This story is often used to lift up the virtues of Solomon and encourage others to be like him. That is, it is read to say we should all be seeking God’s wisdom, and the capacity to discern what is right. Of all the ways that Bible stories get treated like fables, this is one I don’t particularly object to. After all, I like wisdom, I think it is important, and it seems worthwhile to seek it.

I like the point people draw from this story, but I think it is important to acknowledge that the original story as it was told functioned as pro-Solomon propaganda. It establishes his right to the kingship, it indicates Divine favor in support of his leadership, and it proclaims him as wise. On top of that, most ancient wisdom traditions hold that wisdom is the most important virtue. It means that in naming Solomon wise it names him a “good” man AND it functions to validate everything else he does. After all, “in the ancient wisdom traditions, longevity, honor, and material possessions are all seen as benefits that derive from wisdom.”¹ The Bible likes to present Solomon as wise, it is probably the first thing you think about when you think of Solomon (if you ever do). He may well have been wise, that story may come from some factuality. However, I think the story is mostly USED as a way to claim and keep power.

Solomon’s “wisdom” is the given reason for why he gets to build the Temple. Solomon’s Temple was build by conscripted labor of Jews. Solomon’s wisdom used to explain why he oversaw the largest nation in ancient Israel’s history. Of course, what that actually means is that he had very high tax rates, a successful military, and the capacity to build an empire through violent attacks on Israel’s neighbors.

Solomon’s wisdom is somehow also tied up with his “wives,” although I can’t really figure out the connection. I think the idea may be something about political power, and indeed he is said to have had many (MANY!) wives and concubines. Those wives and concubines were political pawns, used to attempt to negotiate with Solomon and keep his military power from doing further harm.

So, I get why the Bible needs to present Solomon as wise, but what I really see when I look through it is that Solomon functioned to acquire power, money, and might, and this story implies that those actions were GOOD. It seems shockingly unreflective, since the Bible emphasizes the care of the poor, the orphan, and the widow, but Solomon’s actions as king created more poverty, not to mention more orphans and widows. Solomon enriched himself at the expense of his people. That is actually NOT what I think wisdom looks like.

Now that we are done with that, I can get back to the primary point. What Solomon is presented as saying IS pretty good, “Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, able to discern between good and evil; for who can govern this your great people?” (1 Kings 3:9, NRSV) Taking the story as written, that’s great! The named goal is a worthy one. A respect for the people sounds good! So does a wish to understand the best way to govern, and a wish to be able to figure out good from evil. I do worry about leaders who believe prayers like this to be answered, who then believe that whatever they decide must be divinely blessed. However, if it simply came with humility and openness, this could be a solid request.

One of the great challenges of leadership, and even just life,  IS discerning a good way forward. Decisions have so many consequences that aren’t anticipated at the outset, making it very difficult to figure out what should be done. Recently I’ve been in a long series of conversations that have emphasized for me just how difficult discernment can be. Just so you are ready for it, I’m only going to give you the problem, not the answer. I don’t have the answer. That’s the struggle with discernment 😉 This is a story of wishing for Solomon’s fabled wisdom and God’s wise guidance, in this case for the church.

In February of 2019 the United Methodist Church is having a Special Session of General Conference to act on the recommendations of The Way Forward Commission. So, let’s unpack that a bit, and look at the history. In 1968 the Uniting Conference of the United Methodist Church merged the “Methodist Church” and the “Evangelical United Brethern Church.” At that time it adopted the former Methodist Church’s Social Creed temporarily (because the EUB didn’t have one) and Social Principles Study Commission to bring forward recommendations to the 1972 General Conference.

The recommendation the Social Principles Study Commission came up with included a statement on “Human Sexuality” that ended with:

“Although men and women are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sex between a man and a woman is to be clearly affirmed only in the marriage bond.   Sex may become exploitive within as well as outside marriage.  We reject all sexual expressions which damage or destroy the humanity God has given us as birthright, and we affirm only that sexual expression which enhances that same humanity, in the midst of diverse opinion as to what constitutes that enhancement.  Homosexuals no less than heterosexuals are persons of sacred worth, who need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship which enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. Further we insist that all persons are entitled to have their human and civil rights ensured.”

At that General Conference, it was amended to instead end with “Further we insist that all persons are entitled to have their human and civil rights ensured, although we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.“ (1972 Book of Discipline) Thus, since 1972, progressives have been working to undo that amendment and its subsequent impact on our denomination.

Every 4 years, which means every time General Conference meets, debate over this language comes to a head. For many years, slow progress was being made towards removing it, as the votes seemed to get a little bit better each time General Conference met. Then, in 2012 the progress stopped. In fact, it actually got a little bit worse. At that moment, we realized that we were not going to get the change made through traditional channels. Time alone was not going to bring victory. The United Methodist church mirrors the governmental structure of the United States. None of the avenues of change were available to us to in order to bring justice. The Judicial Council – our judicial branch – keeps ruling in favor of the discrimination in the Book of Discipline. The executive branch Bishops, for the most part, take it as their duty to enforce the rules in the Book of Discipline. And the legislative branch, the General Conference itself, was not going to change the Book of Discipline, at least not in this generation. (The details as to why are likely more than most people want, but I’d be happy to discuss them if you’d like.)

In 2012, it became clear that another strategy was going to have to take precedence. At the end of that Conference, Bishop Melvin Talbert instructed us to engage in “Biblical Obedience”, which happened to be church law disobedience, and to perform marriages in the regular course of our pastoral duties, for people of all genders and expressions of mutual love. The courageous and strategic leaders of MIND – Methodist in New Directions from the New York Annual Conference – had already started this with a campaign called “We Do!”, but in that moment it expanded dramatically.² The strategy of Biblical Obedience encouraged clergy and churches to lead with God’s love at the forefront, love rather than fear. It also raised tensions with those who wanted to control the ways God’s love is shared.

Which is to say, it REALLY ticked off the conservatives. 😉 In 2016 at General Conference, the tensions that had been intentionally raised created space for a different way of moving forward, called “The Commission on the Way Forward.” The Commission was charged “to do a complete examination and possible revision of every paragraph of the Book of Discipline concerning human sexuality and explore options that help to maintain and strengthen the unity of the church.”³ Their preferred recommendation, and 2 alternative options, will be on the table for the 2019 Special Session of General Conference, that will be convened to deal with those recommendations. Other solutions from other bodies have also been submitted. The preferences of both the Commission and the Council of Bishops is “The One Church” plan, in which official statements condemning homosexuality will be removed from the Book of Discipline, while careful protections will be put in place give homophobia deciding power and influence in locations where it is dominant. Thus, in this plan, the church has a whole stops being institutionally discriminatory, but localized discrimination is not only permitted but empowered.

This is how I get to “discernment is hard!” There is another plan, a better one, created by the Queer Clergy Caucus that simply removes the statements condemning homosexuality and does not protect homophobia. It is called the Simple Church Plan. (There is not actually a plan on the table that removes the statements condemning homosexuality and replaces them with the affirmations that God’s love is not bound by sexual orientation nor gender identity, which is unfortunate.) The problem is that the “One Church Plan” which is ugly enough to make my stomach hurt, is very far from being guaranteed to pass, and nothing better evenhas a shot. I believe that the Queer Clergy Caucus plan is not politically viable in our current church. Clearly this is my opinion, others believe that the Holy Spirit can move even the stubborn delegates to General Conference. I haven’t struggled with this discernment alone. Many conversations have been had. There is not any clarity within the LGBTQIA+ community either about the best way forward. There is agreement that the other two plans are much worse.

In the words of the scripture, where is the line “between good and evil”? What is the appropriate role of compromise?  Whose lives are being compromised? Are small steps forward enough? Will we as a church get stuck in the first place we move, and would it be better to do NOTHING than to get stuck there? Since the alternative plans are much worse, is it better to seek what we can get? What if we are able to pass the One Church Plan, and it then means that the far right will exit and leave the church in peace, able to move things forward – does that make this worth it to make such a compromise?

I may not believe Solomon’s story happened as it is written, but I resonate with the desire for God’s help in knowing the best way forward – or maybe just the least evil way forward. Even knowing that God’s love extends fully to people of many sexualities and gender expressions, and that God wants a church that includes all of God’s people FULLY and celebrates people AS THEY ARE, (duh), how does God want us to act in this moment? Where should our energy go?

And what if we’re wrong?

In words like Solomon’s, Loving God, give us understanding minds to know how to support your people, and the ability to discern between good and evil, that your love might be known, that fear might be cast out, and that together we might work towards your kindom. Amen

1Choong -Leong Seow “Commentary on 1 Kings 3:4-15” in 1 Kings in The New Interpreter’s Bible Commenatary Vol III Leander E. Keck, general editor (Abingdon Press: Nashville, 1999), 39.

2http://www.mindny.org/mind-initiatives/marriage-initiative/

3http://www.umc.org/who-we-are/commission-on-a-way-forward

–

Rev. Sara E. Baron 

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady 

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305 

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org