Presenting Symptoms

“To switch sides and to keep being disruptive.” That’s a direct quote from a Facebook post discussing the impact of the Wesleyan Covenant Association’s announced intention to remain in the current UMC for the foreseeable future. It was written by someone who, presumably at least, advocates for the full inclusion changes to the United Methodist Book of Discipline (BOD). What struck me most profoundly was the assumption that the decision to maintain a presence in the UMC was specifically to prolong the enmity and name-calling. Seems to me that could just as easily be said about those who support full inclusion. Let’s not forget that much of the mistrust between us stems from some in leadership of the church who have chosen to stop enforcing the accountable practices of connectionalism (and in many cases endorsing the disobedience). That is their choice and privilege, to be sure, but let’s stop villainizing those who disagree as mere malcontents. I respect anyone who feels called to advocate for that which they hold sacred. Please do not presume to understand the extent of the mistrust that has overwhelmed many who have advocated for following the discipline as it was written and agreed to by the 2019 General Conference. The human sexuality debate, while in and of itself a very real and painful point of disagreement, is but a symptom of the underlying broken confidence in our accountable covenants.

Whether a clergy member, lay person or entire congregation chooses to stay or go says more to me about the breathability of the atmosphere of accountability they detect than it does about their views on the presenting disease of “intolerance.” While there are certainly impassioned debates from sincere petitioners raging around the question of full inclusion, for some of us the greater concern is less one of theology than it is one of integrity re the covenants we have already made.