Illustration Courtesy of Great Map
Define Elephant
United Methodist Insight Editorial Analysis
Most military forces have protocols known as "rules of engagement." This set of conditions defines when the military will use force against an opponent, what kind of force will be used, and at what level of intensity, from a warning shot across the bow to all-out war.
The United Methodist Church is at all-out war with itself, but there's tremendous disagreement over the rules of engagement. The latest skirmish erupted Oct. 11 on United Methodist Insight when the Rev. Stephen W. Rankin criticized another blogger, the Rev. Jeremy Smith, for his use of "white male privilege" to argue against efforts to close the 2016 General Conference. Rankin's critique drew an impassioned response from United Methodist layman Geoffrey Kruse-Safford, who employed some disturbing social media examples to show that church bloggers exhibit polite gentility compared to the take-no-prisoners context of the whole Internet.
So once again battle has been joined, fighting not over the substance of the original argument – whether to keep people out of General Conference – but on the form of argument, especially n the freewheeling environment of the Internet. By virtue of hosting an arena where these diverse views have clashed directly, United Methodist Insight finds itself in a position to survey the field of point and counterpoint for future "rules of engagement" and make a recommendation.
After due consideration of various writers' critiques of their counterparts, along with reviewing social media discussions on the conflict, we lean toward the wisdom of the Sufi master Al-Johara in the film "Jewel of the Nile": "Is good debate. No winners. Now we must go."
We're not being flippant. The online tempest set off by Smith's allegation of institutional sexism, Rankin's critique of Smith, and Kruse-Safford's riposte to Rankin clearly demonstrates the hazards of debate about the UMC's future: We're all coming to the discussion with our own rules of engagement based upon our respective contexts. Passionate outbursts exemplify the bedrock issue – the United Methodist system, in which so many of us have invested so much, is broken. We all know it; we all feel some measure of responsibility for the breakdown; and we're at a loss as to how to fix it. Hence we fight with one another instead of addressing the challenge before us.
Under such conditions, it's no wonder that even the most rational among us could "rage against the machine," to use a popular metaphor. We all appear to have forgotten that our "methods" were never meant by Methodism's founders to be ends themselves. They're the tools that we use to make sure we are following Jesus Christ. The ultimate question isn't how we process our thinking or how we argue, but whether our methods enable us to follow faithfully the teachings and example of Jesus. The answer to this question isn't as simple as it may seem, because Jesus left us with a paradox: calling human culture to account by God's standards while advocating love of God and neighbor as our paramount guide.
Within the paradox of our faith we feel deeply about United Methodism's profound crisis. One thing is certain: we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of either/or approaches. We need all voices and all tones of argument and all modes of thinking as we seek God's will for the denomination's future. Otherwise we are like blind men describing an elephant. We each perceive only a part of the beast, and yet we think that the part we perceive and proclaim constitutes the whole. Without others, our conclusions are incomplete.
From a spiritual discernment perspective, the utmost evaluation of any proposal or process isn't how well they're technically executed according to our individual rules of engagement. Instead, we need to ask more open-ended questions, such as, "Where do we see God active in this idea/essay/article/post?" and "Which way could God be directing us through this individual's expression, including his/her passion for this topic?"
In short, the church's future isn't going to be determined by how we write or argue or postulate or advocate, but by how well we discover and follow God's will. In our collective hubris, we have forgotten that we do not speak for God, nor do we defend God. Our tasks are to seek God; to give witness to divine activity as signs of God's mission; and to counsel together on how we can fulfill God's mission.
So instead of escalating the latest skirmish, let's experiment. Pick any article posted currently on United Methodist Insight (including those involved in the current tempest) and read it again through the open-ended lenses we recommend. Post your responses in the Comments section of each article with reference to "discernment" in the title. In a week, we'll collect your discernments into an article. We may be surprised by what we find together.
Cynthia B. Astle serves as coordinator of United Methodist Insight.