of us want a separation.  There is an alternative to separation, and that is to work through the messiness.

Messiness allows to practice our discipleship.  Praying for our enemies.  Loving those who hurt us.  Depending on the Spirit.  Waiting for God’s time.  Practicing discernment, self-reflection, and repentance.  Remembering and exemplifying what will last in the age to come: faith, love, and hope.  What if our disagreements are not problems to be solved, but tensions to live with that create opportunities to grow and be changed?

This is not easy work.  Being a disciple with other disciples can be challenging.  Human relationships are often messy.  There may be deeper and more intractable issues that Mr. Fritzsche hints at in the first and last paragraphs of his post, but I would contend that the perception of intractability might only be a condition of an unwillingness to live with the blessings and hurts of messiness.

Salvation in the Bible takes time.  God did not immediately free the slaves in Egypt.  When the people of Israel were being oppressed by their neighbors, God would not instantly give them a judge.  People would often have to live in tension.

God would even sometimes create tension.  I have been leading a Bible study on 1 Samuel during the season of Easter and beyond.  It amazes me that God would anoint two kings.  Two different people were competing for the love and loyalty of the people – both anointed by God.  Saul, David, and the people of Israel would have to live in tension.  It would take many years for the definitive will of God to be made known on what direction God wanted to go.

When we read the Bible, we forget how much time passes between events.  How often people had to live in tension with the problems they faced and the hope that God would save them from those problems.  How long did the Israelites live in Babylon as captives?  God’s will and God’s desires are often only seen clearly overtime.

The United Methodist church is not the first church to have conflict.  Paul writes to the Corinthians about their conflicts over spiritual gifts.  They had real issues on how to use and express their gifts in worship and the life of the community.  The situation was fraught with tension.

Paul did not give them a simple solution.  Instead, he offered them a way through the tension.  Most Christians know 1 Corinthians 13.  It is Paul’s solution for how to navigate the tensions the Corinthians were facing.

What Paul offered the church is the excellent way of being in the world called love.  They might not agree with each other, but they could act in love towards each other.  Instead of telling them what to do, he offered them a way of being.  Would this way solve all their tensions?  No, but it would help them stay in community with each other.

As a church, we do not need more solutions or ideas.  We need to learn the way of love and how to live with tension.  Paul gives the hallmarks of love in 1 Corinthians 13.  He encourages them to act in love because we only see dimly now.  If we do not know everything, and we cannot see everything clearly, then we must humbly act in love.

The things of this age will pass away according to Paul.  Spiritual gifts, victories, and even denominations will come to an end.  What ultimately lasts and what ultimately matters are ways of being in Christ – faith, love, and hope.  General Conference, the bishops, even twitter, cannot offer a solution to solve the tensions we face.  It may take many years for these tensions to be resolved.  What we can do, and must do, if we want to be a church and a witness to our faith in Jesus, is act in love.

One major situation in the life of the United Methodist church are issues related to human sexuality.  I have been wrestling with is the question is this situation a conflict that needs to be solved, or a tension that we could live with for the foreseeable future?  When we identify a situation as a conflict, it becomes a problem that we need to solve.  Sides are formed and anyone on the wrong side is exasperating the problem.  It is hard to live with a situation where it is seen as a problem.

Framing a situation as a problem is seductive.  Problems need to be solved.  If you can name a problem, people then want to know how you think we should solve the problem.  Naming problems in ways that appeals to others builds support for your solution(s).  If you can make the problem into a crisis you can create real power.  See Professor Thomas Long’s introduction in his 2002 edition of Polity, Practice, and the Mission of the United Methodist Church.

A case could be made that the issues related to human sexuality in the United Methodist church are tensions and not conflicts using Stanley’s questions.  The issues related to human sexuality keep resurfacing.  While there are many sides involved in this tension, there are mature advocates on the different sides.  Stanley’s third question is the hardest to conceptualize in terms of our issues with human sexuality in the UMC.

With many different sides, each might be claiming the same ground and the same values.  The Bible, God’s truth, and God’s grace could be claimed by the many different sides of this situation.  Interdependency then is hard to prove.  In the podcast, Stanley gives tensions such as spending time at work versus spending time with family, or the tension between quality versus stewardship.  Siding with one of the aspects of the tension would ultimately undermine that aspect overtime.  Spend too much time with your family and you lose your job.  If you spend too much time with your job, you ultimately lose your family.

Since there are so many different sides related to the situation of human sexuality in the church it is hard to prove interdependency.  Many of the sides offer various solutions.  The solutions and sides that would try to solve the problem may find that they are undermining their position and side in unexpected ways.  If this is over power (whether we will admit it or not) in the church, will they really have more power if we adopt their solution?  If this is over God’s truth, what truths and ideas will be lost if they achieve what they want?  If this is over God’s grace, will God’s grace be better exemplified by the church siding with their position?

Tensions instead of being solved, need to be managed.  Living with a tension is not an easy job.  We all can get frustrated and upset in the process.  As we wrestle with grace, truth, and power, we will feel like others are wrong in their understanding of grace, truth, and power  Yet, if it is a tension that we agree to live with, we can work to acknowledge the various sides and that their perspectives and concerns are needed.  While we cannot solve the tension, we can work to do the most good while living with it, and reduce the most harm from it.  In the process of living with the tension, we can model love and offer a witness to the world of what it means to be a follower of Jesus.

I have been reading David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest.  As I read Halberstam’s understanding of how the United States became involved in Vietnam, one striking theme is the desire by key government officials to stop dissent.  The military and political leaders actively squashed most voices who opposed ever increasing military and political involvement in Vietnam.  People were promoted for saying what the elites wanted to hear, not what needed to be said.

Quashing of dissent led to many negative consequences.  Truth was lost/ignored in the decision making process.  Quality leaders were burned by those in power and their expertise was consequently driven out of public service.  The country became more and more involved in Vietnam without really weighing what that meant.  Politicians and military leaders made decisions and then future conversations/reports/subsequent decisions were made to conform to the direction the previous decision’s desired.

The call for schism (no matter how pleasant we make it sound by using words like amicable separation) is a call to quash dissent.  We are basically saying that we no longer want to be in relationships with those who disagree with us.  Their voices are no longer welcome in our presence.  Homogeneity is our mantra.  Actions that make us pause and discern have become a burden.

Schism when wrapped with a bow and gilded with flowery language might sound good.  There are people in the church who are unhappy with what others are doing in the church.  It is a painful time to be United Methodists.  There are alternatives to schism.

As God’s people we could choose to live in tension.  Wrestle with our differences.  Experience the blessings and hurts similar to what Jacob experienced at Jabbok.  Live with many questions.  Wait until God’s will becomes clear.  Learn to love those we disagree with.  Turn the other cheek when others act in ways that hurt us.

We could also choose schism.  Drive out those who disagree with us.  Live in certainty of our own rightness.  Make the people of God choose sides.  Frame those who oppose us in the most demeaning ways.  Practice instant gratification instead of patiently waiting on God’s timing.

When we drive out the dissenters, when we are surrounded by people who all agree with us (at least initially), will we be closer to the truth of God?  The apostle Paul said that we can only see dimly now.  Paul tells the church that in the midst of conflict we should choose the most excellent way of love as our way of being.  Will we see clearer when no one offers an alternate view?  Is schism choosing love?

Some might argue that choosing schism is an act of love.  They might contend the Spirit would want us to do this.  A call for schism is basically saying some of us are on God’s side, some of us are not, and we no longer want to be in association with those who are on the wrong side.

Who is on the Spirit’s side though?  Is the desire for schism from our sinful nature or from the Spirit at work in our lives?  After reading Galatians 5, can we say it is sin or the Spirit that puts in the heart of some the call for schism?  A call for schism in the life of the church comes from a questionable place.

Will our differences be worked out in the short term?  No.  The truth is that they do not have to be.  We can be the church and disagree with each other.  Anyone who draws a line in the sand has only much power as we give the person.  My suggestion is that embrace disagreement and unity instead of agreement and disunity.

Disagreement and dissension can be positive forces in the life of the church.  If we choose healthy ways to resolve our conflict and practice good communication, we can live in tension.  We can show grace in our hurts.  The United Methodist church could model for the world what it means to act in love even in the midst of disagreement.  With patience, time, and by the grace of God, we might ultimately discern a course of action that we all can agree is from God. In the meantime, we could focus on our love of Christ and our purpose of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.