“Discerning” based on 1 Kings 2:10-12; 3:3-14

August 19, 2018February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

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.

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

3 http://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

Sermons

Untitled

April 30, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

On
April 4^th several of us went to the University of Albany
to hear Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Very early
in the evening she explained that she likes to be up and moving, and
she started wandering around the room while speaking. The wandering
wasn’t random. She systematically worked her way around the entire
room, stopping at every row of every aisle, and walking across any
front row entirely. While talking coherently. she allowed every
person who reasonably could do so to touch her. She just offered her
hand, and people in the outside 3-4 seats were able to physically
connect with her.

She
was clear from the outset that this is her preferred way of engaging,
but I was also aware that it was a remarkable way to fulfill the
needs of those who come to hear her speak. She is the third woman
appointed to the Supreme Court, and the first Hispanic/Latinx. She
is an inspiration to an enormous percentage of the population, and
her choice to let people touch her seemed like a way to take that
inspiration role seriously.

In
all the wisdom Justice Sotomayor has, knowing the importance of touch
seems like part of it, as does taking seriously the role of being a
bearer of hope. She offered her hand as a beacon, letting her touch
defy some of the brokenness of the world.

–
– – –

The
first gospel lesson today also centers on the power touch. Two
women, in very different life stages are transformed by it. The two
stories, told together, are intended to reflect on each other and
enhance the meaning of each other. The young girl was 12, the
anticipated age of maturity. The woman had suffered for 12 years,
emphasized as long enough for a baby to reach maturity. The young
girl was believed dead. The woman’s was in a living death of
isolation, poverty, and extinguished hope.

The
young girl wasn’t able to speak for herself, so her loving father
begged for Jesus’s help. The woman
wasn’t to touch anyone, and anything she sat on or laid down on (as
well as her touch) would make others unclean. This should have
impeded her capacity to speak for herself too. The story seems to
suggest that she doesn’t have family to care for her, because they
refer to her dissipated wealth as her own. No one could do it for
her. She definitely wasn’t supposed to spend time in tight crowds.

(Two
thoughts about this. As damaging as such a life would be for a
person, I think it makes some sense in context. The ancient Jews
believed that blood was the life force in a body, that’s what made it
sacred. They would be understandably concerned about continual
bloodflow. Secondly, in an era before germ theory or antibiotics
about all people knew for sure about medicine was that you could get
sick from sick people. In order to care for the community, you kept
people from passing along illness. It is awful for the individuals,
but better than letting the whole community die. I don’t want this
story to be heard as implicating ancient Jewish society as unloving.
It seems to me they were doing the best they could.)

This woman, whose 12 years of
life had been without human touch or connection, as well as without
without successful treatment, and was now without resources because
she’d tried to fix it; broke the rules. She moved in a tight crowd,
touching others as she went. She sought, intentionally, to touch
Jesus, EVEN THOUGH her touch would make him ritually unclean. Some
scholars suggest that such an action made her eligible to be stoned.
No one could speak for her, the laws made it impossible for her to
speak for herself, so she broke the laws, taking a huge risk, seeking
life again. She reached out to touch Jesus, not knowing what
would happen next, if she’d be healed or stoned, accepted or
violently rejected.

– – –

On Tuesday the Judicial Council
of The United Methodist Church met in Newark, New Jersey to hear oral
arguments about the election of Bishop Karen Oliveto. Bishop Oliveto
was elected this past July by the Western Jurisdiction of the United
Methodist Church in an unanimous vote that was uncontested. She’s a
gifted spiritual leader, a joy-filled human being, a natural church
leader, and a living example of grace. The issue is very simple:
Karen is married to Robin, and both Karen and Robin are women. The
Western Jurisdiction knew this when they elected her, Karen’s
decision to run happened after the Pulse Nightclub massacre. She was
reminded of all of the violence done to the LGBTQIA¹
community, and thought it was important to use her ministry to
visibly change some of the narrative (in the church and the world.)

The
United Methodist Church is officially a homophobic denomination. It
intentionally and structurally oppresses the queer community. By
putting herself forward for election, she offered the possibility of
giving hope to the queer community in the midst of its grief and the
multitudes of harms. This particular United Methodist Church, along
with 836 other United Methodist churches and communities, has taken
an official stance declaring that we believe that The United
Methodist Church is WRONG and that God’s love and the churches doors
should be open to people without consideration of their sexuality or
gender identity. This church, and 836 others, advocate for the full
inclusion of LGBTQIA people in the church and the world. The Western
Jurisdiction agrees, and they elected Bishop Oliveto because of the
gifts and graces she has for the episcopacy.

Despite the systematic
oppression of the church, as Kevin has explained in 20 page brief
(one of many filed) what they did was legal and appropriate. (The
fact that the Judicial Council ended up sort of disagreeing doesn’t
in any way make me doubt Kevin’s analysis.)

The Judicial Council meets twice
a year, and they always have several items on their docket. Two
other pieces this April related to the commissioning and ordination
of out queer clergy. Unfortunately, while there are MANY in our
denomination who agree with us about God’s love extending to all
people, there are also many willing to engage in witch hunts to
prevent the church’s blessing from falling on queer people. The
conservatives wanted to invalidate the ordinations of out queer
clergy!!!

On
Tuesday, as I woke up, people had already gathered in Newark. Bishop
Oliveto, her wife and her mother, queer clergy from across the
denomination, queer laity, and allies of all sorts were present,
visible, singing, and connecting to each other. I watched it on live
feed. Tickets were given to two rooms: one the room in which the
Judicial Council sat and the arguments would be made, and one for
overflow connected via a live stream. Laity and allies exchanged
tickets with queer clergy so that they could be together, sitting in
solidarity with Bishop Oliveto.

As I watched the live stream, I
saw the Queer Clergy Caucus²
enter the Judicial Council room, and kneel to pray. It took my
breath away. It looked like the hemorrhaging woman reaching her hand
toward Jesus. That group of beloved and beautiful people of God have
stayed in a denomination that has called them names and declared
their lives “incompatible with Christian teaching.” They have
courageously refused to leave, refused to be silent or invisible, and
continued to ask for the church’s blessing on their whole lives and
ministries. They have reached out to touch Jesus, knowing that the
laws stand in the way, that the crowd will judge them, that the
disciples would try to stop them, and needing to touch Jesus anyway.

They knelt to pray, to reach out
and touch Jesus and hoped the church wouldn’t stop them this time.
They’ve done it before. They’ll do it again. But every time it is
an act of courage. So far, every time they reach out, the church has
TRIED to stop them.

– – – –

In the Gospel, Jesus’s response
is grace-filled. He calls out the woman (who must have been
TERRIFIED), and by doing so publicly he is able acknowledge her
healing and restore her relationship with the community at large.
She was able to touch others again, she was able to connect, she was
able to be a part of the whole. She was afraid that by touching him
she’d bring him shame, but she took the risk anyway, and instead all
that separated her from the community was lifted from her.

That’s
what the queer clergy caucus was hoping the church could replicate.

The young girl brought back to
life when Jesus grabbed her hand becomes a metaphor for the life that
Jesus has to offer, and gave as well the hemorrhaging woman. The
touch of Jesus brings life – and hope – as well as healing.

– – –

In our second Gospel lesson,
people are also walking with Jesus, and their lives are also changed
by it. The story ends with people more alive than when they began.
The theologian John Dominic Crossan³
often says, “Emmaus never happened. Emmaus always happens.”
That is, he doesn’t think that it is a story reflecting actual
historical events, but instead reflecting deep Christian realities.
This year it occurs to me to wonder how literally the story is
intending to indicate that a third person actually showed up.

Perhaps, instead, the Holy
Spirit was with the two walking together, and together they started
piecing together the teachings of Jesus and the meanings offered.
Perhaps the collective (even of two) felt so much more than one and
one that it was as if there was another one leading their
conversation. I’ve had conversations like that. (I’ve had
conversations like that this week at the “Change Leaders Summit”
hosted by the General Commission on Religion and Race as we dreamed a
less racist church). I could metaphorically say that the some
moments of talking to another have been so sacred and eye-opening
that it was as if Jesus was the third person in the dialogue.

If that is one of the
metaphorical meanings of the gospel lesson, the it is potent. The
disciples are running away! They’re going in the wrong direction,
and even then Jesus is with them and guiding them. In the end they
turn back and return to the place they’d been frightened away from.
They move from fear back to life. In connecting with Jesus they
connect with their hope, their meaning, and the purposes of their
lives. They were reconnected to Jesus, and perhaps via the power of
the Holy Spirit to guide sacred conversations.

– – –

Returning
to face the fears is part of the inherent Easter story. So is the
transformation of the Body of Christ from the historical Jesus to his
followers throughout time. We are now expected to respond to the
world with his courage and grace, to respond to all the ways he
responded to the hemorrhaging women, the powerless girl, and –
however it happened – the frightened disciples

Those Queer Clergy praying in
the Judical Council hearing room were living out the Easter story.
They faced the fears of rejection, and went anyway. Others may want
to cut them out of the Body of Christ, but they believe that Jesus
responds to them with grace. They know enough to reach out for Jesus
and know that Jesus will see them and bless them, even if the church
will not.

It turns out that today Bishop
Karen Oliveto IS still a Bishop. Thanks be to God. Furthermore,
none of the commissionings or ordinations of our out queer clergy
siblings were overturned. Thanks be to God. Unfortunately, there is
also a lot of bad news that came from the decisions. The church has
attempted to crack down to gain control offer the resistances
movements that seek to include ALL of God’s people fully in the
church. (They seem to forget that their methods NEVER work over the
long run.) There are many in our church who are hurting and there
are many in our world who are hearing from our denomination that they
are not worthy of love.

– – – –

The denomination is wrong. It
can’t control or limit God’s love. Nor can it control or limit the
queer community and its allies. The people of God will keep reaching
for God, whether the church tries to stop them or not. When people
reach out, Jesus responds with grace. When people reach out we can
follow the lead of the Spirit who will guide us to bring hope and
grace to each other. God is faithful, whether the church is or not.
For that, I am mightily thankful to God. Amen

1 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual

2 https://www.facebook.com/UMQClergy/

3 Coming
to First UMC Schenectady on September 23-24. SQUEAL.

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/
https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

April 30, 2017