Untitled

September 24, 2023
by Sara Baron

“Grieving Jesus” based on 2 Samuel 1:17-27 and John 16:16-22

This week I found myself in multiple conversations about “the day the church died.” That was February 26, 2019, and the following day the Love Your Neighbor Coalition held a worship service that was a funeral for The United Methodist Church.

Now, let’s assume that if I found myself in multiple conversations about this, I may have been the one bringing it up – although I’m not actually sure that’s the only truth. But we can go with it. It has led me to wonder why: why, 4 ½ years later, this is coming up.

However, some of you may be lucky enough not to know what I’m talking about, and I don’t like leaving people in the dark. In 1968 The United Methodist Church was born when the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church merged. Both churches had powerful histories with social creeds, and at the birth of the church a study commission was created to write a new set of “Social Principals” to guide the newly formed church. The study commission brought its recommendations to the 1972 General Conference. They did a nice job. They included in their recommendation, in a piece about human sexuality, “Persons of homosexual orientation are persons of sacred worth.”

Now, that phrase isn’t exactly a bombshell, right? I mean, DUH, “Persons of homosexual orientation are persons of sacred worth.” But when I think about the Queer and Trans justice movements in the USA, the 1972 church study commission offering the words “Persons of homosexual orientation are persons of sacred worth” was a good start.

Today we’re talking about grief – because the scriptures handed us those topics on a platter – and when I think about the church’s failures to LGBTQIA+ people, my grief starts escalating at this point in our history. With those decent words “Persons of homosexual orientation are persons of sacred worth.” on the table in front them, along with A WHOLE LOT OF other words about a WHOLE LOT of other topics, some people decided that those words were too strong and required caveats. Terrible ones. So they changed it, and eventually the 1972 Book of Discipline would read “Persons of homosexual orientation are persons of sacred worth. We do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider it incompatible with Christian teaching.” They also added, "We do not recommend marriage between two persons of the same sex,” although I think the greater gut punch was in the first addition.

People of good faith in The United Methodist Church have been trying to remove those words ever since. While there were setbacks along the way, for a while there also seemed to be movement towards inclusion of all of God’s people. The people committed to exclusion seemed to be losing the battle, until they weren’t. By 2016 it was clear that the movements for inclusion had reached a series of dead-ends: General Conference was not going to change the church’s stance, the Judicial Council was going to uphold it, the Bishops en mass were not going to stand against it, and the capacity to fight things on localized levels was extremely limited. Based work in the first week of General Conference, it was clear that The UMC was about to enact a series of changes that would decimate its LGBTQIA+ community, one that was already experiencing a spiritual and literal bloodbath.

Good students of nonviolent social action know that when all the other avenues are closed to you, you raise the temperature in the room, in hopes of motivating change. Good students of nonviolent social action were in that room, organizing. The United Methodist Church was about to face two horrible options: mass arrests of nonviolent protesters, or protesters shutting down the floor of General Conference preventing their work from being completed. (I’m so thankful for good organizers, aren’t you?)

The Church choose a third option. They created another study commission (I’m barely refraining from extensive commentary on study commissions and the church) “The Commission on a Way Forward” that was to bring to a SPECIAL SESSION of General Conference – 2019 – a way forward that would …. well, let’s be honest… they wanted a way forward that would keep Queer and Trans people and their allies form making the church look bad while appeasing the conservatives. But, at that point, ANYTHING looked better than where we were headed, and forcing some new thinking on the topic felt like a victory.

When 2019 came the “Way Forward Commission” put forward a very milquetoast proposal “The One Church Plan”, the Queer Clergy Caucus put forward a truly excellent proposal called “The Simple Plan,” and the conservatives put forward a scare tactic they called “The Traditional Plan.” Confession time: I didn’t think the Simple Plan (which was hands down the best plan) could win, so I put my energy on to passing The One Church Plan which was a horrible compromise that I justified as being a step forward we could pass. Turns out I was wrong all over the place, and we couldn’t pass it – AND the support for the Simple Plan was almost exactly as high as The One Church Plan. Turns out, the votes went to The Traditional Plan which was simply so horrendous it didn’t seem possible it could ever happen. It felt like a caricature of itself, like what a satire magazine would produce as a conservative think-piece.

When it passed, the denomination lost any remaining integrity, and any claim on Godliness. As a clergy person I have made commitments not only to God but also to THIS denomination. I’d experienced the Divine through the UMC, I loved it, I wanted to make it better, and I wanted to work in it to make the world the kindom of God. On that day, I no longer saw a connection between God and the church.

Now, it always needs to be said, I wasn’t the primary one harmed by The Traditional Plan. It set out to harm Queer and Trans people, and it did. Any damage to me, and others who know a God Who Celebrates Diversity, was mere icing on the cake. And yet, to be in a denomination that does harm like that ON PURPOSE, wrecked me. It was some of the strongest grief I’ve ever experienced.

And maybe this week proved, it still is. The unfortunate reality is that while many of us were grieving The United Methodist Church, things were also really hard around here in this local church, and things were pretty bad in the USA and sometimes the world, and the grief probably didn’t get the time or space it needed. And then there was COVID, and the time to grieve simply dissipated. That’s actually my working theory on why this is coming up again – the grip of COVID has finally lowered enough that there is space for the stuff we were working on before it started.

You’ve heard me reflect on a really non-traditional grief so far today. We most often think of grief as relating to the loss of a person, and I think we make the most space for that kind of grief. But we miss a lot when we limit it that way. The Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling says grief is “The complex interaction of affective, cognitive, physiological, and behavioral responses to the loss by any means of a person, place, thing, activity, status, bodily organ, etc., with whom (or which) a person has identified, who (or which) has become a significant part of an individual’s own self.”1 (emphasis mine)

So to keep going with this truly uplifting sermon 😉 I want to talk about some significant communal grief that I have seen in our community. It may be that some of us don’t feel some of these, but I think all of them are in us together. And, because I think there is some power in it, we’re going to try this as a liturgy, after I say each piece, I invite you to respond, “Holy One, help us hold our grief.”

For the ones we have known, and loved, and lost – Holy One, help us hold our grief.
For the ones we thought we had time to get to know and love – and lost – Holy One, help us hold our grief.
For the church that we thought would become open to people of all ages, nations, races, genders, and sexualities – Holy One, help us hold our grief.
For the community that we hoped would welcome vulnerable immigrants with open arms – – Holy One, help us hold our grief.
For the nation that we thought would prioritize the vulnerable – Holy One, help us hold our grief.
For the world that we thought would work more on climate change than on enriching the already rich – Holy One, help us hold our grief.
For this local church that we hoped could be free from the anxiety in each of us and around all of us – Holy One, help us hold our grief.
For the people and places we trusted, who ended up having different values that we do, and it felt like betrayal – Holy One, help us hold our grief.
For who we thought we’d be, but we aren’t – Holy One, help us hold our grief.

Amen

If we take that definition of grief seriously, then grief is the response to the loss of something a person identifies with. It is a loss of a part of ourselves. In some of what we said above, I think it is the loss of hope. That’s a really serious loss, one that may characterize our age.

The work of grief is the slow work of creating new identity in a new reality. Where one might have identified as a spouse, one now has to figure out what it means to be a widow or widower. Where one might have identified with a strength, now there is a need to identify with a weakness. Where one might have chosen hope, one now there is a need to identify with the experience of hopelessness.

It is clear why grief takes a while, and why the more strongly one identifies with someone or something, the longer it takes to form a new identity, and why one might not want to!

I’m really struck in the gospel by the idea that the disciples started grieving the eventual loss of Jesus while he was still with them. I’m annoyed by it. I want it to be untrue. But I think that probably was the case. The disciples probably could see where Jesus’s ministry was heading, and while they may have been in denial about it, it was still there pressing on them. Even during the life and ministry of Jesus there was grief pushing around the edges that they were going to lose him. I can’t think of much more of a human reality than that one.

The reading from 2 Samuel is almost too much to hold. The depth of David’s grief feels so vulnerable that my instinct is to look away because I don’t know him well enough to be privy to it. That said, it is written in Bible, and you might not have heard it, so let me summarize. David is grieving Saul who was his king and adversary (#complicated) and Saul’s son Jonathan who was at least his best friend and probably lover (#alsocomplicated).

Don’t go around sharing that the mighty have fallen –

I don’t want our enemies to rejoice at this heartbreak.

Let those who failed to support Saul struggle, as payback.

Saul and Jonathan weren’t weak, don’t say they were weak, they brought others down with them.

They were together in life, and they are together in death.

Women, weep – these were the ones who took care of you.

My love has been killed, and I grieve.

He was my delight, his love gave me life.

The mighty have fallen, and I grieve.

My word for you today is an odd one. Traditionally speaking, I should turn this sermon around and end on an up-note, but that feels trite. I can say that the things we grieve are most commonly things we loved, and the grief is a reflection of that love. That’s good. But really, my point today is this: grief is imperative and hard work. There is no way through it except through it. It doesn’t go away because we don’t like it, or we deny it, or we can’t handle it. Like many things based in our bodies or emotions, either we make space to grieve or grieve will make space in us to come out – usually in ways we’ll hate.

And yet, God is with us. God is with us, holding us when we grieve. We are not alone, even when we feel the most alone. We are not lost to God, even when we don’t know who we are anymore. For me, that’s good news. In fact, it is enough. Thanks be to God who holds us when we grieve. Amen

1Rodney J. Hunter, general editor, Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling (Abington Press: Nashville, 1990), page 472.

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

September 24, 2023

Sermons

“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