2013 Doctrines Series: #2 – Creation

The opening words of the Bible in Genesis 1:1 are, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”  These words are echoed in the opening words of the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
The belief that God created the universe is a common doctrine that should and does untie all Christians.  However, not all Christians agree about how God created the universe.
Genesis tells the story of God creating the universe in stages over six days.  Many Christian who wish to take the Bible literally believe that the universe was created in six literal 24 hour days.  I have nothing but the deepest respect for these folks and their high view of Scripture.
However, many other Christians would like to say that the six days of creation in Genesis are figurative of God creating in stages over time, perhaps even billions of years, rather the literal days.  The Hebrew word “yom” which is translated “day” in Genesis 1 can also be translated as “age,” or an unspecified period of time.  Many would even go so far as to say that God created through the process of evolution.  I also admire these Christians because they are trying to integrate their faith in God with the discoveries of science.
The point is that the belief that God created the universe is a basic tenant and doctrine of the Christian faith.  One simply cannot be a Christian without believing in creation.
However, the real meaning of the doctrine of creation does not have as much to do with stars and planets, rocks and trees, and birds, fish, and animals, as it does with human beings.  God created the whole universe just so he could create us.  Genesis 1:26-27 tells us that God created human beings in his imagine capable of love, wisdom, and creativity but also free to make our own choices.  (I will say more about this freedom of choice in a future article.)  And God does not stop with creating humanity in general; he creates each of us individually in his image.  Psalm 139:13 tells us that God knits us together in our mother’s womb.
God created us to be in a relationship with him, to love and worship him.  St. Augustine, who died in the year 430, said, “You have made us for yourself, O God, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in you.”
Also implied in the doctrine of creation is our responsibility to care for the creation.  In Genesis God creates Adam and Eve to care for the Garden of Eden.
In conclusion, God created the whole universe.  God especially created human beings in his image.  God created us to be in a relationship with him and to care for his creation.

2013 Doctrines Series: #1 – Revelation

During 2013 I will be using my newsletter articles to address core Christian doctrines.  I am going to be using and defining the technical terms that are used by pastors and theologians.  So this will be a kind of brief twelve part systematic theology.  This month I will be discussing the doctrine of revelation.
The doctrine of revelation does not refer to the Book of Revelation or to the End Times, but rather it is the doctrine that says that God has revealed himself, has made himself known, has disclosed himself and his will, to us.
The doctrine of revelation assumes the existence of God but teaches us that, on our own, apart from God’s revelation, we cannot know that God exists or know anything about him.  Fortunately for us, God has made revelation available to each and every human being, if only we will pay attention.  Ecclesiastes 3:11 says that God has, “set eternity in the heart of every person.”
The doctrine of revelation is divided into two main types of revelation: general revelation and special revelation.  There is also a third type that is often called private or personal revelation.
General revelation is how God is revealed in nature through creation.  Romans 1:19-20 says, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse.”  The doctrine of general revelation says that God reveals himself to all of us through nature, so no one can claim ignorance.  If we respond to general revelation and begin to seek to know more about God, God will reveal himself to us more and more.  Hebrews 11:6 says, “Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him,” and in Jeremiah 29:13 God says, “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.”
But we have to be careful; general revelation will only take us so far.  If we do not take the next step and seek God in special revelation, we will end up with an empty “Man Upstairs” kind of faith which the Bible warns against in James 2:19, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.”  Even Jesus said in Matthew 7:21, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”  We must move beyond general revelation to special revelation.
Special revelation is a fancy way of referring to God’s revelation in the Bible.  2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.”  (Inspiration is also a theological term that is used to describe the way in which the Holy Spirit inspired the human authors of the Bible to write, and the way the Holy Spirit has inspired the Church to collect, translate, and interpret the Scripture right down to today.)  The only way we can really know who God is and what God wants is through the Bible.
While it is up to us to interpret and apply the Bible to our lives, and while those interpretations can and will vary from person to person, from place to place, and from time to time, we cannot simply pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe and obey and which ones not to.  If we do that the Bible falls apart.
The main thing to remember in order to help us understand the Bible is that the Bible, from beginning to end, is about Jesus.  From Genesis all the way through the Old Testament we are told about the Messiah who was to come.  In the New Testament we are told that Jesus is that Messiah and that he came to earth, died, rose again, ascended into heaven, and will return to earth one day to establish his Kingdom.  Perhaps John does the best job of describing the purpose, not only his Gospel, but the whole Bible in John 20:30-31, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book.  But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.”
As United Methodists we have a tool that has come to be known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.  It has four sides: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.  Of these Scripture is primary and the other three are used to help interpret, understand, and apply Scripture.
Finally, there is also a doctrine of personal or private revelation.  These are revelations that God makes to us by the Holy Spirit as individuals.  Usually these come in the form of strong impressions, feelings, and insights that we get from prayer or Bible study.   God may help us understand something better, or call us to do something specific.  However, some people in history have reported having dreams, seeing visions, or even hearing an audible voice.
John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement, described an experience in which his heart was “strangely warmed” during a meeting on Aldersgate Street in London.  This moment of personal revelation would become a new beginning for Wesley and would result in the United Methodist Church we know today.
We must use EXTREME CAUTION here to make sure that it is God who is speaking and not our own imaginations, or worse.  A personal revelation will never ever contradict the Bible.  If we feel that we have had a personal revelation we need to check it against the Bible and consult with other Christians in the Church to make sure we are not getting off track.
The whole point of the doctrine of Revelation is that God wants us to know him, and that we can know him and have a relationship with him, because he has revealed himself to us.        

“The UMC and the Issues 2012: Church and State”

This is my last article in my “UMC and the Issues” series and this month we will be finishing up with the issue of the relationship between the church and the state.

In the U.S. we have a strong commitment to keeping the church and the government separate.  This was born out of what our founders saw in Europe where the church exercised power through the government and vice-versa and where religious wars were fought between the European powers.

The first amendment of the United States Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  This means that the government cannot establish, favor, or support any religion as an official religion and that the government cannot interfere with any individual in the practice of their own religion.

The Social Principles of the United Methodist Church state, “The United Methodist Church has for many years supported the separation of church and state. In some parts of the world this separation has guaranteed the diversity of religious expressions and the freedom to worship God according to each person's conscience. Separation of church and state means no organic union of the two, but it does permit interaction. The state should not use its authority to promote particular religious beliefs (including atheism), nor should it require prayer or worship in the public schools, but it should leave students free to practice their own religious convictions. We believe that the state should not attempt to control the church, nor should the church seek to dominate the state. The rightful and vital separation of church and state, which has served the cause of religious liberty, should not be misconstrued as the abolition of all religious expression from public life.”  (Discipline paragraph 164C)

The places where this issue comes up the most in our time are in public prayer, especially in schools, and in public religious displays like a Nativity scene or the Ten Commandments.  These are the places among others where “establishment” and “free exercise” come head to head.  For instance, students praying by themselves, or as a group, is free exercise; a teacher praying while a class is forced to listen, or to recite, is establishment.  A Nativity scene or a Ten Commandments monument on a courthouse lawn, as long as it is paid for with private money, in my opinion, would be free exercise, not establishment.  However, not everyone would agree with me.

What distresses me about this issue is that so often “Christians” can become difficult and disrespectful about it.  While we do need to exercise our rights and we do need to speak out and share our faith, we need to remember that our mission is to share the Good News and we can never do that by being disrespectful.    

The UMC and the Issues 2012: Immigration

            Immigration is a very hot issue right now.  Many Americans feel very torn because America has always prided itself as a land of opportunity that has always been ready to welcome people from all over the world.  After all, most of us are descendants of immigrants.  However, we also acknowledge that we do need to have some system of control at our borders.  The question then becomes whether or not that system is fair and effective.  Another question arises when we realize that many people who are undocumented have been in this country for years, have worked hard, have been otherwise law abiding, have bought homes, built lives, and raised families.  These are complex questions that I cannot answer here.

            The position of the United Methodist Church is less concerned about the legal status of immigrants than about their status and treatment as persons.

We recognize, embrace, and affirm all persons, regardless of country of origin, as members of the family of God. We affirm the right of all persons to equal opportunities for employment, access to housing, health care, education, and freedom from social discrimination. We urge the Church and society to recognize the gifts, contributions, and struggles of those who are immigrants and to advocate for justice for all. (Book of Discipline 2008 Paragraph 162H)

For centuries people have moved across borders in search of work. In our global world this is still a relevant and increasing form of immigration.  Improved wages, better working conditions, and jobs available are reasons for immigration due to work opportunities. Workers from other countries are in many societies an important resource to fill the society’s need of workers. But foreign workers too often meet exploitation, absence of protecting laws, and unreasonable wages and working conditions.  We call upon governments and all employers to ensure for foreign workers the same economic, educational, and social benefits enjoyed by other citizens.  Foreign workers also need a religious fellowship, and we call for the churches to include these in their care and fellowships and to support them in their efforts for better conditions. (Paragraph 163F)

            On the national level, we need to ensure that we have fair and just immigration laws and that those laws are fairly and justly enforced.

            However, as individuals and as the church, we need to welcome and care for all people, including the immigrants among us. 

The UMC and the Issues 2012: End of Life Issues

This time I will deal with three issues under the heading, “End of Life Issues.”  The first issue is entitled in the Social Principles as, “Faithful Care for Dying Persons.”   The Social Principles state, “Care for dying persons is part of our stewardship of the divine gift of life when cure is no longer possible. Dying persons and their families are free to discontinue treatments when they cease to be of benefit to the patient.” (Discipline paragraph 161M)  

There is a point at which further medical treatments will not provide a cure, will not increase quality of life, and will on delay death and prolong suffering.  In those cases medical treatments, including life support, may be withdrawn or withheld and only comfort measures and pain relief provided.  The patient is kept as comfortable as possible and nature is allowed to take its course.  I stand in gratitude and awe of the Hospice movement and the people involved with it who provide this wonderful ministry.  

However, a distinction must be made between allowing a person to die with dignity and an actions on the part of the patient or others to cause or hasten death.  When these actions are performed by others it is known as euthanasia and when other people assist the patient in these actions it is known as assisted suicide.  The Social Principles reject both of these as morally unacceptable. (See Discipline paragraph 161M, N)

The second issue is the issue of suicide.  The Social Principles state, “We believe that suicide is not the way a human life should end. Often suicide is the result of untreated depression, or untreated pain and suffering... A Christian perspective on suicide begins with an affirmation of faith that nothing, including suicide, separates us from the love of God (Romans 8:38-39). Therefore, we deplore the condemnation of people who complete suicide, and we consider unjust the stigma that so often falls on surviving family and friends.”

There was a time when many believed that suicide was an automatic trip to hell.  I cannot stress enough that I, and United Methodists in general, DO NOT believe this.  The grace of God in Jesus Christ is sufficient to forgive anything, even suicide.  We as the church need to reach out to those who are at risk for suicide and see that they get the help they need.  And, we need to reach out in comfort to those who have had loved ones commit suicide.

Finally, we need to discuss the issue of the death penalty.  The Social Principles state, “We believe the death penalty denies the power of Christ to redeem, restore and transform all human beings... For this reason, we oppose the death penalty (capital punishment) and urge its elimination from all criminal codes.”  Setting aside all legal, practical, and personal arguments, we believe that Jesus Christ has to power to transform the life of anyone and everyone, therefore we are opposed to the death penalty.

In all of these issues the common theme is our belief that human life is a gift from God and that we are all stewards of that gift in ourselves and in one another.  While there may come a time when we are not required to prolong life, we are always required to care for it, and we never have the authority to end it.  

The UMC and the Issues 2012: Abortion

The two most divisive moral issues of our day are homosexuality and abortion.  Homosexuality I dealt with prior to General Conference and the official position of the United Methodist Church, despite some lively and heartfelt debate on both sides, did not change.  However, there are still many in the Church who publicly and privately disagree with that position.  

On the other issue, abortion, General Conference added language that expanded and somewhat strengthened the Church’s official position.  The added language will appear in the 2012 version of the Discipline.  However, the general content and context of the position remained the same, therefore; I am quoting the 2008 language below.

“...Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion.
But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child.  
We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures...
...We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection...
...We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may cause them to consider abortion.
The Church shall offer ministries to reduce unintended pregnancies. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth...
...Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, family, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel.” (From: The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2008 Paragraph 161J)

The thing that distresses me most about the abortion debate in our culture is the fact that both sides take such extreme positions.  The Pro-Life side says that abortion is murder and that abortion should be illegal in all, or most, circumstances.  (Some do not even make exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the mother.)  Meanwhile, the Pro-Choice side often seems to cast abortion as merely in the realm of personal choice that a woman has over her body.  (This often sounds like abortion is the moral equivalent of a haircut or a tattoo.)  Many reasonable churches, which I believe the UMC is, and many reasonable people, which I think I am, and all of you are, would reject both of these extremes.

The UMC states, “We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures.”  At the same time, the UMC does not affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control.  There are varied and tragic circumstances that may justify abortion, but abortion is never simply a “choice” or a “solution” to the “problem” of an unwanted pregnancy.

In closing, I would commend to all of us, as a local church, and as individuals, the recommendations of this Social Principle.  First, to be in ministry to reduce unintended pregnancies and to provide nurturing ministries to those who have had abortions, to those in the midst of crisis pregnancies, and to those who give birth.  And, second, to engage in a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may lead people to consider abortion and under what circumstances abortion would be justified, remembering that, “Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience.”

The UMC and the Issues 2012: Gambling

The Social Principles reserve their strongest language for the issue of gambling calling gambling “a menace to society.”  The full statement reads as follows,

Gambling is a menace to society, deadly to the best interests of moral, social, economic, and spiritual life, and destructive of good government. As an act of faith and concern, Christians should abstain from gambling and should strive to minister to those victimized by the practice.

Where gambling has become addictive, the Church will encourage such individuals to receive therapeutic assistance so that the individual's energies may be redirected into positive and constructive ends.

The Church should promote standards and personal lifestyles that would make unnecessary and undesirable the resort to commercial gambling—including public lotteries—as a recreation, as an escape, or as a means of producing public revenue or funds for support of charities or government. (Discipline paragraph 163.G)

Also, the United Methodist Church has rules prohibiting local churches, conferences, and agencies from using “raffles, bingo, door prizes, other drawing schemes, or games of chance for the purpose of gambling or fundraising.” (Book of Resolutions of the United Methodist Church 2008 page 556)  Churches are also prohibited from accepting funds from gambling sources.

I am aware that this is a sensitive issue for us here in this area due to the presence of the Meskwaki Casino.  Our Book of Resolutions, which contains resolutions by General Conference that expand on the Social Principles, does address the issue of tribal casinos.

While we support tribal self-determination and self-governance, resorting to gambling as a form of economic development is regrettable... We encourage tribal governments to wean themselves from gambling as a form of economic development; and we encourage and fully support tribal efforts to diversify economically away from gambling. (Book of Resolutions of the United Methodist Church 2008 pages 555-556)

We all know deep in our hearts that gambling is not a sustainable method of economic development because it takes more than it gives and destroys more than it creates.  We also know deep in our hearts the damage that gambling does to individuals, families, communities, and society as a whole.

I know that many of you may gamble recreationally.  I would encourage you to consider less destructive methods of recreation.  I encourage those of you who struggle with gambling to reach out to me or to others for help.  And, if you have a problem with excess money on your hands, I am sure the church can help you out with that!  Ha ha!

UMC and the Issues 2012: Alcohol, and Tobacco

Historically, Methodism, and the United Brethren Church, have been associated with the Temperance Movement which came to a climax in the 1920’s with Prohibition.  There was a time when being a Mthodist or Brethren meant absolute abstinence from alcohol and tobacco.  For clergy, complete abstinence from both was part of the vows which they took.
However, times have changed somewhat.  Our current Social Principles read.

We affirm our long-standing support of abstinence from alcohol as a faithful witness to God's liberating and redeeming love for persons. We support abstinence from the use of any illegal drugs. Since the use of illegal drugs, as well as illegal and problematic use of alcohol, is a major factor in crime, disease, death, and family dysfunction, we support educational programs as well as other prevention strategies encouraging abstinence from illegal drug use and, with regard to those who choose to consume alcoholic beverages, judicious use with deliberate and intentional restraint, with Scripture as a guide. (Paragraph 162.L)
We affirm our historic tradition of high standards of personal discipline and social responsibility. In light of the overwhelming evidence that tobacco smoking and the use of smokeless tobacco are hazardous to the health of persons of all ages, we recommend total abstinence from the use of tobacco. (Paragraph 162.M)

        For clergy, our vows now include the statement that we will, “Agree for the sake of the mission of Jesus Christ in the world to... exercise responsible self control by personal habits conducive to bodily health, [and] mental and emotional maturity...” (Paragraph 311.2.d)
       I am often asked questions like, “Can United Methodists drink, smoke, etc.?  If the meaning of those questions are along the lines of, “Will someone who drinks or smokes be denied membership in, or be removed from, the church,” the answer is an overwhelming “No.”
      However, the better question is, “Should United Methodists drink or smoke?”  Given God’s great concern for our individual and personal well-being in mind, body, and spirit, a concern which God has called the church to proclaim, and given the overwhelming evidence for the damage that is caused by alcohol and tobacco to our personal well-being and the well-being of families and society as a whole, the answer to that question must also be a resounding “No,” or at least, “With great restraint and moderation.”
      This is also a good reminder of what the Social Principles are and how they are meant to be used.  The Social Principles are not a rulebook which we must agree with and obey in order to call ourselves United Methodists, rather they are a guidebook to help us make decisions about how we will live.  We are free to disagree with any or all of their guidance.  However, I, and all who teach in the church, are required to present them as the official positions of the United Methodist Church.
      I hope you will join me in following the guidance of the Social Principles in making better and more healthy choices in all areas of our lives.  I also hope you will join me in celebrating the fact that we are part of a church that cares enough about us and the world and the world around us to offer us guidance but stops short of trying to force us to agree.  

The UMC and the Issues 2012: The Environment

The opening paragraph of the section of the Social Principles of The United Methodist church entitled “The Natural World” reads...
“All creation is the Lord’s, and we are responsible for the ways in which we use and abuse it. Water, air, soil, minerals, energy resources, plants, animal life, and space are to be valued and conserved because they are God’s creation and not solely because they are useful to human beings. God has granted us stewardship of creation. We should meet these stewardship duties through acts of loving care and respect. Economic, political, social, and technological developments have increased our human numbers, and lengthened and enriched our lives. However, these developments have led to regional defoliation, dramatic extinction of species, massive human suffering, overpopulation, and misuse and overconsumption of natural and nonrenewable resources, particularly by industrialized societies. This continued course of action jeopardizes the natural heritage that God has entrusted to all generations. Therefore, let us recognize the responsibility of the church and its members to place a high priority on changes in economic, political, social, and technological lifestyles to support a more ecologically equitable and sustainable world leading to a higher quality of life for all of God’s creation.” (Discipline paragraph 160)
The positions that The United Methodist Church takes on environmental issues are based on our belief that all of Creation belongs to God and that God has made us, individually and collectively, stewards of Creation.  A steward is not an owner, a steward is a caretaker who is responsible to maintain and to use that which has been entrusted to them according to the wishes of the owner.
There are many specific things that the Church encourages including recycling, conservation of energy and water, avoiding the use of bottled water, reducing the use of fossil fuels and the reduction of “greenhouse gases,” responsible mining and drilling, and sustainable agriculture and organic foods. (Discipline paragraphs 161A, B, D, and G)
Oftentimes, I, like perhaps many of you, find myself overwhelmed by the enormity of the environmental problem and the radical change that a truly “green” lifestyle might involve.  Sometimes I feel guilty because I know that I waste fuel, water, and energy.  I know that I often throw away what can be recycled.  I cannot always find, or afford, organic food.  A hybrid just did not fit my family’s needs, or budget, the last time I bought a car.
Of course we do not all have to be environmental saints or live in ecological monasteries, but we do have to take our responsibility as stewards of God’s creation seriously.  We can all make small changes in the way we live and the choices we make every day.
 

The UMC and the Issues 2012: Health Care

The issue of health care is one of the hotest political issues of our time.  This is perhaps because while many issues may not affect all of us, health care is something we all need and it is an issue that can have dangerous and even deadly consequences.

The Social Principles of the United Methodist Church declare that health care is “a basic human right,” and, “We believe it is a governmental responsibility to provide all citizens with health care.”  (Discipline paragraph 162.III.V)

First, let me say that I believe that we in America enjoy a very high quality of health care as well as a very high quantity of health care.  The very best level of care, provided by well qualified and caring professionals in extremely comfortable and well equipped facilities, is available to most Americans, including we who live in rural areas.  In fact, I have begun to consider the possibility that it is precisely the high quality and quantity of health care we enjoy, and have come to expect and demand, that has caused the costs of health care to become so high.  

Am I suggesting that we somehow lower the quality and quantity of our health care to reduce costs?  That may be a good idea is some cases.  For instance, we could stop running to the doctor for every ache and pain demanding the newest drug we have just seen advertised on television.  Also, if a waiting room with a few less potted plants or without a fish tank means that I can save on my medical bills, I am all for that.  However, we all know that it would not be a good idea to take this line of thinking too far, we would not be willing to give up our high quality and high quantity of health care.  In fact, I think it is our fear of losing our high quality and high quantity health care that has made this such a heated debate.  

The problem has become how do we pay for the ever increasing costs of our high quality and high quantity health care?  Government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Hawk-I, and others have helped many to afford health care.  However, programs like these are always limited in what they provide and in the number of people who qualify, and there are always those who fall through the cracks.  There are those who do not qualify for programs and still cannot afford health care and there are those for whom programs do not cover the health care they need.

For many years health care for most people has been paid for by health insurance provided by employers.  However, this system is beginning to break down as costs continue to increase.  Employers, especially small ones including churches, are finding it more difficult to provide health insurance.  This has limited the number of persons employers can hire and has contributed to unemployment.  Also, many people report being stuck in dead end jobs, afraid to change jobs or to start their own businesses, for fear of losing health benefits.

It is clear to me that the current system of health insurance through work is no longer sustainable.  Almost everyone I talk to, on both sides of the political spectrum, agrees that the system must fundamentally change.  The question is, “How?”

One answer I have heard is the elimination of the system of health insurance and a return to a consumer based direct payment model in which people pay for what they need and what they can afford and doctors and hospitals charge whatever the market will bear.  However, common sense will tell us that this would result in a catastrophic reduction in the quality and quantity of health care that is available to people, particularly poor people and those of us who live in rural areas.

The other answer I have heard is the implementation of a government run health care or health insurance system of some kind based on the Canadian or European models.  Valid concerns have been raised, given our government's tendency towards inefficiency, about the effect this will have on the quality and quantity of health care.  

However, as a pastor, based on my interpretation, I have to say that this is the position put forward by General Conference in the Social Principles.  Also, this is my personal position as well.  This appears to me to be the only hope we have to continue to maintain our high quality and high quantity of health care long term and compete economically with the rest of the world.

The UMC and the Issues: Homosexuality

It is with great fear and trembling that I approach the issue of Homosexuality because it is one of the most controversial issues in society and the Church today.
First, I need to outline the UMC’s current stand on the issue. “The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, just as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry with and for all persons.” (Discipline paragraph 161F)

The United Methodist Church supports “laws in civil society that define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.” (Discipline paragraph 161B) Also, the Discipline says, “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.” (Discipline paragraph 341.6) Also, “Self-avowed, practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in the United Methodist Church.” (Discipline paragraph 304.3) And, United Methodist funds cannot be used to promote the acceptance of homosexuality. (Discipline paragraph 806.9)

However, we should also remember that the Church has said that we should not, “reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends.” And, the United Methodist Church supports equal civil rights for all person regardless of sexual orientation. (Discipline paragraph 162J)

Since 1972, when the current language went into place, the Church has debated this issue. There are many in the Church who would like to see the current position reversed and have homosexuality fully accepted in the Church, including marriage and ordination. It seems to me that there have been at least three distinct voices in this issue: “yes,” “no,” and “wait.”

First, we’ll look at the “no.” These folks would point to several passages in the Bible, as well as to nature, and to traditional family structures, to say that we should maintain the current standard. These folks tend to view homosexuality as a perversion, a chosen lifestyle in rejection of God and traditional values.

Next, we will look at the “yes.” These folks would point to the fact that there are many wonderful people who are homosexual, some of whom, by all other appearances, are committed disciples of Jesus Christ. Also, there is much evidence to suggest that sexual orientation is part of who a person is, that the are “born that way,” and, therefore, it is unfair to ask them to change or to pretend to be someone they are not. It would seem fair then, to allow homosexuals to participate in the Church and have their sexuality accepted on the same basis as that of heterosexuals, within the confines of a committed monogamous relationship. 

Finally, we look at the “wait.” These are folks that might agree with the “yes,” but they are afraid of the damage that making a change at this time, when so many are against it, would do to the church. They agree that this is a place that we should, and will eventually, go but they want to wait until a larger consensus can be built.

For myself, I have to admit that I have found myself quite torn on this issue, as I suspect many of you have as well. I have found myself deeply impressed by the faith of homosexual Christians whom I have meet, and by their deep love for one another in their relationships. I have also become increasingly convinced that sexual orientation is something that is often deeply imprinted in our personality. However, I am also extremely reluctant to dismiss the guidance of Scripture. (Although we also do have a history of re-interpreting Scripture in the light of new situations and new understandings. After all, the Bible clearly teaches, or so we used to think, that slavery is permissible and that women are inferior to men.) And, I am also afraid of the effect a sudden change in direction, based on a narrow majority vote, would have on my beloved United Methodist Church.

Having said all of that, no matter what happens at General Conference in Tampa this year, I will remain a faithful United Methodist. Since I am often unsure of what to think, I will trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church. I invite you to join me in praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit upon General Conference and up our whole Church.

Creation and Evolution

In our series on the issues of our day and the United Methodist position on them, we might as well begin at the beginning.  United Methodist proclaim, along with other Christians, in the words of the Apostles’ Creed, that, “We believe in God, the Father, Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.”  

The book of Genesis tells the story of God’s creation of the universe, the world, and everything it in.  The pinnacle of God’s creation is humanity, which is created in the image of God.  According to Genesis, God creates the universe in six days with each day bringing a new step in the creation process that leads ultimately to the creation of humanity.  

Meanwhile, the best science tells us that the universe and the world took shape over billions of years and that life developed gradually in a process called evolution.  Science, of course. makes no claim about the existence of God or God’s involvement in this process.

So what are we to believe?  Should we reject the Bible and the story of creation in favor of evolution, or should we reject the claims of science and cling blindly to the Bible and its traditional interpretation?   The answer is: neither.  The United Methodist Church states in our Social Principles# that, “We find that science’s description of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution and not in conflict with theology.”#  

But you may well ask, “How does that work?”  I am glad you asked.  There are four broad ways that people have responded to these questions.

1. Young Earth Creationism (YEC)# -  These are people who take the Bible literally and believe that the earth, and all life on it, was created as it appears today in six literal 24 hour days.  They believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, a date they arrive at by adding up all of the ages of people listed in Genesis. They dismiss all the mainstream scientific claims that are opposed to them as either mistaken or an attempt to undermine faith; and often conduct research and experimentation of their own to support their claims.  (There were times in history when Christians believed that the Bible clearly taught that the world was flat and that the Sun revolved around the earth.)  However, I do know many wonderful disciples of Jesus Christ who are YECs and I have deep respect for them.
2. Old Earth Creationism (OEC)# - These are people who believe that the universe is some 14.5 billion years old and began with the Big Bang and that the earth is some 4.5 billion years old as modern science states.  The key for OECs is that the Hebrew word yom, which is translated “day” in Genesis 1, can mean a literal 24 hour day or a longer, unspecified, period of time.  They point to the timelessness of God particularly in passages like 2 Peter 3:8, “With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.”  They believer that days/periods of creation in Genesis is the story of God’s gradual creation over a long period time.  Some, called Progressive Creationists, do not believe in evolution.  They say that each species is a unique creation of God. Looking at the fossil record over time, this cold look like evolution.
3. Theistic Evolution (TE)# - TE is essentially another branch of OEC.  TEs believe that God is behind the evolution that science observes in nature.  They believe that God started the process of evolution, and that God, to a greater or lesser degree, guides that process.  Like YEC and OEC, TEs regard humanity, created in  God’s image, as the pinnacle of creation/evolution.  Many faithful Christians, including myself, are OECs and TEs.
4. Atheistic (Materialistic) Evolution (AE) - The name says it all.  These are folks that do not believe in God, and so, therefore, they believe that evolution, without the existence or involvement of God, explains the origins of the universe, the earth, and all life upon, including humans.

All of the first three groups believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life upon it, including humanity; which is especially created in the image of God.  The only difference between each group is the question of how God created.  My point in outlining all of this is to demonstrate that there is some differences of belief among faithful Christians and that there is some wiggle room between hard science and a overly-literal interpretation of the Bible.
However, to come back to the point of this series of articles, the political, social, and religious issues of our day, (Notice how I used the word “day: to refer to something other than a 24 hour period!)  This issue of creation and evolution (and not versus, they do not necessarily have to compete) is usually played out in the debate over the scientific curriculum in our public schools; whether our schools should teach creation or evolution.  

As a pastor, I would prefer that the public school stick to teaching science according to the widely accepted standards of the scientific community; and leave the teaching of religious faith to me, and to qualified leaders of other faiths.  

As a parent, I want my children to be fully educated and ready to succeed in any field they choose, including science.  I expect that my children will learn science, and other subjects, at school; and will learn religious faith at home and church.

I believe that this is the spirit in which the United Methodist Church has developed its position on creation and evolution.

UMC and the "Issues" 2012: Introduction

The caucuses will soon be over and the politicians will leave Iowa, that is, at least, until they begin to return to campaign for the general election.  However, since this is a election year, and a General Conference year for us United Methodists, I thought I might use this year's newsletter articles to outline the position of the United Methodist Church on some of the issues of our day. (General Conference 2012 will be held April 24-May 4 in Tampa FL.)  This article will serve as an introduction to those articles.  This article will also set some ground rules for the others, so I encourage you to keep this copy to refer to in reading future articles.

1. The Social Principles Over the years the United Methodist Church has adopted Social Principles which outline the UMC's thinking and positions on social issues.  The Social Principles are adopted by General Conference and only General Conference can change them. (I would be happy to put you in touch with our Iowa delegates, if you have concerns.) The Social Principles are intended to provide official guidance to the work of the UMC around these issues and to provide guidance to help individual United Methodists to think through these issues.  No individual United Methodist, lay or clergy, is required to agree with the Principles.  In fact, United Methodists, including pastors, are free to disagree, even publicly, with the Principles, however, clergy, and others who teach, are required to present the Principles accurately, fairly, and completely as the official position of the UMC in addition to providing their own positions.  The social principles will form the basis of these articles.  I will also, occasionally, offer my own opinions, but I will be clear about what are my own positions and what are the official positions of the UMC.

2. Issues Only IRS code and federal election regulations forbid churches from officially endorsing or supporting any candidate or political party.  However, we are, of course, allowed to discus and take positions on issues.  Therefore these articles will discuss only the issues and will not discuss candidates, parties, or their positions or platforms.  I will do my best to be fair to all sides of each issue.

3. Not From the Pulpit While I do think that the Bible has much to say about our current political issues, I find that the pulpit is not the best place to get into such things.  I find it much better to deal with these issues, in newsletters, like I am now, in Bible studies, and in one-on-one and small group discussions.   

I do not exactly know yet what issues I will be doing or in what order, so stay tuned.  I look forward discussing these things with you and I welcome your, loving and respectful, feedback.
Pastor Brian.