Today’s Rocky Road Devotion welcomes fellow
clergy and friend, Rev. Drew McIntyre, a United Methodist pastor who blogs at
“Uniting Grace”. What follows is what
Rev. McIntyre posted on June 24, 2015.
JUNE 24, 2015 | DREW MCINTYRE |
How [to] have the
conversations that matter most? Like many things in life, most of it is just
showing up.
We United Methodists just
came through Annual Conference season; this is the yearly gathering of United
Methodists in a given region, represented by clergy and laity, where budgets
are set, legislation debated, and an array of training, lectures, studies,
worship, and mission opportunities are offered. Here in Western North Carolina,
we had an interesting afternoon at Annual Conference (AC) last Friday. Let me
explain.
We voted on two pieces of
legislation on that afternoon. The first of these, from our Justice &
Reconciliation team, asked the Bishop to form a team to begin a series of holy
conversations around controversial topics in the UMC (the unstated chief of
which centers around questions of sexuality). A couple of laity spoke against
this measure, trotting out some pretty unsophisticated arguments for why this
should be a settled question, but all in all it passed easily.
Next up was a proposal
that has been attempted at all of our recent Annual Conferences in recent
memory: a petition to ask the General Conference to change the language about
sexuality in our denominational rules, the collection of which is called the
Book of Discipline. Over a dozen ACs passed similar petitions this year, none
of which are binding, because only the General Conference (meeting every four
years) speaks for the whole church.
Here’s where things got
interesting. As soon as this petition was introduced, a pastor from one of our
Reconciling Ministries Network (a caucus that advocates for changes in UM
policy) churches asked for a suspension of the rules to move toward an
immediate vote. This was approved, and we began the painstaking process of
voting, which took a while because we had to be counted by hand as we stood to
either vote for, against, or abstain.
A friend of mine, afterwards, asked a question
to the Bishop which I had myself wondered (and tweeted):
I’m still not sure of the
motivations behind the motion to go straight to a vote. It may have been that
the sponsors thought they had a better chance of ‘winning’ without the debate,
or that the discussion would be offensive (most of my friends’ responses to my
tweet indicated the latter concern). But regardless, it was a strange
juxtaposition. Conversations do not become easier by avoiding them. Even
unpleasant comments (of which we hear too many at AC, as we did last year) are
helpful, in that they tell us how much more work remains in advancing the
conversation. This general trend towards avoiding difficult or painful dialogue
is troubling. Our society has become so dominated by the therapeutic mindset
that sometimes it seems that even hearing an alternative or critical view of something
is considered damaging. Should we be concerned about the prevalence of such
rhetorical moves?
“A proper argument takes
intellectual vigor, nimbleness, and sustained attention. If carried on long
enough, it can push both parties to a deeper level of understanding. Oxford
debaters hack away at each other for something like two hours. Socrates could
sometimes go on for weeks. But who has that kind of time anymore? Better to
just shut things down quickly, using one of a new array of trump cards.
Want to avoid a debate?
Just tell your opponent to check his privilege. Or tell him he’s slut‑shaming
or victim‑blaming, or racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or transphobic, or
Islamophobic, or cisphobic, or some other creative term conveying that you are
simply too outraged by the argument to actually engage it. Or, on the other
side of the coin, accuse him of being the PC thought police and then snap your
laptop smugly.
In the art of debate
avoidance, each political camp has honed a particular style. Conservatives
generally aim for the prenup approach, to preempt any messy showdowns. If you
want to join the club, then you have to sign a contract or make a pledge—no new
taxes, no abortions, no gay marriage—and thereafter recite from a common
script. Progressives indulge a shouting match of competing identities that
resembles an argument but is in fact the opposite, because its real aim is to
rule certain debates out of bounds.”
I recall an interview
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpQHGPGejKs) with N.T. Wright, the retired
Anglican bishop and eminent New Testament scholar, in which he was asked about
the same‑sex
marriage debate. His comment was telling: “Our problem at the moment is that
we aren’t having the debate, we are simply having bits and pieces of a shouting
match.”
Too often we are content
with “bits and pieces of a shouting match” rather than deep engagement. Whether
it is about sexuality, doctrine, race, liturgics, immigration, or creation
care, too often we Christians fall into the world’s ways of doing – or, in this
case, avoiding – things. We can do better. But it requires a commitment on all
parties to a) a hermeneutic of charity, b) arguing against ideas and not
people, and c) dedicating ourselves to hearing the best version of the opposing
view, and not merely extreme examples or straw
men easily dismissed.
In the church and in our
national conversation, it is always easier to retreat into echo‑chambers, eschewing
critics and alternative viewpoints. The gnostic church of our own imaginations is always a neater, less challenging place than the flesh‑and‑blood church of
Jesus Christ. But maturity doesn’t come by disengagement. I’ll let Rosin have
the last word – a word of warning about this cultural malaise:
“The tactic has lately
proved surprisingly effective, but it comes with a high cost…empathy, or
humility, or actually hearing out your opponents.”
Advance the conversation….listen!
You chew on that as
you hit the Rocky Road; have a blessed day! 
