Fear of Institutional Failure

From where I write right now, Spring is slow to arrive.  Patches of snow remain, and in the deep woods over brush and grasses, the snow is still quite deep, though turning slushy.  In other places, the mosses and grass are fully exposed, especially around the trees.  Nevertheless, various kinds of ducks have returned North already, expecting the ponds and lakes to be free for them to land in and not still covered by ice.  This morning I saw a pair circling the ice-covered ponds nearby, and, instead, surprisingly landing in a very large puddle of standing water from melted snow in the corner of the field next to the woods - not the expected pond and a place that will become dry for the summer as the ground gets warm enough to absorb the melting water.  Yet, land in it they did, and immediately floated in it in perfect stillness, completely content and silent.  They needed calm and nourishing waters to land in, and they found them and "thought" nothing of it.

I am absorbing the peacefulness of this place one more time before heading to Fort Worth, and working mostly via e mail on final preparations with the RMN legislative team and our allies.  Things are crystallizing.  We have talked together for hours about the theology of and urging inclusiveness, and we have worked on "arguments" that support our work for full inclusion and the end of infliction of spiritual violence on LGBT people.  This involves reason and logic on one level, but it goes much deeper than that.  We discuss the Bible, the Gospel, Jesus - what he meant, what God wants of us.  We discuss John Wesley and the foundations of our denomination.  We search the history of our faith and understand that so many of Wesley's sermons support diversity, full inclusion and not imposing one's "opinions" on others in ways that are divisive. 

But over the past week, some insight was shared with me that has caused me significant pause.  Of course this spiritual and theological searching and formulating is not new.  It seems that the movement has already put forward these insights.  We think if we are just that much more focused or bring that much more of Spirit or "something" to the discussion (or debate), we can finally break through.  But this is not, of course, the first time that we have formulated our words in this way as we urge the church to, frankly, do the right spiritual thing.  It is just that the reflective, thoughtful, and even "brilliant" theological arguments we and our brothers and sisters before us have made with great feeling and passion - and while in the hands of the Holy Spirit - have not been persuasive to the audience or carried the day at General Conference.  Instead, arguments from "the other side" based in fear - have swayed the church.  It is important to see this fact, based on a review of the past "debates" at General Conferences past, and call it what it is. 

First it was pure generated fear about homosexuals themselves - irrational and homophobic arguments, like if we were fully included and accepted, AIDS would spread at greater rates, and acceptance would lead to illegitimate children.  And most recently, the fear-based arguments grounded singly in homophobia (fear of LGBT people) kind of gave way (not totally, of course), because our movement became stronger, and more visible, and we as LGBT people could no longer be broadly dehumanized, and objectified in certain negative ways.   For this we know we have the pioneers of our movement, those who have courageously gone before us, to thank. For example, LGBT clergy who were stripped of their orders, but who stood still and strong and remained clear about their gifts and calling in the face of false rejection by the church.

Now, we are informed that the recent quadrennia have revealed the next level of fear-based approaches to continuing to deny full inclusion of all God's children: the fear that doing so will somehow destroy the institution: if we are inclusive, the church will be torn apart, the church in Africa will fail and be confused about what our missionaries taught them, the church itself will die out.  And these insulting and patronizing arguments were persuasive, got the votes and have increased discriminatory laws and rules in our church.

No one wants the church to fail or to die or to be torn apart.  Yet, isn't that what is apparently happening under the present set of principles, powers and rules (or powers and principalities, isn't that the phrase?)- that are not inclusive and thus divisive?  Perhaps the only way for true and lasting unity is to allow full inclusion with an international structure allowing regional autonomy.  This is why the Robbins/Okayama and Wulf legislation pending in the Conferences Committee is key to the future of our church.  That is my legislative digression for this blog.  (See your copy of the DCA - or see www.Generalconference2008.org)

If the church decision makers are resisting an inclusive Gospel primarily because they fear what will happen to "the institution," what does this say?  We moderates and progressives have been working the spiritual angles and communing with how Jesus loves us - and trying to get the church to remember that, but are we to now realize that the institution itself is really the primary concern?  So our passionate and brilliant theological and spiritual arguments are misdirected?  We would do better to appeal to the same fears?  This causes me great pause.  I thought I was working for awakening and enlightenment and to help the church so many love and are a part of to be more "the church" - not to stave off fears about losing "the institution" at the cost of the core of spiritual truth.  For me, at least, the Gospel comes before the institution.  This is true even though our church had and has so much promise to live the Gospel - but it refuses.  Yet, people should  not worry: the institution of The United Methodist Church is not going anywhere.  I guess that can be read two ways and both might be true - we'll see.  What I mean is, it will be around in one form or another for a long time.  What form do we want it to take?  Will it be like a still frozen pond in Spring, over which the ducks circle, but find unsuitable and inhospitable for a soft and peaceful landing? 

Comments

[Tiffany Steinwert]

What a great commentary!

I've always been told that to combat fears, you first have to acknowledge, expose and confront them. If only all our General Conference delegates could read this piece and see the arguments for anti-LGBT legislation unmasked!!

[John Meunier]

It strikes me as interesting that reading the words of brothers and sisters on both ends of this debate, there is a strong feeling that they have engaged in honest and prayerful reflection. They have engaged in reasoned argument. They have listened to the Bible and our traditions.

And the other side is engaging in some sort of game that is not legitimate or honest. The RMN side sees fear mongering and hatred. The Confessing/IRD side sees liberal agendas that hide behind theological rhetoric.

Both sides explain the failure of their side to win the argument as evidence that the other is underhanded, dishonest, or somehow manipulating the system or people's emotions.

I wonder why that is.