From A Distance

Last night I watched “After Braveheart”, a movie about the Scots’ invasion of Ireland in the 14th Century in an effort to drive the English out. It did not turn out well for Edward Bruce, the brother of Robert Bruce, the King of Scotland.

This morning I listened to portions of a recorded novel. One of the plot elements was drones firing missiles controlled by someone far away from the target.

I was struck by the contrast between the 14th and 21st Century means of defeating one’s enemy. In the former, it was literally up close and personal. The combatants looked each other in the eye. The winner stood a great chance of being wounded also and certainly would often be stained by the loser’s blood and body fluids. In the latter, the winner sits at a screen manipulating controls and pushing buttons. No muss, no fuss. Target destroyed.

I have had my reservations about the One Church Plan from the beginning. It would have seriously changed the connectional understanding of The United Methodist Church even as the half-century since 1968 had exposed a fair amount of it to be mythological and a long way from actuality. But I could not and still cannot fully understand why those committed to the Traditional Plan considered it the Rubicon that must not be crossed. Congregations, pastors and annual conferences that were opposed to any changes in our denominational dictates on LGBTQ issues would not be required to permit or perform same-sex wedding services or license, ordain and appoint LGBTQ clergy. They would be able to vote to continue policies and practices in effect since 1972. Those portions of the global church where culture disapproved of and their nations criminalized LGBTQ relationships and behavior would be able to vote to maintain policy and practice that fell in line with their culture and maintain compliance with the laws of the land. This, however, was not sufficient for the slim majority.

Why?

I accept that many of the majority deeply believe they were fighting for the truth, upholding the tradition of the church and obeying the proscriptions of Scripture. The means of doing so, however, are the equivalent of standing far away from the opponent rather than engaging face to face.

The Wesleyan Covenant Association and its allies can claim victory over their opponents without having to stand up and be counted in a local Church Conference or an Annual Conference Session. They will not face the risk of seeing and hearing fellow believers give voice to their deep wounds or finding themselves stained by the tears of others. They will not have to risk votes at a local church or annual conference level that might reveal they are not in the majority they believe they represent.

Instead, they can say, “We won. You lost. So the choice is yours – either fall in line and salute or face the wrath of the harsh discipline we chose to impose.” No fuss. No muss.

At the very least, I ask all who voted in favor of the Traditional Plan to have the courage to get up close and personal with those who believe and feel they have been told they are no longer integral parts of the church. Listen to their cries of pain. Do not look away from their tears.

They are not objects or subjects on a computer screen. They are your brothers and sisters in Christ.