I Love the Bible, But Sometimes It's Wrong


I recognize that the time for determining whether homosexuality is “incompatible” or “compatible” with Christian teaching has mostly passed by for United Methodists. What remains in February 2019 is an accounting of where people already are, and an adjustment (or not) of church law concerning such matters.

But I believe that there is still value in defending the progressive position from a theological perspective. I fear that progressive Methodists have largely conducted the conversation in terms of inclusion/exclusion, which largely misses the point when speaking with traditionalists. The UM Right doesn’t view this conflict as a matter of hospitality or in-or-out patterns; rather, they believe that affirming homosexuality is an affront to scriptural authority, and a blow against “traditional, orthodox Christianity.” 

When progressives engage in debate which overlooks this crucial fact, we tend to lose ground in the very place where we need to hold tight. 

Let’s be very honest here. Despite the laudable efforts of folks like Matthew Vines (author of “God and the Gay Christian”), who attempt to mitigate and re-interpret the so-called gay “clobber passages,” the Bible is clear about homosexuality — it’s against it! Both Hebrew Scripture and the New Testament contain texts which simply and forcefully condemn homosexual practice. Jesus doesn’t say anything about it, but that’s really beside the point to a traditionalist Christian, because all of Scripture is believed to be the inspired Word of God! If Paul’s letters are inspired revelation, then it stands with equal authority alongside the words of Jesus.

The mouthpiece of the UM RIght, the Wesleyan Covenant Association, released this statement on the Bible, which can be found on their website:

Statement on Biblical Authority

Given the current challenges directed to the unique place of the Bible in the church, we affirm that the core of the Christian faith is revealed in Scripture as “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3; NRSV). We look to the Bible therefore as our authority and trustworthy guide, which “is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16; NRSV). Illuminated by tradition, reason, and experience, the revelation of Scripture is the church’s primary and final authority on all matters of faith and practice.

On a cursory first reading, there is nothing in this statement that is particularly troublesome. I have no great problem with anything said here, though I think it’s ironic that II Timothy 3:16 is quoted as being about itself (it’s not; it’s speaking about the Hebrew Scriptures, not its own canonical status which came several hundred years after it was written). 

Progressive Christians would agree that “the core of the Christian faith is revealed in Scripture.” We agree that the Bible is “our authority and trustworthy guide.” It’s the last line of the statement which contains the seed of the conflict between traditionalists and progressives: “Illuminated by tradition, reason, and experience, the revelation of Scripture is the church’s primary and final authority on all matters of faith and practice.”

Progressives maintain there is a difference between the primary revelation of Scripture and everything contained in Scripture itself. The revelation of Scripture is that God was in Christ Jesus, reconciling the world; Jesus is the Word of God. Scripture, then, is a medium, a means of expression to communicate this life-changing good news to us. 

To the extent that Scripture speaks of the God who was in Christ Jesus, then it is revelation. But when it doesn’t, and let’s be honest, it doesn’t always, then it can and should be laid aside.  We should reject the stories of horror and terror which permeate the book of Judges and Ezra; we should turn away from Paul’s admonition that “women should be silent in our churches”; and we should jettison the idea that homosexuality is sinful and abhorrent.

Yes, I recognize that this kind of talk sounds dangerous and heretical, but it’s not. Progressives need to stand up and talk like this in public. We need to boldly proclaim that the Bible is not inerrant or infallible, specifically to reject and resist those who have turned Scripture into a rigid, authoritarian set of laws.

When Scripture is “illuminated by tradition, reason, and experience,” then we recognize that the Bible itself is the written record of thousand of years of experience. People who struggled to be faithful to the God they had come to know, struggled to write down their understanding of faith and practice. They came to their own conclusions, forged out of the anvil of historical process, but guided by the Spirit of God.

We now know so much more about the experience of LGBTQ persons that we can no longer cling to the limited understandings of first-century folks for insight into the wonder of the human body. This is not to claim that we are somehow morally superior than our ancestors, nor that we know more about God. But we do know more about the world, which can only be expected with the passage of time.

I don’t know why this is so threatening to traditionalist Christians. I don’t understand why the Bible has to be absolutely correct, without error, and completely authoritative. And I don’t know why this stance is deemed dangerous or heretical.

Scripture reveals something profound about God, about myself, about this creation. This revelation is the figure of Jesus Christ. I believe in this Jesus Christ, and I have committed myself to following him. What I believe about the Bible is, frankly, irrelevant.

Progressives need to speak out loudly on behalf of a Christianity that is not constrained by the cultural biases of the Bible’s authors. We must be honest about those places where Paul got it wrong; we have to acknowledge the Bible’s contradictions, its excesses, its blind spots. We cannot be afraid of “undermining” Scripture’s authority, because it’s not Scripture that is authoritative; only the God revealed in Jesus is authoritative.

And that God is remarkably full of grace.

A New Society of Methodists?

New Societyof Methodists.jpg

Two years ago, after returning home from the General Conference in Portland, I sat down and typed out a hastily-conceived plan of action for progressive United Methodist clergy and churches. 

I shared it with only one person, got no response, and then left it in a folder on my laptop.

I opened the file again yesterday, and re-read it. I will share part of it here, because I think it’s still a possible course of action for those of us who will be forced out of the post-February 2019 United Methodist Church. 

This plan makes one major assumption — that progressive churches will be granted a gracious and lenient exit. I mean that they must be able to leave the denomination with their property and assets intact with, at most, only a minimal financial penalty. If that happens, then my plan still could work.

I called my document, “A New Society of Methodists: A Covenant for the Future.” I’d like to argue that the Wesleyan Covenant Association stole my use of the word “covenant,” so that I could potentially sue them, but that would be dishonest! I have always liked the word “covenant,” because it’s Biblical and it implies a mutual commitment to a shared ideal.

In the introduction of my document, I wrote the following: “Since a church split seems inevitable, it would be foolish to delay thinking about the outcomes. It behooves like-minded progressive clergy and faith communities to begin to self-identify and organize for a fruitful and faithful future now, rather than wait any longer for the “powers-that-be” to make those decisions for us.”

Well, I delayed thinking about outcomes for two years. I’m one of those people who allowed the can to be kicked down the road and figured that I would deal with it later. 

Guess what? Later is now!

Here was my proposal:

Those clergy and communities who consider themselves Wesleyan and are also open to progressive understandings of Scripture and theology are invited to align themselves with each other by means of signing a covenant and becoming part of a New Society of Methodists (NSM). This covenant may or may not be used as a foundational document for a future church. 

This covenant would:

  • be a brief and concise document in which a free association of faith communities and clergy would agree to be in a networked relationship with each other;

  • be written by a small representative body of interested parties;

  • place authority in local faith communities rather than a hierarchical and bureaucratic structure;

  • be sufficiently broad as to allow great diversity in theology and practice, yet sufficiently specific to mark signatories as Wesleyan;

  • be re-confirmed on a yearly basis at a covenant service in which signatories gather for a short “Annual Conference”;

  • and allow each covenanted clergy person and community the freedom to cooperate and participate freely with other church bodies.

This covenant would not be a legally binding document, but instead a spiritual and theological manifesto of mutually dependent relationship and a common vision of a way forward. It would say nothing about property rights, building ownership, pensions, or salaries. Instead, the covenant would identify those communities and clergy who would be willing to work together in the event that the UMC ceased to exist as presently constituted.

I included a first draft of a possible Covenant to be used by the New Society of Methodists:



We, the undersigned, are the heirs of John Wesley’s powerful contribution to Christian discipleship. We are convinced that God is not finished with the Methodist stream of Christian faithfulness, yet also are persuaded that the current expressions of structured Methodism have reached the end of their usefulness.

In advance of future structures and organization, we affirm our commitment to one another as Wesley’s heirs in both content and form. As to content, Wesley preached a practical divinity, which can be described as a journey of faith, or “way of salvation,” beginning in prevenient grace, coming to new birth in justifying grace, and continuing on as the pursuit of holiness in sanctifying grace. As to form, Wesley created multiple levels of discipling bodies, including societies, classes, and bands, in which all people were invited to continue their walk of discipleship.


  1. We affirm John Wesley’s understanding of grace and commit to teaching and practicing the implications of prevenient, justifying, and sanctifying grace, as well as the means of grace.

  2. We affirm that we live in pursuit of Christian perfection, with “faith working in love,” which means that we teach and practice acts of piety, mercy, and justice.

  3. We affirm the practicality of Wesley’s discipleship model, which includes societies, classes, and bands, as fundamental to growth in grace.

  4. We affirm that our Communion Table will be open, not restricted to anyone for any reason.

  5. We affirm that all people may participate in all aspects of community life and ministry, irrespective of race, gender, ethnicity, mental or physical ability, national origin, culture, tradition, sexual orientation or gender identity.

  6. We believe that the local faith community is the base unit of organization, in which should reside authority to decide how the community should organize itself and plan for local ministry.

  7. We believe that the Scriptures are an open, living document in which God speaks to us. Scripture is not inerrant, and cannot and should not be read literally and woodenly, as if it had only one correct meaning, but instead should be opened with care, studied with as many tools as can be used, and read not in isolation, but in community.


  1. We will pray for the members of this covenant by name on a regular basis.

  2. Where practical and possible, we will provide material and spiritual support for each other’s ministries and needs.

  3. We will attempt to match covenant clergy with covenant communities for ministry employment.

  4. We commit to participating in an Annual Conference of covenanting New Methodist clergy and communities, for the purpose of renewing our covenant together.

  5. As individuals, we commit to participating in a weekly discipleship meeting, in which our goal is to grow in grace.

Of course, there are lots of things that this plan fails to address. In essence, what it proposes is a free association of progressive Wesleyan churches without an episcopacy or itinerancy. The connectional ideal is maintained by the covenant.

And yes, this explicitly takes the form of a congregational polity. But what else can there be in a post-February 2019 world? Does anyone really want to spend time re-creating the administrative structure of 20th-century United Methodism?

Now is the very time when we should be imagining and creating a better future. Perhaps a free association of churches can be more flexible and adaptable to the mission field, not to mention less financially restrained. Maybe we don’t need bishops and district superintendents in the next iteration of Methodism. 

What do you think? Is there anything here that is usable post-February 2019?

The NRA's Vigilante Approach to Justice

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”

Wayne LaPierre



This is the NRA’s primary slogan. It is pithy, easy to remember, catchy.

And it’s deeply flawed.

Let’s take a closer look at the logic of the statement: first of all, the basic claim that an armed guy is the “only thing” that can stop another armed guy is obviously untrue. Just last week, an unarmed man in a Waffle House disarmed a naked shooter, and then proceeded to raise over $200,000 for the families of the victims. 

Besides anecdotes like these, there are the larger cases where entire movements changed the course of history without firing a shot or carrying their own weapons into war. Gandhi led India to independence without guns; Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement faced down hundreds of armed guys, most of whom were supposed to be the “good guys,” by the way; and don’t forget the fall of the Berlin Wall, the overthrow of the Marcos regime in the Philippines, or the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. 

Perhaps it would be more accurate if LaPierre and the NRA claimed that “the best way” or “the quickest way” to stop a bad guy with a gun, etc.

But this is also an extremely problematic statement. How does one know the difference between a good guy and a bad guy? Is it that easy to spot?

I suppose LaPierre would answer that a bad guy is the person who is doing something illegal or harmful. But notice how easily the term “bad guy” can be expanded … what about the person who potentially might do something illegal or harmful? Are they bad, too? Should they be stopped with a gun?

What about someone with a criminal past? Is he “once bad, always bad” or do we hold out the possibility that he has reformed and become a law-abiding citizen? 

What about someone who fits in a particular ethnic or racial group which has been stereotyped as a group more prone to criminal activity? 

And what about white-collar crime — are “good guys with guns” the best way to stop tax evaders? Funny how the NRA doesn’t really seem to be all that concerned about the bad guys who are so wealthy that they don’t need guns or weapons to commit their crimes.

As a pastor, I cringe when somebody refers to good guys and bad guys. Because one of the major tenets of Christianity is the persistence and ubiquity of sin. Every single one of us has sinned; we regularly fall short of the glory of humanity. We often fail to live up to the image of God in which we are created. 

At the same time, we do sometimes live up to the image of God! Sometimes we are crazy beautiful and creative people; we love spectacularly and commit great acts of mercy and compassion. 

Throughout our lives, we stumble between the two poles of sin and glory. As the Apostle Paul lamented, “For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.” Martin Luther summed it all up with his dictum that we are “simultaneously saints and sinners.” 

Unfortunately, in the mind of LaPierre, there are essentially two kinds of people in the world — the good guys and the bad guys. You’re either one or the other. I simply can’t accept that dualism, that simplistic black-and-white thinking, especially when it directly impacts the safety and wellbeing of ordinary people.

There’s one more reason why this oft-quoted statement is problematic: LaPierre and the NRA support the idea that armed citizens have the ability and the right to be the judge and jury of another person’s actions. Never mind due process — the appropriate punishment of any crime committed with a gun is the death penalty.

Yesterday, security camera footage was released of an incident in a convenience store in which an undercover cop pulled a gun on someone he thought was stealing a package of Mentos. Only it turns out that the man was not stealing the mints; he’d already paid his $1.19. What is truly frightening is that the “good guy with a gun” was ready and willing to use his firearm to stop a bad guy with Mentos. 

We have another word for this behavior: vigilantism. That’s what the NRA supports. That’s what a pack of law-abiding, arms-packing citizens who are watching out for bad guys with guns ultimately become — vigilantes. 

The NRA talks a lot about the rule of law, but when it comes down to it, the only rule that matters to them is the one that comes down a barrel.

So who’s the bad guys?