I was interviewed for a piece on the rise of Christian Domestic Discipline. Here is a part of it:
Right. But where does CDD fit in here? Is CDD a particularly Fundamentalist thing? “Not all Fundamentalists use CDD,” says Watts. “I would wager that many would never think of CDD as legitimately Christian, and yet, I would also wager that if you took the tenants of CDD – such as the wives that submit to their husbands, providing sex on demand – without naming it as such, many Fundamentalists would agree to them as something ‘Biblical’.”
I am tired of using secular terminology to describe viewpoints in the Church. Yes, all terms are really open and have a fair use, but given the highly charged atmosphere in the United States, perhaps would could use terms not associated with the two political parties.
Progressive really isn’t. Progressive usually means moving forward but with the Progressives I’ve dealt with, they are moving left, into the secular realm, even into deism and agnosticism. Conservative means to conserve and yet many conservatives want to move us to congregationalism and away from traditional Wesleyan values. We aren’t really called to be either (although, to be honest, I’m sure I could make a better argument for traditional progressive Christianity than I could for conservative). Then you have all sorts of other labels people just don’t get. Liberal. Confessing. Evangelical/evangelical.
Our binary language of good/bad; conservative/liberal; etc… is not helpful when discussing something so vital. It doesn’t allow for those who may stand somewhere in middle. Of course, can draw the binary of flesh/spirit or freedom/matter, but the former is biblical and the latter is shown to not encompass all that there is given the former. So, forgive me if I am forced to, in this instance, use a binary to state my case.
I would like to propose some new terms. This terms will help in discerning our view on church government and orthodoxy, not on inclusion and exclusion. I do not like binaries, because the world is not binary. Yet, in observing the UMC as of late, there is developing a binary of sorts — based not on homosexuality and inclusion, but on the role and limit of church governance.
1.) Free Church — those who want to divorce themselves from a traditional view of orthodoxy, residing on something of a congregational or confederation basis with a “Jesus-only” attempt at Christian spirituality (either passively or aggressively). This has happened before:
By the mid-nineteenth century, Methodism was clearly evolving from a movement within the Church of England to a separate church. By the end of the century, partly under Hugh Price Hughes’s leadership, Methodism as a whole had become identified with the Free Churches. Official Methodist statements, such as The Nature of the Christian Church (1937), resisted any suggestion that the Methodist societies had broken away from the Church of England: they were never properly part of the Established Church. The Methodist Church was guilty of no schism, for it was ‘compelled’ to become a distinct religious community (pp. 25f.).1
Further, they view “love” as “inclusion” and righteousness as “justice.” This alone is the bound of Christian orthodoxy. Activism is their mission.
2.) Creedal — essentially, those who want to maintain the connexion with each other through the Book of Discipline as something unbreakable (not unchangeable) as well as believe the connection to the tradition of the Church is not something to be lost. “Love” is defined through a traditional understanding of the atoning work of Christ, redeeming people from sin. Love, then, is not necessarily exclusion but redemption.
In the end, this is really what it comes down to: our view of church governance and orthodoxy. This is why you have many who argue for inclusion but likewise argue for the BoD and orthodoxy.
Paul Avis, Anglicanism and the Christian Church: Theological Resources in Historical Perspective (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2002), 161. ↩
“Because this was now being handled in public, I was fortunate to receive the support of hundreds of people on Twitter – as well as attacks from others. I always expect some form of trolling, but I did not expect one of the attackers to be an editor at Salon, Elias Isquith, who questioned what my potential rape meant for “hashtags” and “brands”. “- Sarah Kendzior, On Being A Thing
Encountering the Emergent Church Brand
For a span of 2 years, my final semester of undergrad up until my second year in seminary,I tried and miserably failed to fit myself in the white Calvinist evangelical mold. As a black man in his early twenties, I didn’t fit in anywhere in predominantly white Christian educational settings. Some of my first friends in seminary were a group of white Christians who were well read with Emergent Christian literature: Tony Jones, Doug Paggit, Rob Bell, and Brian McLaren will all names that were dropped during our weekly Tuesday night taco dinners. I would eventually leave the Neo-Calvinist movement on my own terms and started to see some freedom in the Emergent Church movement. Two of the more influential books on my journey were Scot McKnight’s The Jesus Creed and Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz. My Calvinist friends (who had not read these book/authors) were calling me a heretic for even reading these books, and as I look back then seven years ago, I can laugh.
I once preached a sermon on the Emergent church as the future of Christian tradition, and I even taught a Sunday School class on Black theology and Emergence Christianity. However, I began to experience disaffection with the Emergent Church. All of the topics and controversies that the EC leadership wrote about/spoke about still made Whiteness as the center. Believers from marginated contexts were welcome to the table as long as they tacitly submitted to the ways of the dominant culture. In essence, Emergence Christianities have become more about personal brands and the platforms of their recognized overwhelmingly White male leaders rather than being about the “future of Christianity.” You see, since we only live in the here and now, all talks of the “future of Christianity” are speculative. Yet, there is much money to be made when small groups of people decide to severe the multiracial Kingdom of God from any notion of the future. The “future” winds up looking very much like the status quo, and defenses (yes, even “progressive ones”) of the status quo are quite profitable.
Liberationist Killjoys And DudeBro Christianity
At Killjoy Prophets, there is a two-fold mission: first, we desire to center the experiences of Women of Color in Christianity, and secondly, we work to end DudeBro Christianity. Now, we often get asked, “what is DudeBro Christianity?” First of all, DudeBro is a descriptor of character traits; it is a politics in which any person of any gender, sexual orientation, or ethnic background can embody. DudeBro Christianity is the passive embodiment of dominant cultural norms that conceal commitments to White supremacist and male supremacist narratives as defaults. The bodies of women and People of Color are made to be objects of contempt. The practice of DudeBro Politics includes someone who insists that all social encounters occur on their terms. The future of Christianity is their private property (“post-Christendom”); like the plantation oligarchs, People of Color and the bodies of women are to be supervised by DudeBro Christian leaders.
Emergent Christian leaders often make excuses such as, well many PoC and women just do not have a big enough platform to draw a big enough crowd for conferences. In other words, profit is the driving force behind abstract discussions of “the future” rather than the Kingdom of God, which is justice, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. DudeBro Politics is the anti-Christ, posing as an angelic voice of progressive Enlightenment in order to deny faithful victory over the sins of White Supremacy, rape culture, and economic exploitation. DudeBro politics can play out in non-liberating events such as a White Cisgender queer male informing me that I use too strong of language when describing economic policies as anti-black racism. DudeBro Christianity is when for the sake of inclusion in the United Methodist Church, a White CisHet man uses his privilege to compare the General Conference to date rape. In order to build her brand as a magenta politics leftist, one political theologian dismissed Sarah Kendzior’s claims to being threatened with rape. Jason is right: in order for DudeBro Politics to remain the pre-eminent regime in this kyriarchal, White Supremacist economy, men have to control the bodies of women and PoC.
“but I think it’s pathetic for some [recognized Emergent Church leaders] to stand around and comment on the failings [of Mark Driscoll/Mars Hill Church], while cowardly never admitting your own sh*& (which is strikingly familiar!!) misogyny, mental and emotional abuse all hidden behind a new found liberalism and feminism because the times they are a changin’, jumping on the same sex marriage band wagon because its the hot new ride in town, and you just might get to be relevant again…these people are very cunning and smart and they will use anything (theology, controversy, sensationalism) and anyone to get ahead. it’s a clinical diagnosis and a pathology that looks like this kind of carnage, and they ALWAYS leave bodies in their wake. soliciting white male leaders of the emergent church willing to cover it all up for their crony. wipe out evidence on organizations website. lies and betrayal.”- Julie McMahon, comment, Tony Jones On Mark Driscoll, What Came First, The Thug or The Theology?
On Ending DudeBro Christianity, #GamerGate, & #NotYourShield
Emergence Christianities and their leadership has unfortunately found itself more often than not on imperialist quests for fame and fortune rather than being in solidarity with the least of these. In the process, as Julie McMahon pointed out, brand-creation and marketing leave the bodies of the marginalized in its wake: objectification, emotional, physical and mental abuse, gaslighting, racist microaggressions, and “post-modern” defenses of White Supremacy. Progressive spaces such as Emergence Christianity have made it okay for others to promote themselves at the expense of others (women mostly). For example, the whole #GamerGate #NotYourShield movement is a whole group of gamer dudes violently backlashing against women gamers who have spoken up versus misogyny. Last week, my friend Drew Hart discovered that a #NotYourShield sock puppet had been using a picture of his to advance the racist*, sexist agenda of #NotYourShield / #GamerGate.
#GamerGate is more than a few Internet trolls. They harass their critics, take down their blogsites, spread vicious rumors, and send emails promising gun violence and sexual assaults towards women who dare speak out. It’s time for progressives to find new ways to brand themselves, and this should start by rejecting DudeBro Politics. It means living by the preferential option for the marginalized (women & People of Color), preferring to choose human life and people over profiteering and brand-making. Such a rejection also means a public rebuke of #GamerGate / #NotYourShield. #CloseGamerGate #CloseGamerGate #CloseGamerGate
“[...] upon this rock I will build my church; the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”- Matthew 16:18 KJV
Buffy the Vampire Slayer, “The Gift”
I refer to #GamerGate/ #NotYourShield as racist because of #1, the persistent blackface sock puppeteering that they do, and #2, their reliance on negative stereotypes of Blacks as thuggish, criminal, and culturally “backwards”/homophobic.
DEAL WITH IT. English: William Tyndale, Protestant reformer and Bible translator. Portrait from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Česky: William Tyndale (portrét ve Foxeově Knize mučedníků) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In short, neither Progressive nor Reactionary dissenters really trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit or the indefectibility of the Church. Both believe the development of doctrine is, at bottom, not the Church coming to a deeper understanding of the will of Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, but a random collision of power and mere human will in which anything might happen and any ideology might become top dog depending on who is the strongest. And therefore, they believe it is all on them to (for Progressives) Change the Church into modern reflection of Liberal Values or (for Reactionaries) Save the Church from mutating into a “dark and false Church.”
And again, I call attention to something Pope Francis said at the close of the Synod. There are these extremes that are waging a war for their own place within the Church and waging war in the Church against one another.
William Tyndale (1494?–1536), translator of the Bible, Prologue to the Exposition of Matthew v, vi, vii, PS, p. 12.
The Church of Christ, then, is the multitude of all them that believe in Christ for the remission of sin; and, of a thankfulness for that mercy, love the law of God purely … and, of hate they have to the sin of this world, long for the life to come. This is the church that cannot err damnably; nor any long time; nor all of them: but as soon as any question ariseth, the truth of God’s promise stirreth up one or the other to teach them the truth of everything needful to salvation out of God’s word; and lighteneth the hearts of the other true members, to see the same, and to consent thereto.[1. G. R. Evans and J. Robert Wright, The Anglican Tradition: a Handbook of Sources (London: SPCK, 1991), 133.]
The Church universal is indefectible but people seemed to have forgotten that. Indeed, we no longer remember we are Christians together.
The two extremes in the United Methodist Church have likewise forgotten the nature of the Church. Both seek to control it. For them, it is there Church. Like Shea’s comment above, both extremes have lost faith in God — failing to realize the foundation of doctrine. Whereas the Church was once the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit – the same Holy Spirit that is supposed to lead us into all truth — it is now a battlefield between Justice-without-Righteousness and Righteousness-without-Justice. Both sides want to win in a place where we are to be made one, in a place where we are to be humble — in a kingdom established by the self-sacrifice.
Perhaps it is because in drifting further away from our Anglican heritage, we continue to lose important doctrines… like “Church.”
So, instead of complaining, let me suggest some remedies.
– One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.
– The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”
And the middle, of course. Doesn’t this sound familiar? I mean, to those following UMC politics (I hate that) and the lead up to the General Conference in 2016, this above statement by Pope Francis as he closed the first portion of the Synod on the Family is familiar. It is exactly what is going on in the UMC.
This is simple and perhaps even simplistic, I admit, but, I guarantee you it is at least one first step to avoid legal problems, that is, if you object to performing gay marriages.
(Disclaimer: I have voiced my opinion as to gay marriage plenty of times in different ways with the same main thrust, so, this is not an opinion on gay marriage but an advice to Churches that want to avoid the nightmare of lawsuits.)
Many Protestant churches reject the idea of marriages as a sacrament. Too bad that they perform and require that marriages be performed by their ministers as if it were a sacrament. However, many of these Churches use wedding ceremonies as a revenue generator for the Church and even rent their facilities for other ministers to perform marriages of people outside of the host Church membership. Well, that was fine and dandy up until now, but, unless Churches find a way not to “have it both ways” or, a quasi sacrament, whereas saying is not one, which they charge everyone to offer, and even offer it to people whose spiritual life they do not oversee, Churches will be open for all kinds of lawsuits because now we have a different, uncommon before, group of people who feel that, in spite of the fact that they never cared for that church facility in their neighborhood, and even when it is not in their neighborhood, they want to challenge that Church by wanting to have their gay marriage in that specific facility. In my not expert opinion, as it is plain to see, and as I consult friends of mine who are attorneys, it will be hard for that Church ministers to deny their facilities to perform a gay marriage on the basis of religion, since they only have an “expectancy” that the people whose weddings are performed in there are indeed religious people. My discussion here is not whether it is right to sue a Church for that or not, my discussion is that it will be hard for a Church to prove that they are not discriminating!
What then can be done?
Number one, from start, Churches should get out of the business of performing marriages. By that I mean, they should not charge for that which they believe to be a function of the Church. Otherwise they have to deny that such ceremonies are relevant and the function of the Church. They can’t have it both ways. They cannot charge; perhaps a nominal fee is fine for “maintenance” purposes, such as removal of flowers, or things of this nature, or cleaning the “social hall”, if the reception is also carried in its facilities, but charging a fee for the marriage itself, should be a “no, no”.
Then, not only should Churches not use weddings for a revenue generator by charging wedding fees, but also they should perform, or bless marriages of members of their congregations only, or the people whom the Ministers of that Church oversee spiritually. That means that they would not rent their facilities for marriages of people outside those who are under spiritual supervision of the ministers of that Church, whom they know, counsel, pray with, and to whom they offer communion regularly. I know that this will hurt churches financially, but it will hurt even more to have a lawyer in their payroll or to pay expensive legal fees to dispute lawsuits. All that is happening may be a Sovereign act of God in turning Churches more like the Body of Christ, and turn to their main purpose here on earth than to simply “server” the community as a venue for community indiscriminant celebrations.
In fact, Churches who want to avoid lawsuits, as long as it is legal to present issues (which is about to be legally debated in America) to your members, you should have a formal teaching plan where you teach your members about sin, sexuality, marriage, along with all your doctrinal foundations such as justification, the Trinity, etc. That alone will prevent anyone who disagrees with you from even the desire to be in your zip code, let alone get married in your Church!
Lastly, Churches should write all the above in their Constitution and By-Laws and ensure, assure and reassure that such is being followed to the letter!
How can this protect a Church?
Some may ask how these measures will help a Church avoid lawsuits; let me ask them that if you want to fly shirtless in an airplane there will always be a hard nose flight attendant, or steward, whatever they call it nowadays, to tell you that “it is not the company policy that people fly shirtless”. Churches need to know what their policy is. Whether they choose to perform gay marriage or not, they have to enact a policy that is understood by the community so as not to invite anyone even to consider attempting to violate such policy. That, added to the Constitutional provisions will aid a Church to be protected against most of the lawsuits and local ordinances that ultimately violate the Constitution right to assemble, which may be interpreted with “right to associate with likeminded folks”, freedom of speech, or religion and freedom to worship as one desires.
The advantages of a well established policy in their Statutes and By-Laws will be that Churches will get out of the “wedding business”, will be able to bless only the marriages of whom they oversee whereas being kindly and legally able to sustain a claim that any rejection of weddings of the general public within their walls is not discrimination.
The time has come, and again, I think by God’s Sovereign Act of disciplining the Body of Christ, that His Churches function more as the “assembly of those who worship God” and are under the supervision of a duly established Pastor or Bishop (the overseer) and not a community pleasing organization in the sense that, instead of “Christianizing the community, they are allowing the community to worldanize the church.”
Whatever has befallen to some Churches and Ministers in facing lawsuits from gay activists because of denial of facilities and ministerial blessing of a gay wedding (if such lawsuits are still in vogue…) is often the Churche’s fault for not safeguarding the mission that God commanded them to fulfill. Now a couple, from that church or not, can walk up to a minister, “rent” the church facilities for the wedding, either pay the minister of that Church for the wedding or bring their own minister and all is good. How is that not a fertile ground for all kinds of legal problems, including discrimination, if these same Churches deny the same facility and ministerial blessing to anyone? How is that not transforming a religious act, or a quasi sacrament for some, and a real sacrament for others, into a business? Want to keep your wedding revenues coming? If they do, save them because you will have to spend it all in lawyers and lawsuits and it will be your fault; you will lose! Sadly, the only way to avoid discrimination lawsuits is to discriminate by performing ONLY marriages of people within your Ministerial Oversight, or, the members of your congregation who agree to your definition of sin, marriage, sexuality, etc.
Christianity is a faith with no temple made by man’s hands; however this cannot be an excuse to consider a place of worship a “party hall” for the community and not even the “favorite wedding chapel” of the community. Without transforming church buildings in shrines, Churches must understand the difference between an exclusive worship place and the “community center”. This is old fashion but efficacious in swatting away lawsuit bugs. That can be achieved starting by ending the urge to generate revenues by providing a venue for non-member weddings.
You wouldn’t believe the people who hated my via media. Stripped image of John Wesley (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
There is some confusion as to exactly what a Via Media Methodist is. In fact, not a single one of us will usually capitalize v or m when speaking about this topic. As many people know, when discussing anything, it is best if you engage the other person in the same language. For instance, if I wanted to argue about the failure of democracy in the United States, I would need to clarify democracy, failure, and to point to the specific entity known as the United States. To facilitate this discussion about VMM, I thought a short primer would be helpful.
These are some of the words I have found misused:
Progressive Methodist: (v) 1.) a member of the United Methodist Church who is affirming. 2.) a member of the United Methodist Church who believes creeds and a general attention to orthodoxy is restrictive to “Christianity.” 3.) a member of the United Methodist Church who believes “experience” is the individual experience in life or a group’s experience in history rather than the experience of Christian salvation. Likewise, this person tends to generally elevate “experience” above the other two legs of the Wesley Quad and makes it equal with Scripture whereas Scripture must agree with our “experience” or we must seek to change or otherwise ignore its implications. 4.) a member of the United Methodist Church who sees the Book of Discipline as a power play for white privilege
Evangelical Methodist: (v) 1.) a member of the United Methodist Church who holds to traditional Western views of Christian marriage, so that marriage exists between one man and one woman (at a time). 2.) a member of the United Methodist Church who sees little or no value in Tradition and Reason in reading Scripture and thus tend to hold to inerrancy and/or infallibility. They also tend to track 20th century American evangelical and are usually congregational in their approach to church polity. 3.) a member of the United Methodist Church who sees the Book of Discipline as unchanging and demands it be followed, except for itinerancy, doctrinal standards, and other non-sexual ordinances.
Third Way: (n) 1.) a political term used to describe the moderate or middle of the road synthesis that occurs between political agendas. Thus, the “third way” is an evolution out of the left and the right wings of political parties. It does not preexist those groups, but attempts to salvage a middle by mixing various elements acceptable to the majority. 2.) a term used to denote Christians who welcome in LGBT people but do not challenge denominational barriers. In this case, homosexuality is demoted to a non-essential. This is often used on congregational denominations.
Via Media Methodist (alt. 1, traditionalist; atl. 2, institutionalist): (n) 1.) a member of the United Methodist Church who does not align itself with either the progressive or evangelical wings (see above). Many hold diverse views on inclusion, but are unified on their desire to see the UMC remain unified, believing that the Church faces many issues and is a stronger-together force for good than if a splintering would occur. Via media is not a “third way” (see above) as it does not pretend to move forward or retreat backwards nor does it suggest a compromise between the two sides. Further, as via media pre-exists both the left and the right, it is impossible for it to be a “third way.” Rather, it is the way most likely to align with both Christian and historic Wesleyan orthodoxy. Thus, it is the way, rather than a wing or a “third way.” It is no more appropriate to call via media the “third way” than it is to suggest the Catholic Church was the third way in Reformation between the Anabaptists (Radical Reformers) and the Protestants (Reformers). Whereas the left has decided the Gospel is about situational and privileged justice via bullying and the right has idolized “the bible” as a rule book, via media maintains the Gospel is about Christ only. While the left has closed the conversation to sin, the right focuses on one viewpoint on the matter, via media remains upon to God’s further correction upon our understanding of holiness. Both the left and right see ethics and morality as doctrine, while via media sees doctrine and then ethics. Further, via media continues to have faith in the Church rather than American political systems and the dichotomy of politicized sides and their agendas. 2.) All of the above, but inclusive of a generous orthodoxy with members holding various opinions on the atonement and other theological aspects not established in the creeds.
Dude bro (alt. dudebro): (n) 1.) White suburban males, usually 16-25 years of age, hailing from anywhere, USA. Characterized by their love of College football, pickup trucks/SUVs, beer,cut off khaki cargo shorts, light pink polo brand shirts (with collar “popped”), abercrombie & fitch, hollister gear, and trucker hats. Favorite bands include, but are not limited to, O.A.R., Jack Johnson, Dave Matthews Band, Avengened Sevenfold, The Fray, and often crappy radio rap (i.e. Nelly, Dem Franchize Boyz, D4L, etc.). Dude bro’s are incredibly insecure in their manhood, which makes them: insanely jealous of their girl friends, overly macho, and laughably homophobic. currently, there is no cure for being a dude bro. (Source: Urban Dictionary)
Brogressive: (n) 1.) Politically liberal or left-leaning person who routinely downplays injustices against women and other marginalized groups in favor of some cause they deem more important. (Source: Urban Dictionary)
By the way, since there is no caucus group or committee governing via media Methodists, this remains unofficial
This research considers people who live in the so called Bible Belt as “Conservative Christians” and also “implies” that anyone who identifies themselves as Religious Conservative, really is any or both… So, if I live near gold mines on in a gold mining area, that makes me a nugget!
How different are these researchers from ISIS when they say that everyone who lives in America, or every American, just by living in America or being in American, or just by living in the West, is an enemy of Islam?
Now, the reason men may resort to internet porn in the Bible Belt is perhaps because there are less whores and promiscuous women there… So, I can also draw unreasonable conclusions judging by the way a geographical area is identified.
Aware that I am disseminating sheer stupidity, and an uncontrollable urge to scorn those who are genuinely Christians, read here
“The hypocrisy common across the conservatives parties and movements is that while demanding the the government stay out of your hospital and your gun cabinet, they are forcing the government into your bedroom.”
Yeah, the hypocrisy, unfortunately, is of the non-conservatives who do not want conservative governments in their bedroom but want conservative governments and everyone else to pay for aids that they use mainly when they are having sex in their bedroom, thus inviting ALL to their bedroom while saying they wish not them to be there… Oh, I forgot, non-conservatives don’t have sex in bedrooms…
Yes, there’s chaos, but this too shall pass. Ignore the alarmists. Anyone who disrupts a Christ-centered peace is doing someone else’s work, not Christ’s. Read Church history. We have always been a rather muddled mess. That’s what proves the Church is divinely instituted. No merely human institution could withstand humanity and all its foibles as long as the Church has.
Only Group B responded to the section of the report on homosexuals. It notes that the church “must continue to promote the revealed nature of marriage as always between one man and one woman united in lifelong, life-giving, and faithful communion.” Gay people should find within the church “a home where, with everyone else, they hear the call of Jesus to follow him in fidelity to the truth, to receive his grace to do so, and his mercy when they fail.”
Reporters at the synod were thrown into confusion when the English translation of the relatiowas changed from “welcoming” homosexuals to “providing for” them. No explanation was given for this change that clearly was not an accurate translation of “accogliere“ in the official Italian. It appears that some of the English-speaking bishops got the secretariat of the synod to change the translation.
You can read more about the various proposals by English-speaking groups here.
Now, for Protestants who have no clue about the formation of Catholic moral law, how synods work, or pretty much how theology and doctrine work, well… they can go kiss the back of the Amblyopsis hoosieri‘s head.
By the way, the Cardinal that started this bit and the one who first clashed, heavily with Cardinal Kasper and through Kasper Pope Francis has been ousted.
You wanna hurt the global mission of the United Methodist Church? Bring.it.On. English: (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
There is a move, a threat, something akin to civil disobedience (if we must bring secular methods into the sectarian realm), unfolding before us. Various pastors, leaders of the fringes, have threatened to withhold apportionments if the United Methodist Church does not turn, or return, their way.
There are three particular paragraphs I want to call your attention to:
¶ 622. When the apportionments for bishops, district superintendents, conference claimants, and the Equitable Compensation Fund for the several districts and charges have been determined, payments made to the same in each pastoral charge shall be exactly proportional to the amount paid on the clergy base compensation (¶ 818.3). The treasurer or treasurers of each pastoral charge shall accordingly make proportional distribution of the funds raised in that charge for the support of the ordained ministry and shall remit monthly if practicable and quarterly at the latest the items for bishops, district superintendents, conference claimants, and the Equitable Compensation Fund to the proper treasurer or treasurers.
¶ 639.4. Proportional Payment—The board shall compare the records of the amounts paid by each pastoral charge for the support of pastors and for pension and benefit programs, computing the proportional distribution thereof and keeping a permanent record of defaults of the churches of the conference that have failed to observe the following provisions pertaining to proportional payment, and shall render annually to each church that is in default a statement of the amounts in default for that and preceding years.
a) When the apportionment to the pastoral charges for the pension and benefit program of the annual conference has been determined, payments made thereon by each pastoral charge shall be exactly proportionate to payments made on the salary or salaries of the ordained minister or clergy serving it.
¶ 818.3. Proportionality—The amount apportioned to a charge for the Episcopal Fund shall be paid in the same proportion as the charge pays its pastor (see also ¶ 622).
To sum, I quote the Oklahoma Annual Conference, which places on their budget this statement:
Items must be paid in an amount proportional to the amount paid on the pastor’s support, as required in Paragraphs 622, 639.4, and 818.3 of the 2012 Discipline. If the pastor is paid 100% of salary and support, then these items must be paid 100%.
In other words, if the apportionment is paid 70%, then the pastor can only receive 70% of his or her salary/support. If the apportionment is withheld completely, then pastors are going to work for free. This is a penalty of sorts imposed by the Book of Discipline. This should not even need a trial.
For examples of those withholding, or threatening to withhold apportionments, see here, here, here,here, and here. Others have graciously addressed the folly of such a move. Some don’t quite get who should pay, but they don’t get a lot as it were. Others, who I refuse to link to because of their habit of misappropriating narratives and abusing others, criticize the move, but fail to note the penalty. I don’t find this particularly ironic given their sense of justice is usually some form of white savior universalism.
Granted, others may have noted it – and I may have missed it. If I have, then I guess we’ll just restart the conversation.
But, I want to call attention to the penalty of withholding the apportionment, especially as we move into 2016. Pastors who withhold apportionments should have, if they are serious about following the Book of Discipline — and likewise, if we are intent on enforcing it — have their salaries likewise withheld.1 I propose that we begin to enforce this part of the Book of Discipline now. .
Perhaps, we can look at those who repeatedly miss these covenantal responsibilities, examine their expenditures and consider how seriously we want to enforce the Book of Discipline.
What sayeth ye? Do we enforce the Book of Discipline or not?
I define “withhold” as purposely not paying apportionment as a sign of protest, not because you failed to meet it due to budgetary issues. ↩