Hacking Christianity

Top-down polity v. bottom-up policy [bad.hack]

A bad.hack (read more about it here) is a manipulation of a Christian system either using illicit means to achieve an end, or achieving goals that leave the system worse off and less open than before. Read on for the hack!

At General Conference, one item that was hotly debated was a motion to add pastoral accountability to church pastors regarding membership. It was sponsored by the Oklahoma conference, and would have made pastors accountable for decisions regarding membership. This was primarily in response to Judicial Council decision 1032, which erroneously gave sole authority to the pastor regarding membership. Sole authority is good and fine, but there must be some accountability, someone for a pastor to have to answer to if they exclude racial minorities, sexual minorities, or even people who are poor from their flock. [/soapbox]

Open Membership failed by 12 votesAnyway, the item failed by a mere 12 votes, and ¶214 in the Discipline will be the same for the next 4 years. But that's not what is interesting to this blog's readership. One of the primary arguments used on the General Conference floor against this measure came from Alice Wolfe, who (at least twice) claimed that this measure would have tied pastor's hands and forced them to accept people into membership.

Open Membership Worst Case Scenario: $500 in Lost RevenueThe worst-case scenario for Wolfe? That people would join a church just to not have to pay for a wedding. Really. Most UM churches do not charge members of those churches for building usage, such as weddings and funerals. Thus the people who would join to not have to pay for those usages would be stealing about $500 from the church coffers. That's the scare tactic used by Wolfe which probably was just effective enough to get the 12 votes needed to defeat the measure.

The worst-case scenario for Wolfe is a loss of $500. The worst-case scenario for for those who are gay is denial of membership from a church community that they love and contribute to.

Local Church Policy can nullify the Worst Case Scenario...easily.This is an example of how top-down polity could easily be rectified by bottom-up policy. I've worked at many churches, and at least two I've been wedding and events coordinators for. In all of those churches, we had a local church policy: You must be a member for at least one year to have building usage fees waived. A simple policy, and as long as it is well-known, then people won't come sneaking into your churches to steal $500 from your cribs...at least, not for a year.

Closed systems are better at local level than at the top-level.There, isn't that easier than top-down scare tactics that do not give justice to pastor's decisions on membership? This claim by Wolfe and supported by members of the minority report was simply a scare-tactic, a straw-man fallacy that was true, but easily remedied at the local level. Instead, we still have a polity that gives sole judgment of receiving into membership into the local church pastor...without accountability. Wouldn't it have been better to close the system's loopholes at the local level than dictating it from the highest levels?

I'm ashamed at the fear-mongering tactics and the delegates who voted out of fear of a local church losing $500. I'm angered by our judgmental attitudes on people's reasons for membership. And I'm a preacher, so I preached about it from my bully pulpit. From my sermon today:

We need to look at the long view, of what happens when people become part of a community, and give trust to God that the Spirit may actually enter into them despite their intentions. This church has accepted people who joined only to get their children baptized. This church has accepted people who joined only to get a members’ discount on a wedding. And you know what...we will continue to do so. Because we must have a bird’s eye view of things, and we leave judgment on people’s hearts to God.

I don't pastor a fancy church with tons of disposable income that $500 is not needed. It most certainly is needed for ministry! But if a person is willing to take the membership classes and pledge UM vows, who am I to judge what is in their heart? I will leave the judgment up to God. If we lose $500, but there's a possibility for a new disciple in Christ...friends, that is worth it. Heck, a year's worth of pledges would most likely be close to $500.

Targeting "cheaters" betrays our lack of trust in God.It just tears my heart up that our polity lost a chance at inclusiveness by 12 votes because delegates were scared of losing money. Not all of them who voted against it voted for that reason, I'm sure, but 12 votes, 6 people? Most likely. We don't like people who cheat the system, so we close it off to them. That's human nature. But in this case, our desire to thwart others led us to value $500 over the chance to change a life by exposure to a Christian family and lifestyle. And that hurts my heart.

May the God of New Beginnings signal to local church clergy to trust in God when it comes to readiness for membership, and may their accountability be to Jesus Christ...who will ask them at heaven's gates why they excluded from membership the least of these for $500.

Meditation: Post-GC Faithful Protest

On the last day of GC, Karen Oliveto nudged me towards this poem by Italian writer Carlo Carretto. I hope it means as much to you as it does to me!

How much I criticize you, my church,
and yet how much I love you!
You have made me suffer more than anyone,
and yet I owe more to you than to anyone.
   I should like to see you destroyed,
   and yet I need your presence.

You have given me much scandal,
and yet you alone have made me understand holiness.
Never in this world have I seen anything,
more compromised, more false,
   yet never have I touched anything more pure,
   more generous or more beautiful.

Countless times I have felt like
slamming the door of my soul in your face—
and yet, every night, I have prayed that I might die in your arms!
No, I cannot be free of you, for I am one with you,
even if not completely you.

Then too, where would I go?
To build another church?
But I could not build one without the same defects,
for they are my defects.
   And again, if I were to build another church,
   it would be my church, not Christ’s church.

No. I am old enough. I know better.

(cross-posted at Religion is a Queer Thing)

Homophobia Begats Sexual Violence

A bad.hack (read more about it here) is a manipulation of a Christian system either using illicit means to achieve an end, or achieving goals that leave the system worse off and less open than before. Read on for the hack!

Homophobia leads to weakened witness against sexual violence.

Hear that again: Homophobia in the United Methodist Church has weakened our witness against sexual violence.

I was having dinner with T.L. Steinwert and she alerted our table to this fact. I'm gonna post it here before her to steal her thunder. :-) As a result of our denominations' fear of gay people, we voted in a weaker stance on sexual ethics that does not give words or power to those who suffer from sexual violence.

We get our stance on sexual ethics from the Social Principles. The Social Principles of the United Methodist Church are our stances on social issues, such as war, the environment, politics, democracy, abortion, and...homosexuality! Indeed, we have an entire section devoted to human sexuality.

Anyway, other blogs have written much about the lack of changes to the homosexuality prohibitions. I'll leave that to them. I want to write about how our fear of all things gay has removed the language against sex acts of violence.

Anyway, here's what the Social Principles say now about sexual violence.

Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are only clearly affirmed in the marriage bond. Sex may become exploitative within as well as outside marriage. We reject all sexual expressions that damage or destroy the humanity God has given us as birthright, and we affirm only that sexual expression that enhances that same humanity. We believe that sexual relations where one or both partners are exploitative, abusive, or promiscuous are beyond the parameters of acceptable Christian behavior and are ultimately destructive to individuals, families, and the social order.

Here's what was removed at General Conference 2008.

Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are ~~only clearly~~ affirmed only within the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage ~~bond~~ . Sex may become exploitative within as well as outside marriage. We reject all sexual expressions that damage or destroy the humanity God has given us as birthright, and we affirm only that sexual expression that enhances that same humanity. We believe that sexual relations where one or both partners are exploitative, abusive, or promiscuous are beyond the parameters of acceptable Christian behavior and are ultimately destructive to individuals, families, and the social order.

Notice what is missing?
You can read it again here, it wasn't put in elsewhere.
Here's what the 2008 Social Principles will NOT say about sexual violence.

No words of prohibition against marital rape
No words of prohibition against improperness in marriage relationships that are outside of legal codes.
No words of comfort to those who are troubled by their partner's demands of them in sexual relations.

I know when we get hurt we turn to the bible for comfort. As sick as it sounds, some pastors and even lay UMs turn to their Book of Discipline for our stance on deeply personal issues. If they don't see their issue reflected back at them, if a woman being raped by her husband doesn't see words to give her power, then the United Methodist Church's stance on sexual violence has been weakened.

The minority report tries, it really does. Here's its reference to violence in sexuality.

All persons, regardless of age, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation, are entitled to have their human and civil rights ensured and to be protected against violence.

Weak. Way to replace a well-written sentence that acknowledges the messy humanity of relationships with an ambiguous one that does not speak truth to power.

This is a bad.hack. We have replaced language that gives power to people with language that does not empower people. It's like saying "We are against snowcones" without condemning those who make snowcone machines or the funnel-sized cups. There is no substance behind our witness, and indeed the substance that was there was removed, making the system of symbols less effective in social witness. By this change, we have made our system of social witness weaker and less relevant.

There are always unintended consequences to our actions. In our homophobia and zeal, we forget the humanity of those whom we wish to strip rights from, and unintentionally remove language of power to those who suffer from sexual violence. In other words, by focusing so much on sexual relationships, we have given power to those who commit sexual violence.

May the God of broken bodies forgive our church for our homophobia, and may we look in the mirror and realize that the one who is broken by homophobia is ourselves.

UMC no longer making disciples [mission.hack]

A mission.hack is defined here. We look at mission statements or at mission initiatives and examine different ways of expressing them. Hacking them...if you will.

The United Methodist Church at General Conference 2008 just voted to no longer make disciples of Jesus Christ.

In other words, the mission statement of the UMC was previously "to make disciples of Jesus Christ."

Now the UMC's mission statement is "To make disciples of Jesus Christ for the Transformation of the World."

This is a good mission.hack. Why? Because it is utterly Wesleyan in that our discipleship leads us to act. We are not a passive people, we are a people with a blessing that requires that we pass it on. Like a cup overflowing with God's love, now our mission statement reflects that discipleship must bubble up out of us in acts of mercy and justice.

May all congregations adopt this mentality of connecting faith with action. Bravo for the GC2008!

How to Reconcile "narrowly passed" doctrines [G2008]

At GC2008, I got two flyers today: one from a renewal group and one from a caucus group. I was struck by two very similar statement from these very different groups.

From the renewal group regarding abortion:

After the 1972 General Conference narrowly approved legalized abortion...

And from the caucus group regarding gay inclusion:

In the 1970s, General Conference narrowly, and at the last minute, changed the language regarding homosexuality to that we have today.

We all know that General Conference is 50% + 1 for passage into the United Methodist Church. However, why do we use the language "narrowly" when it applies to legislation that we disapprove of? I can think of two reasons:

Such statements are used to discredit the language that is in the Discipline by emphasizing how narrow the "win" was.
Such statements are used to nuance that the Discipline is a political document. Most every line is the result of political wrangling.

It is important to emphasize the politics so that people don't see our polity as sacrosanct. However, to use language like "narrowly" evokes images of people claiming a 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to discredit the decision. While it can be evoked by caucus groups to promote how controversial their issue is when pushing delegates at General Conference, but I feel it has limited benefits outside those contentious times.

But I guess I would question if it is really necessary to continue emphasizing narrow "victories" (see post on militaristic language here) of the other side to give credence to your issue's viability. Such language is meant to divide and question, not bring unity through diversity.

There has been a movement the past two GCs that I've been to that desires to put in "we are not of one mind" into certain areas of contention (abortion, gay rights, etc). That gets shot down by delegates who demand polity to be an instruction book with no nuance. I think this is a mistake because it does not speak to the divides to bring comfort to those who are not of "one mind" with the church. Perhaps by giving language that reflects the "unity in diversity" that so often permeates the Discipline decisions, we would find more cause to discuss them in civil natures, not relying on the language as the final word.

Any thoughts on this? How can we resolve language of "narrow" triumphs with "not of one mind" language...while balancing the need for doctrinal authority?
Thoughts?

PhoneGate at GC2008: free cellphones? [bad.hack]

A bad.hack (read more about it here) is a manipulation of a Christian system either using illicit means to achieve an end, or achieving goals that leave the system worse off and less open than before. Read on for the hack!

MethoFolks, listen up. This is a big post. I've got plenty of links and information regarding the PhoneGate at the General Conference of the United Methodist Church, a controversy surrounding the gifts of cell phones to African delegates from a Renewal group with an implicit exchange for their votes.

Read the UMNS news service report today on a Renewal Group handing out free cell phones to delegates with guides on who to vote for for Judicial Council.

Delegates and church officials attending General Conference are wondering if democratic processes have been compromised because a renewal group provided some African and some Filipino delegates with cell phones.

The Renewal and Reform Coalition created myriad conversations among delegates, church leaders and visitors after they learned that the Confessing Movement, Good News/Renew, Transforming Congregations and UMAction provided free cell phones to more than 150 African delegates to use during the General Conference.

Some delegates and officials expressed concern that the coalition is trying to sway the votes of African delegates who are typically more conservative than their U.S. counterparts. They fear the coalition might use the phones to offer suggestions on how to vote on particular issues.

INCREDIBLE!! They purchased cell phones and gave them to delegates, "no string attached."

I'm with GC Blogger in that this just smells fishy...and not good cooked fish, but raw stinky fish. And yes, Jim...FAIL.

I'm not the only one smelling the stink. Here's a relevant response from an ethics monitoring team:

A joint monitoring team from the Commission on the Status and Role of Women and the Commission on Religion and Race said the giveaway “is inappropriate behavior and it destroys community. We have gathered for Christian conferencing, which requires trust, honesty, openness and respect. Whenever there is an imbalance of power relationships with the expectation of reciprocity, this behavior gives the appearance of paternalism, manipulation, exploitation and of course, racism."

However, it seems to get much worse!

The GC2008 blog linked to the Daily-Kos affiliated blog StreetProphets post with video and images of the offending incidents that claims the cell phones came with a list of people to vote for, and information that who to vote for will be text-messaged to delegates during conference.

Here's the video (from StreetProphets):

However, StreetProphets erroneously credits the IRD solely with this scheme, but it was a joint effort among all the Renewal groups. I was handed a Good News written response to the controversy which claims "a cell phone is just a cell phone."

It is demeaning to the African Delegates to think that a gift of a cell phone would change their vote. They are highly educated, aware of issues, and supremely principled in their beliefs; and to think that the gift of a cell phone would change their view is demeaning to them. ...the Rev. James Heidinger, president and published of Good News, [said] "We believe that equal access to techno0logy helps create a more just and equitable playing field."

Finally, Will Green, a delegate from New England, also mentioned this:

Another member of the New England delegation - Ralph - was granted the floor for a moment of personal privilege and requested the Commission on General Conference form an Ethics Committee to address such crises as this. It was seconded and passed by a hand count (in other words, it wasn't close)!

That sounds brilliant. You need an established body of people to decide whether censure or condemnation is needed in an official capacity. Personally, I think it should have happened at GC2004 when the renewal groups said the UMC was splitting and that they speak for the church....

But I digress. This is hacking Christianity, right? So, what kind of hack is this?

An offering of hospitality to delegates whose international citizenship would make it difficult to purchase a cell phone?
Or a gift with no explicit strings attached, but with the means and method to influence votes at General Conference?

I guess I'm troubled mostly by the text-message thing: to send text messages on the floor to delegates while they are supposed to be in Holy Conferencing and listening only to the Spirit of God seems really antithetical to the whole thing.

If that proves true, then I would call this a bad.hack, one that uses a system of acceptable gifts and abuses those acceptable gifts to influence delegates while they are supposed to be listening to the Spirit of God. There's some more debate of this here on Matthew Kelley's blog.

But still, giving of "gifts" especially to those from third-world (hate that term) and developing nations (better) just reeks of, in the words of the UMNS article, colonist mentality that gives gifts with an implicit exchange of reciprocity. That sort of mentality has no place in a global Methodist church.

Sigh. I'm torn. What are your thoughts?

Is a cell phone just a cell phone? A gift of hospitality to our overseas friends?
Or is a cell phone an abuse of a system that seduces good Christian people to listen to a cell phone rather than the Spirit of God?

Thoughts?

Language of Insiders? [worship.hack]

a worship.hack (defined here) is a proposed change or question of the way worship typically works to open it up to more people, either in substance or in style. Read on for relevant critiques of worship!

I took two very dear friends to their first Reconciling worship service...it was the one at General Conference. They enjoyed themselves, but had an interesting comment for me that hits pretty close to home.

My friend said this:

I really enjoyed the service, but one thing stuck out to me. With all the discussion about including gays and lesbians, minorities, non-able-bodied people, and singing about including everyone in worship together...well, I felt left out. I don't fit into any oppressed category, but I simply didn't know any of the names they were dropping. Gil Caldwell? Tracy West? Karen Oliveto? The woman given the yoke of Christ at the end whose story was not shared? All those insider knowledge I knew nothing about.

That's a tough critique. How often in our worship services do we use the language of insiders that is comfortable to us on the inside, but unknown to those on the outside?
I hear what he said: I knew all the names because of my familiarity, but even the woman at the end was unknown to me. So to see the glazed look in my friends' eye and the names being scribbled down for me to give the story about later...well, I realized that the language of insiders can be inhospitable to outsiders. We can drop non-name insider words as well. Words like "prevenient grace" in UMC churches can glaze over newcomers' eyes (and old-timers as well!).

But at the same time, we like inside jokes. We like inside comments that are the language of insiders, and then we feel like insiders. The joy of realizing what they are talking about is a valuable worship experience.

I don't know..what do you do in your worship services that opens up the language of insiders to others? How do you, as a receiver, want to know about the language of insiders? Would a glossary in the bulletin work?

Thoughts?

Slow updates y'all

There's much more at GC to feel passionate about and actually have hands on time with than there is time to blog about it. Oh, and I lent my camera to a friend who will actually take pics with it. When I get more time, I'll blog more.

However, Monday's post is a DOOZIE. Alreday written, but no pastors will pay attention on a Sunday morning, so Monday is it. Check back then. :-)

General Conference Coverage

So, General Conference starts today. All your favorite bloggers are there (or will be there...I don't get there until Friday). Out of all the updates and commentary by bloggers, pundits, and John Wesley himself, what can you expect here at HX.net?

For those of you that are not Methodist or are solely interested in the concept of hacking Christianity, please forgive the next 10 days. However, if you stick with me, you'll find many applications of the concepts of this blog onto the UMC. Ya might learn somethin'!

During General Conference

There's gonna be plenty of hacks and opportunities abound! Here's what I'll be doing...

posting and reviewing copies of renewal group publications (mostly bad.hacks I'm sure).
reviewing written statements by the UMC-affiliated agencies and handouts (our famous mission.hacks)
Pictures, pictures, pictures!
Coverage of advocacy events and responses!
Praying for peace.
Crying and celebrating with my brothers and sisters in Christ (I'm sure there will be much of both!)

Post-General Conference

There's plenty more to process!

Review the changes to the Discipline
Review the responses and media-whoring by the renewal groups
Review the witness and advocacy events of the caucus groups
Sleep. Maybe.

Life after General Conference...

There's several posts to look forward to that I'm holding off on until after GC...since that's all on everyone's mind anyway!

What the UMC can learn from Wikipedia [4-post series]
User-submitted mission.hacks from their communities (contribute by emailing me here)
And more whittling through the list of future blog posts.

Enjoy! Looking forward to the week ahead, and pray for safe travels!

General Conference and General Motors

I was asked on Sunday the following:

Why do Methodists love their committees so much that they would gather for a full week of committess? It seems like that many Methodists could do good works and charity instead of sitting around and talking.

Indeed, the questioner is correct, we could take that week and thousands of people and do good works and acts of charity. But we wouldn't be getting all the jobs done that are required of us as the Church of Jesus Christ...

How is that? To parallel why General Conference for the United Methodist Church matters, we have to compare it to another General: General Motors, that is.

It's been said that the car company General Motors has two jobs.

The obvious one? To make cars.
The other one? To be a company.

This car company has to focus not only on getting cars made, but also how to conduct themselves and interact as a company of people dedicated to Job #1.

We could then say that the Christian church United Methodist Church is like that. We also have two jobs.

The obvious one? To make disciples of Jesus Christ.
The other one? To be a church together.

This Christian church focuses not only on creating disciples, but every four years we come together and decide how to conduct ourselves and interact as a fellowship of believers dedicated to Job #1.

May we these next two weeks come to a working arrangement and a grace-filled polity as we work on Job #2 in order to better pursue Job #1.

Six-Word Motto for the UMC

Freakonomics recently did a six-word motto contest for the United States. It had tons of ideas, responses, and votes. And looking at what they ended up with, I thought it was very relevant for the United Methodist Church.

No surprise there. Our three-branches system reflects the US Government, our denomination grew up as our country was growing up, and our denomination split right before the civil war. Today, the UMC is seen as a bellweather for social issues affecting America. So, a six word motto for the USA...perhaps it can describe the attitude of the UMC (while never, of course, explaining our mission: to make disciples of Jesus Christ...hey, that's six words too!).

So, what were the results? The unofficial six-word motto for America?

Our Worst Critics Prefer to Stay

That's neat, huh? Even those people who rail against America prefer to actually live in it. This is true of people on all sides of the political aisle: we have a freedom to speak freely, and even though we rail against America, we still love it.

It made me think of the United Methodist Church. We are meeting in two weeks in Fort Worth, Texas, to talk about divisive issues again. We talk about them for years, then resolve them all to everyone's satisfaction in one week. Right. There are always lively discussions about polity within the UMC. Why?

Because Our Worst Critics Prefer to Stay

This motto is significant in light of a UMNS commentary written by Steven Webster:

Some have described the church’s long dialogue over these issues as "a thorn in the flesh." Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 that he endured a painful "thorn in the flesh" that would not leave him even though he pleaded with God to remove it. God’s answer to Paul applies to us: "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness."

We feel weary and weakened by this long dialogue over homosexuality, a dialogue in which I have actively participated in many ways these past 36 years. The faith that sustains me is that God intends to perfect us through these trials, and we, the people of The United Methodist Church, look forward to a real peace which is, in King’s words, the presence of justice and not merely the absence of tension.

Some don't want to talk about the issues. The Connectional Table sends out an email to delegates outlining four goals and seven paths, and none of them have to do with some internal divisions within the UMC. It's almost like if we focus outside ourselves, then we will have peace.

My friends, that's a donut mission: focusing outward without healing divisions internally leaves a hole in the middle where our soul should be.

The Six-word motto of Jesus Christ at the Ascension was: "To Make Disciples of All Nations" means to work on our own discipleship and our own willingness to reflect on how our actions and corporate policies reflect our discipleship.
The Six-word motto of Jesus Christ at the beginning of his ministry was: "Repent! God's Kingdom is At Hand!" Repent means to examine where we have failed and heal those wounds so that we CAN bring forth the kingdom of God.
The Six(ish)-word motto of John Wesley could be: "Do No Harm, Do Good, Love God" The "Do No Harm" section certainly means examine how within the church we are doing harm to one another.

My friends, in the UMC, Our Worst Critics Prefer to Stay. Unity in diversity is the best way forward to be forced to examine the issues. Breaking apart and schizm leads us to our own echo chambers where we will not have to deal with diversity again. And for the sake of our own discipleship, keep on these divisive issues, because by ignoring them, our outward appearance is happy, but our souls are rotten.