I’ve left this blog fallow for three years. My intention was to rename it or launch a separate site as we began the work of General Conference, 2020 in Minneapolis. Of course, about the time I was gathering material to update this blog, the novel coronavirus was spreading around the globe, leading to a pandemic now approaching two years in length.

I had no intention of returning to it now, either. I’ve watched with great interest (though sometimes also with a mixture of disgust and boredom) the posturing of sides within our beloved Church. The WCA has developed not only its own Book of Doctrine and Discipline but also a spiffy new name for its breakaway denomination: The Global Methodist Church. It has a nice ring to it. The WCA and many of different perspectives have pushed for adoption of the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace by any means necessary, believing it to be the best and most faithful way out of our present impasse. Still others have worked to leverage influence with decision makers at all levels of the church. I’ve lost track of how many petitions and open letters from all sides have crossed my desk/inbox. Adding my words to the noise has seemed superfluous at best, perhaps even unhelpful.

But today, I’m finding myself unable to hold back. This week, Rev. Tom Lambrecht of Good News released a statement (apparently before it was intended to go out). Either anticipating an announcement or acting on insider information that General Conference would be postponed again, his message rails against the leadership of The United Methodist Church. This message makes some brazen assumptions about motives while striking a tone somewhere between anger, frustration, and outright vitriol. Reading his points and knowing, as I do, much of the conversation behind them, I feel compelled to offer a different perspective. And just to be clear, I’m not unsympathetic to my friends at Good News. I identify as what many would call a Centrist.

Lambrecht begins by asserting, “It appears as if a majority on the Commission focused more on what the church cannot do than on what the church can do.” It appears to me as if he believes our priority during a global pandemic should be to hasten the path for non-compatibilists to separate from the church, not to do the work of being the church. He cites efforts to enable non-U.S. delegates to receive freely accessible vaccines, at a cost to Renewal and Reform partners of $135,000, leveraging contacts in the highest levels of government to facilitate smooth visa processing for delegates, and a willingness to provide additional testing to make sure delegates could arrive to cast their votes (presumably, for the Protocol).

Rob Renfroe and friends in January were outraged at the charge of colonialism in response to these tactics. But were they really surprised? During a global health crisis, to prioritize bringing people from around the world to a conference to pave the way for a smooth exit from the church is incredibly self-serving. Instead of investing $135,000 into vaccinating select individuals who can help you achieve your institutional goals, why not invest that money into actually ending the pandemic by supporting the global vaccination effort through an initiative like Love Beyond Borders, like many others have done. (My congregation designated our entire Christmas Offering to the effort, contributing over $32,000.) Instead of lobbying to fast-track visas for delegates, why not leverage those same contacts to alleviate the global refugee crisis? Instead of offering tests to delegates boarding a plane, why not provide testing kits for the billions of people around the world who have no access to testing at all?

Lambrecht went on to say, “To concerned observers, it appeared as though the Commission and its staff did very little to ensure that non-U.S. delegates could participate.” To other concerned observers, it appears that the Commission didn’t want to forge ahead with a conference that would jeopardize the lives of its participants or to disenfranchise any of the 12.5 million United Methodists around the world. Holding a conference when elected delegates with underlying health conditions would be forced to give up their seats to alternates or losing 30 or more seated delegates to visa issues is hardly a recipe for healthy, let alone holy, conferencing.

Levying charges of “dysfunction and incompetence” among church leaders, Lambrecht wonders whether the motivation for further postponing General Conference is “to defeat the Protocol” and “to make separation more difficult and costly for our churches” (emphasis mine). I’ve had many reasons to critique Lambrecht over the years, but cynicism hasn’t typically been among them. I wonder, has it ever occurred to this consortium of secessionists that their eagerness to leave is not a moral issue for the rest of us?

It’s become vogue in some circles to use the phrase, “my truth.” When it comes to describing how different people with different perspectives experience the same circumstances, I believe it can be a powerful and essential means of achieving greater understanding. When speaking “your truth” is a means of making egregious assumptions and casting aspersion against faithful, committed disciples in furtherance of your own agenda, it just sounds petty and desperate.

In the NFL, when there is a challenge to a call made in the field, the head referee goes to a video monitor where he watches the play several times to determine more clearly the right call. Speaking then to the teams and fans, he says, “Upon further review…”

I’ve been replaying much of this week over and over again in my head, trying to find a word of hope, a word of grace, a word of meaning. This morning, I want to offer a few of those words to you. Remember, I’m a Centrist with progressive leanings, so I share from that perspective.

To my more progressive friends: This feels like a gut punch. This was built up as a moment we would finally find a way forward, a space where everyone could be welcomed and affirmed. Instead, the existing language was retained and even extended, in some cases. We know what was passed cannot stand the constitutional test, but that is little consolation. I can’t feel exactly what you feel, but I know you are in pain. I can’t tell you what to feel or what to do. But here’s what I hope you will do. Stay in this thing. We’ve come a long way together. As Adam Hamilton said so eloquently yesterday, this conference has created more allies around the country. It’s not an end, but a hurdle. And I know we’ve had to cross so many already. But I think of the hard and dedicated work of so many saints who walked before us: Judy Craig, Tom and Alice Cromwell, Maurice King, Dick Parks, and countless others. I think of the committed work of so many still with us who inspire me and lead the way: Ken Ehrman and Sally Dyck, Nell and Tom Taylor, John Edgar, bishops and pastors and laity, too many to name. I can’t abandon this work now, not after all that has been given, after all that we’ve done together, not now when we are needed most. I hope you won’t, either.

To my more conservative friends: This week, you have been characterized as hateful, fearful, unloving and unfeeling. That hurts. I recognize that for some hard-line conservatives, it’s “my way or the highway,” but to most of the conservative leaning people I know, that’s not the case. You didn’t want this strict conformity and draconian punishment plan, either. You take covenant seriously. You take scripture seriously, but not necessarily literally. You want space for people to live but expect that we all live within established bounds, that our unity requires some standards upon which we all agree and by which we live. Now we have a plan that won’t work, that can’t be enforced, that will mostly be declared null and void in a couple weeks. We together wonder where to go from here. We’re right back where we started, for the most part, and we’ll continue to see the discipline defied without consequence. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think the best thing is for us to keep going faithfully where we’re planted and not worry so much about what is out of our control. And I hope we’ll offer grace to one another in the coming days and weeks as we figure out how to live together. That will not be easy work, but it is holy work.

To all: John Wesley began with just a handful of college friends who came together with a commitment to take their faith seriously through personal and social holiness. He shared his ideas as one man preaching in the fields to miners and farmers. The movement grew. Only reluctantly did he create an institution when people in America couldn’t live under the authority of thr official church of their oppressors. It is in our DNA to be a grass roots church. Throughout our history, whenever we have tried to be a top down church, we have mostly failed, sometimes spectacularly. Ministry doesn’t happen at General Conference. It happens in churches, where we worship together, serve together, live together in humility, knowing that there are flawed people all around us and sometimes they are us.

Today, I hope we can just breathe. Then, tomorrow, we begin anew the work of living the kingdom of God…ALL of us, together.

And I do mean a mess.

I apologize for the slowness in posting a summary. Many of you have been awaiting a word from me at the conclusion of the conference. It took a few minutes to return the translation device and navigate the crowd of delegates, press, and police. Then I called my Dad since today is his birthday (what a present). And, of course, I needed to talk to Jenn to unpack what happened, for her sake. Even now, I’m aware that this post will take awhile since, as I’ve already established, I have to swipe text it into my phone in absence of a computer power cord.

I’ll do my best to separate events from feelings, at least until I’ve explained what happened today.

We began the morning session with Bishop Gregory Palmer presiding in his masterfully calm and clear way. A report from the judicial council confirmed that we already knew: 10 petitions in the Traditional Plan were unconstitutional. That meant that amendments would need to be made to all of them in order to have them stand as church law. That is important to note and overshadows the rest of the day’s proceedings.

Two petitions related to pension funding for churches that leave the connection were addressed. There were several procedural steps, but the long and short is that they passed by a large margin, though it took a long time for that to happen.

The Traditional Plan was presented next alongside a minority report that would have substituted the One Church Plan for the Traditional Plan. It was never likely to pass, but opened debate again and afforded an opportunity for centrists again to make the case for staying together. Tom Berlin offered the minority report and did about as well as anyone could have asked. The motion to substitute failed. At that point, delegates were invited to stand and pray together as a symbol of the opportunity that had been lost.

A few other minor procedural items took place to close out the morning session, but nothing of lasting consequence.

After lunch, Bishop Cynthia Fierro Harvey presided. Several motions and procedural processes ensued, mostly general speeches and points of order (many of which were not directly points of order). A motion was made for the ethics committee to review stories of money and goods being offered in exchange for votes. That was passed, but it will be some time before we hear results (though I have witnessed some shady dealings at past General Conference sessions, it remains to be seen whether those actions can be clearly tied to bribery).

Things moved very slowly, and it became clear that there would not be sufficient time to make adjustments to the Traditional Plan to make it constitutional. A vote was finally taken on the plan as it is, with only one additional amendment having been passed today. The plan passed 438-384 (53-47%). It remains with serious constitutional flaws. A protest followed in which we saw what schism looks like, with progressives in one circle and several African delegates in another. The photo does not do it justice.

A smaller protest took place in the gallery of observers, and continued almost until the final minutes, even through remaining business.

After more lengthy debate and procedural challenges, a disaffiliation petition (exit plan) was passed at 6:19 p.m. That was immediately followed by a referral to Judicial Council of the Traditional Plan as it had been passed (that would have happened, anyway). All other petitions were bundled in an omnibus motion to reject, which passed at 6:25. Somehow, we finished, rather abruptly, in time to meet our contractual deadline (and before the monster truck set up began for a show this week).

But what does it all mean?

In short, we don’t really know yet. It will take about two weeks for Judicial Council to deliver a thorough review to determine what, if anything we passed, is constitutional. Likely, a few new restrictions will stand but without the enforcement to go with them. In any case, nothing new is implemented until 2020.

It is no secret that I have supported the One Church Plan all along. I believe we are past due to relax our restrictions toward the LGBTQ+ community, while maintaining the right of people to follow their conscience. That reflects who we are as a congregation, a community where all are welcomed fully into the life of the church even though we know we are not of one mind. Being in relationship with people of difference helps us all to grow as we strive together to be faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While I had hoped our denominational rules would be made more open this week, in essence nothing really changes for us. Church of the Saviour will continue to be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. For some, that is welcome news. For others, it is cause for lament and pain. I admit that I am somewhere in between, not ready or able to fully articulate what I feel.

I grieve for the brokenness of our church tonight. People on both ends of the theological spectrum are hurting and disappointed right now. Once the UMC was determined to reach a legislative solution, a question in which there would be winners and losers, we were resigned to this fate. In the end, we all lost something this week. It remains to be seen how great the loss will be. (I will attend a meeting of the board of trustees for the Methodist Theological School in Ohio on Friday where major decisions will need to be made about the future of that institution. This conference will have far-reaching consequences.)

Stories are already in the national and international press. We will not be portrayed in a good light. The optics are not good right now. Relationships will have to close the gap on public opinion. You may be asked questions for which we don’t have answers. I don’t have enough answers. But remember that our faith is about more than one question, about more than General Conference. We must keep living the faith we claim, no matter what.

In Tampa in 2012, I sat on the steps of the convention center and wept for our church. I don’t feel that way today, though tears have flowed this week. I am reminded and remind you that the General Conference is not the church – only the local church can be that. I am anxious to get home to all of you, to take up again the work of ministry before us, to try to make sense of it all, and to keep going. Regardless of what you are feeling tonight, know that you are not alone. We are not alone. Keep an eye on other centrists in the coming days – people like Adam Hamilton, Olu Brown, Adam Weber, Rob Fuquay, and countless others. We will find a way. God will make a way.

Love and peace to you all.

When I woke this morning, I reflected on some of the things for which I am grateful. I’m grateful for a quiet hotel room with a comfortable bed, a good shower, and pretty decent in-room coffee (a pleasant surprise). I’m grateful for the friend that provided a great dinner away from downtown last night for a colleague and me to enjoy a time apart. I’m grateful that, in spite of my bone-headedness in leaving the power cord for my computer at home, thanks to WordPress’s app, which isn’t perfect but better than nothing, I can swipe text my way through providing these updates. I’m grateful for the unicorn/narwhal socks Jenn bought me to remind me I can be playful while praying for God to do something “magical” in us and through us today.

I’m also grateful for the many people in my life that give me hope, even now. I’m grateful for faithful local churches who didn’t ask the General Conference to “solve” something that doesn’t need solving and who even now are figuring out how to be faithful in a winner-and-loser climate, wondering if there is still a place for them, a place where we can come together with different-minded people we love to worship and serve together.

Some thoughts this morning on conservatives. I recognize that labels are often not helpful and there are no absolutes, no monolithic groups of people; we all fall somewhere within spectra, not in either-or categories. I can no more speak of all conservatives or progressives than I can speak of all baseball fans or white folks or tenors. I, myself, lean conservative on some questions and liberal on others. So forgive my vague generalizations here, please. When I speak of conservatives in the words that follow, I am thinking of most of those with whom I am in relationship who tend to take a more conservative position than I do on matters of theology or scriptural interpretation.

Most of the conservative folks I know are not hateful or hurtful. They do not wish to drive out all dissenters nor impose draconian penalties on non-conformists. They take genuine interest in relationships that help all of us to find God’s will in our lives. When they call our attention to scriptural commandments, they do so in the hope that we will find and be found by the Christ who came to bring us life, eternal and abundant. Though we may disagree, I cannot judge or speak ill of them.

There are influencers around us that seek to divide, to stamp out new ideas and suppress the voices that seek to raise our collective conscience. Some of those voices have been heard here, driven by fear or misinformation or perhaps by conscience. But most of the conservative folks I know are not reactionary or exclusive.

Something to remember as we enter this day and may be tempted into an us-vs-them dichotomy. There is no “them.” There is only us, and we must find a way to live and love together.

Apologies to those of you who have been waiting eagerly for an update. After the session, I headed off to dinner and to process with a friend and, well, here I am just now back to my hotel. It was that kind of day.

We began the afternoon session with consideration if the One Church Plan. I was pessimistic of its chances, given the passage of the Traditional Plan in the morning session. But debate was civil and several amendments were considered in good order and approved. Very encouraging.

And then we voted.

The One Church Plan, the most Centrist of proposals, the plan recommended by 3/4 of the Commission on a Way Forward and endorsed by 2/3 of the bishops, the plan that arguably was the only one in line with the purpose of this specially-called session of General Conference, was defeated 386-436. The air went out of the room. Back to winners and losers, back to us vs. them. And yes, I know that some of you reading this will object to that characterization, but that’s what it looks like from where I am, even hours later.

The committee proceeded on to the next petition, which was quickly dispatched as unnecessary. After all, the “exit ramps” had already been advanced in the form of the Taylor and Boyette disaffiliation petitions, the Traditional Plan moved along and the One Church Plan stopped in its tracks. A motion was quickly made to simply discard all remaining petitions.

An amendment was made to still consider the Simple Plan as the only plan specifically written and affirmed by LGBTQ+ persons. Debate on whether to do so ensued, with an impassioned plea by Adam Hamilton to hear out our sisters and brothers, even with the minimal chances of passage, so as not to further silence and diminish their voices. Ultimately, the committee did exclude the Simple Plan from the rest of the remaining petitions, dismissing them without debate but agreeing to allow debate on the Simple Plan.

The speeches were passionate, heartfelt, and expressed mostly genuine concern for being in ministry with people of different sexual orientations, though there were a handful of very harsh comments from some delegates. The plan was defeated by a vote of 323 to 494, closer than I predicted.

A request had been made for declaratory decision on the constitutionality of all that had been passed throughout the legislative session. For inexplicable reasons, that was debated by the house. Nevertheless, it did pass and we await the results in the morning.

It has been a long and exhausting day. Tomorrow promises to be more intense. Here’s what needs to be done on Tuesday: All the legislation passed today will be presented for debate tomorrow to the plenary session. Yes, it’s the same exact group of people. But they’ll be looking at it with fewer surrounding options and a clearer sense of direction. We know that the Traditional Plan still needs around 10 amendments to fix its constitutionality and still may not make the mark. We don’t know what the ruling of Judicial Council will be yet, either. That could provide clarity or further confuse the process. And the One Church Plan will be presented as a minority report with an appeal to make it the main motion. That’s unlikely to happen, though it remains a possibility.

I expect that whatever gets approved will be scrutinized closely and is subject to judicial review. While many hoped this conference would make a clear and perhaps final decision on questions of sexuality, the reality is that Judicial Council will ultimately determine what, if any of this, is constitutional. And we probably won’t know that when we all go home.

Regardless of tomorrow’s outcome, I still believe that we are called to and can be a church for all people, a church of the middle way, that lifts high salvation through Christ while welcoming all. It may take longer to get there, but I am not ready to surrender the church to extremists who want strict obedience to their interpretation, not fidelity to the Christ of scripture.

Monday morning brought the beginning of legislative committee work. Remember that at this conference, that is done by committee of the whole. Joe Harris from Oklahoma presides over this session.

We learned the response to a question from yesterday about the number of delegates and who is missing. 31 delegates from 14 conferences were unable to secure visas. Read into that what you will. It mirrors our experience recently at COTS. In any case, we are not whole at this conference as a result.

We began work today on the Traditional Plan. A motion was made to delay consideration of the Traditional Plan to the end of the day. That motion failed. Instead, we began the process of working through amendments to the petitions in order to bring them in line with the constitution. Maxie Dunham held up a document that contained several amendments to multiple petitions. The document is 30 pages long. Debate ensued about the appropriateness of his request. The secretary of the General Conference said that such a document would need to be disseminated in keeping with the rules of the conference, including translation into multiple languages. He further indicated that he has been aware of the document for some time and has requested a digital copy multiple times and had not received it. While he was speaking, sometime handed him a flash drive. Another reserve delegate told me he had been given the digital version of the document earlier. It’s unclear what happened, exactly, but the document was ruled out of order in keeping with our rules. Amendments must be made individually, not as a group.

Three amendments were presented, debated, and passed. Then a motion to close debate was made and passed, before any additional amendments were considered. The plan passed to be presented tomorrow to the plenary session. Several amendments would still need to be made to align the plan with the constitution, but those now will need to happen tomorrow or not at all. If it passes without those amendments, it cannot be implemented because it is unconstitutional. Stay tuned.

Two more petitions were considered in the morning session, both about leaving the denomination on the basis of the church’s position on same sex relationships. Both passed and will be considered by the plenary session.

The appearance of the direction of the voting thus far is in favor of the Traditional Plan. While that is disappointing to One Church Plan supporters as I am, there is a long way to go. Even if the Traditional Plan passes without amendment, it cannot be enforced. And, as I’ve seen at General Conference previously, things can change fast. Implementation, however, is slow.

Today began with a time of worship. Actually, before that started, I did a Facebook Live post. (In case you missed it, check out the Church of the Saviour Facebook page.)

A procession of Bishops and worship leaders began as we sang “Lift High the Cross,” followed by a series of modern worship songs. Bishop Ken Carter delivered the morning message, exhorting us to “make unity of the Body of Christ your passionate concern.” He reminded us that we are people of the cross and the flame – redeemed from sin and passionate about the needs of the world. He asked us a series of “what if” questions: “What if… holiness is not ours to define in this life? … separation is never the path to holiness? … searching for the exits is easier but less faithful?… our calling is to be faithful to the one who never searches for an exit in relationship to us?” And he encouraged us that “what God has promised, God is able to perform.”Bishop Carter delivers the morning message

The morning session then proceeded at a snail’s pace, with a lengthy and detailed report from the Commission on a Way Forward, a report many of us have been intimately familiar with for months.

During the lunch break, I encountered a small group of protestors who had gathered across from the entrance to the dome, carrying inflammatory signs and shouting words of judgment over a bullhorn. Protestors spewing hate
I stopped to show a moment of kindness, asking one of the sign-wielding men where he was from. We almost had a conversation before his eyes glazed over and he began his apparent talking points. “I advise you to go back in the and tell those people…” to which I replied, “I’d rather you didn’t advise me.” After wishing him God’s blessings as I turned to walk away while he ranted, his companion shouted after me, “That’s the problem with the Methodists! You’re the problem with the Methodists!” Delightful people. Oh, and by the end of the day, some even more cheerful people from Westboro Baptist had joined in across the street.

In the afternoon session, after considerable delays to make sure the technology was working and we could account for every vote, delegates voted to rank the priority of the plans and petitions. The tally of the votes would determine the order in which they will be addressed by legislative session. Once all votes were cast the results were announced. Two petitions dealing with impact on pensions were ranked first, followed by the Traditional Plan, two dissolution petitions, and then the One Church Plan (18 others followed). That is disheartening, because it appears more people want to work on the Traditional Plan as the main motion than the recommended One Church Plan. There’s still a long way to go, especially considering that several parts of the Traditional Plan have been ruled unconstitutional.

Legislative committee officers were elected next, with Joe Harris from Oklahoma elected chair. Work was done on the pension petitions, but nothing else was addressed today. We have a long way to go tomorrow.

Continue to pray for the conference and our leaders to be wise and patient as we make our way through.

I arrived in St. Louis this afternoon, late to most of the preliminary gathering and, unfortunately, too late to take part in the day of prayer. But no sooner was I in my hotel room than I got a text message from an old friend. “Hey, we’re having dinner over at (name of local establishment). Come and join us when you get in!”

Later, after discovering that registation had closed an hour earlier than scheduled, I stopped in at another hotel near mine for a rally for the One Church Plan, the plan I think gives us the best path forward and the one that reflects best the realities of who we are. As I made my way through the sizeable crowds, I saw several old friends – friends I only ever see at these whole-church gatherings – and was reminded how much I love being part of this church. There were several pastoral leaders I have come to respect tremendously over the years, like Adam Hamilton and Tom Berlin and Brian Milford and John and Elaine Hopkins. There were newer friends like Adam Young. There were dear friends closer to home, too. It was good to see so many people who have helped me be a better pastor, a better person. I found myself wondering if we would all still be part of one church a few days from now.

It reminded me of an event a few months ago at home. The delegation from our conference held “listening post” meetings around the conference to hear from people in our congregations, to present the plans for A Way Forward, and to learn which plans they supported and why. One of the meetings was close to where I grew up, in the town where I taught school for four years once upon a time. When I got there, I found several dear friends, some of whom I hadn’t seen in over 20 years. Encountering each other, we were overjoyed, hugging and smiling and laughing, sharing memories and exchanging family news. Then the meeting started.

By the time the dust settled on all that was said, the deeply held convictions about what was right and what was wrong – about who was right and who  was wrong, it seemed we could no longer be who we were two hours earlier. Those same smiles were replaced be long faces, the hugs set aside as people sullenly made their way out the door, surrounded not by old friends but by allies in the same line of belief. Is this what our faith in Christ is supposed to produce?

I’m looking forward to an early morning and a chance to renew yet more old friendships. I’m praying that this meeting turns out to have a different, more hopeful outcome than the one a few months ago.

Oh, and for those of you at Church of the Saviour or who are connected with the Facebook Group, with any luck I’ll be doing a live video a few minutes before 7:30 CST, 8:30 EST. Just a birds-eye view of the space and some words of encouragement before the day’s business begins.

Earlier this week, at the conclusion of a visioning meeting at the church, someone asked me to make a prediction of the outcome of General Conference. In fact, he asked me to write it on a piece of paper, seal it in an envelope, and leave it at the church so they could open it Tuesday night and see if I was right.

Here’s the problem: I have no idea what will happen.

I know some of the statistics. Estimates are that between 67% and 72% of U.S. delegates are in favor of the One Church Plan. 30% of the delegates come from African Central Conferences, which are widely assumed to predominantly favor the Traditionalist Plan. There are three main plans: One Church, Traditionalist, and Connectional Conference; at least two other plans: Modified Traditional and Simple; and a handful of other petitions to consider. As near as I can tell, though the petitions will be grouped together by plan, each of the 78 petitions will be considered independently, at least to start out the legislative process.

There are just too many variables to make any kind of prediction. And my experience of General Conference has been that no matter what strategies are in place coming in, the process will dictate that strategies need to change. I do not expect that any of the plans will emerge intact. It could even be that we pass parts of multiple plans and that those petitions that pass could be contradictory. Or perhaps there are too many options for anything to reach 50% +1 (though I do think some things will pass).

The boldest prediction I will make is this: On the other side of this General Conference, we will be no nearer to settling the question of how United Methodists relate to LGBTQ+ persons than we are before. No matter what changes are made to the Discipline, if any, we will still disagree. No matter what kind of exit plans are passed, if any, there will still be people within the denomination who will not be satisfied with where we are and will continue to work to perfect our beloved church. I just do not believe that we can legislate our way out of disagreement. As painful as it is – and it has been painful for a long time – this is a passage we have to go through. We can do it together or we can separate, but we cannot go around it.

The conference begins tomorrow with a day of prayer. For tonight, my prayer is that we will all be open to the Holy Spirit and will have the humility to listen more than we speak.

Sorry, Eric. I didn’t leave an envelope.

Continuing to think about our propensity for cutting off relationships with those who disagree and choosing to stay in relationship with those who support our point of view. And I continue to be convinced this is not the way of Christ.

On the way out of worship Sunday morning, one of my parishioners was clearly very concerned about the decision about to be made at General Conference. “I’m so worried about the church,” she shared with me. “I just hope we don’t go down the wrong path.” I told her that one thing that brings me comfort is knowing that, no matter what happens at General Conference, she and I will still be sister and brother in Christ.

Did I mention she supports a different plan than I do?

One of the members of our delegation from East Ohio and one of my dear friends, Scott, had to make the decision last week that he cannot go to General Conference. Scott has been plagued by multiple health issues since last spring, and despite his best efforts, his body will simply not allow him to endure the rigors of the General Conference schedule. I know this was an especially agonizing decision for Scott, because he is a passionate guy who is passionate about Christ and his church. It’s no secret that Scott stands in a pretty traditional position, and I expect he would have voted strongly for the UMC to maintain its current position when it comes to human sexuality. Scott also knows that by stepping down, the first alternate steps in, and she will vote very differently than he would have.

Scott and I spoke today by phone. I called to check on him, to express my concern for him, to see if there is anything I or my family can do to support him and his family. My heart breaks for Scott, because I know how much this means to him, how badly he wants to be there to faithfully do what he believes is best, even though we disagree. Our differences did not disappear in the course of our conversation. I know full well that Scott’s absence means one more vote for the One Church Plan, one less vote for the Traditionalist Plan. But I wouldn’t have that at the expense of Scott’s well-being. And I believe, no matter what, that we can still accomplish much for the mission of Christ…together. At the end of our conversation, Scott and I reminded each other, “I love you.” And we meant it.

Let’s assume that we do what most non-compatibilists think we should do and we divide the church – either into three separate paths under one umbrella or with only the prevailing faction staying and others leaving. What then? Maybe we will be able to say more boldly what we think. Maybe we will feel more justified in our position. On some issues, we may even be able to accomplish some things more easily. But will the world change because of it? Will the people in the world we disagree with just disappear? I fear all we will have accomplished is to further insulate ourselves while blissfully ignoring the reality that others in the world still exist. Do we think we don’t need anyone else? Who will make the decisions that affect all of us then? The majority? The loudest? The most extreme?

I understand that separating does not mean that we have to stop loving each other. But reading some of the words of those in various positions, particularly but not exclusively from outside lobbying groups, it appears we are unclear about that. Judging by the direction we are headed in society, it doesn’t appear that we are inclined to demonstrate love, much less grace, to those who disagree.

Are we stronger together or separate? It depends how we measure strength. But one thing is certain: neither our differences nor our detractors will disappear, no matter what is decided in St. Louis.