I just read Fyodor Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov." It's about 750 pages, dialogue heavy, written in Russian in the 19th century. It started out as a pretty tough slog, but I've always heard how great it was and I wanted to experience it myself. It was, indeed, definitely worth the time and effort. In case anyone else decides to take the plunge on this great classic, I thought I might share a word of advice that made the book open up for me.
"The Brothers Karamazov" is divided into four parts and twelve books. Each book contains many smaller chapters, sometimes a dozen or more chapters per book. And there's an epilogue with three additional final chapters. Whew!
Shortly after I began reading the book, I read somewhere that it was originally publishes as a serial. Like the writings of many 19th century novelists, Dostoyevsky published "The Brothers Karamazov" in installments, short articles, in a magazine. The first readers would have read the book a week at a time. The whole thing came out over a period of two years.
It feels overwhelming to read the whole thing all at once. That's because it was never meant to be experienced that way. Reading all of "The Brothers Karamazov" front to back is like binge watching a decade of "Friends" over a weekend.
That analogy--comparing the totality of the book to a long-running series--was a very helpful key for me to engage. I treated the books as seasons in a series and the short chapters as episodes designed to be experienced with an integrity each in themselves designed to build suspense leading into the next one. The book as a whole, much like a dramatic series like The Sopranos or Six Feet Under, holds together much more through the relationship the reader builds with the book's complex, compelling character than it does through the plot. And the point of the book (again, much like the best dramatic TV series) is an exploration of consistent and heavy existential themes as the characters navigate complicated and sometimes crazy circumstances.
That might not help anyone but me. But if you love TV dramas and can binge watch a really good Showtime or Netflix series, I believe you could really enjoy "The Brothers Karamazov" by approaching it similarly.
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Thursday, August 9, 2018
A Modest Methodist Proposal Regarding Union and Disunion
If, like me, you are a United Methodist, you are likely aware that our denomination is having its turn going through troubles. Like us, many mainline denominations have cultural divides that have erupted over the issue of human sexuality. Next year, we have a special world-wide meeting to discuss how we will deal with this issue (for non-Methodists--the name of the meeting is "called General Conference").
Our bishops have made three recommendations regarding how the General Conference might approach the issue. None of these are acceptable to everyone. All of them have serious problems.
So we United Methodists are very likely to split. In preparation for schism, some conservatives among us have put together a group called the "Wesleyan Covenant Association," which provides the connections and infrastructure for a new denomination if they do not get their way at General Conference 2019 (and perhaps even if they do get their way). At first, they said the WCA was not a preparation for schism, but they have given up even pretending that they only wanted to express their views and lobby for enforcement of our church's rules on these matters. They now have their own conferences, apportionments ("membership fees"), and curriculum. We have churches that are still United Methodist Churches and yet are members of the WCA--simultaneously part of an existing denominational covenant and also members of a secondary covenant with a new denomination that might or might not come into existence. It's as if these churches and pastors have moved in with the girlfriend while they are waiting for the divorce from the wife to be finalized.
I strongly believe in covenants. I believe schism is a sin. I believe that faith communities hold together as an expression of our belief in God's steadfast love and faithfulness. Splitting from each other on the basis of our perception of others' unfaithfulness is a lived heresy. We stay together because of God's faithfulness, not because of our own faithfulness or the faithfulness of others with whom we are in covenant. So my hope and prayer is that the UMC will hold together and that we will not split up. I will not participate in any other covenant group as long as there is a United Methodist Church, for the same reason that I will not have a Tinder account as long as I am married.
The WCA (as well as progressive covenantal communities like the "Reconciling Movement," which also has member churches and pastors) make me pessimistic that people who see the situation like I see it will prevail in these conversations. As much as it pains and sickens me, it feels to me that a split is almost inevitable.
To be clear, I'm for unity. But if unity is impossible, I have another idea besides a split. My idea is crazy and I share it almost tongue-in-cheek. But everyone with whom I've shared this idea likes it. So here it goes.
First, the last thing the world needs is more denominations. To split up the second largest Protestant denomination into two or three denominations is crazy. We don't need more denominations. We have too many of them already. If anything, we should be consolidating rather than fracturing.
Second, the splits within the UMC are mirrored in all the mainline denominations. A progressive PCUSA Presbyterian Church has lots more in common with a progressive United Methodist than either has with their conservative counterparts in the same denomination.
So, rather than a split, how about a realignment?
If they just can't stand to pray and serve and live in the same tent with New York liberal United Methodists, what if the WCA people, instead of creating a new denomination, just united with the Church of the Nazarene? Or the Wesleyan Church? Or any of the existing conservative denominations in the greater Methodist family? Or all of them?
Of course, this proposal assumes that the WCA's concerns are what they say they are and that they are not just seeking to free themselves from the accountability and shared concerns of a greater covenant community while using complaints about liberalism as a mask for personal ambitions and personal power. But I'm quite sure the WCA folks are uniformly concerned about ethical purity, so a merger with the Nazarenes should be no problem. Assuming that the Nazarenes would take them.
And the Northeastern United Methodists--they could just hook up with the Episcopalians. They seem to want to be Episcopalians anyway. John Wesley was an Anglican. Why not go back to our roots? Maybe the West Coast UMCs could do the same thing, or maybe they could join the PCUSA or the Unitarian Universalists. This might be a great opportunity for all the progressives mainlines (including whatever Lutheran group Nadia Bolz-Weber is in, the American Baptists, the Congregationalists, anyone who just can't get enough of Barbara Brown Taylor) to lash their rafts together and make a go of it. They did it in Canada. Progressives love Canada.
What about the rest of us? The good, old fashioned, John Wesley quoting, casserole eating, hymnal using, acronym-addicted, agenda-less, centrist, institution-trusting, non-axe-grinding, easy going Methodists? Many of us have no interest in being in a WCA style of denomination, but we are concerned about the kind of UMC we would have left if we lost the orthodox pull of our conservatives. Many of us see ourselves as moderates--theological orthodox, creedal, biblical Christians, but not quite so wrapped around the axle about the evangelical political social agenda as our Good News/WCA/Confessing Movement culture warrior friends. Where do we fit? What kind of UMC would be left for people like us?
How about if we hooked up with the CME, AME and AMEZ? They, too have a commitment to orthodoxy and true Methodist covenantal connectionalism, only without the right wing political agenda. I believe I could find a home there. Whenever I find myself in an AME church, it feels very much like home.
So there's my crazy idea. Plan B if unity fails should be realignment, not division. The idea is terrible, I know, and absurdly impractical. But a split is also an impractical absurd idea. My idea does much less violence to the Body of Christ and our Lord's prayer that we would all be one.
Our bishops have made three recommendations regarding how the General Conference might approach the issue. None of these are acceptable to everyone. All of them have serious problems.
So we United Methodists are very likely to split. In preparation for schism, some conservatives among us have put together a group called the "Wesleyan Covenant Association," which provides the connections and infrastructure for a new denomination if they do not get their way at General Conference 2019 (and perhaps even if they do get their way). At first, they said the WCA was not a preparation for schism, but they have given up even pretending that they only wanted to express their views and lobby for enforcement of our church's rules on these matters. They now have their own conferences, apportionments ("membership fees"), and curriculum. We have churches that are still United Methodist Churches and yet are members of the WCA--simultaneously part of an existing denominational covenant and also members of a secondary covenant with a new denomination that might or might not come into existence. It's as if these churches and pastors have moved in with the girlfriend while they are waiting for the divorce from the wife to be finalized.
I strongly believe in covenants. I believe schism is a sin. I believe that faith communities hold together as an expression of our belief in God's steadfast love and faithfulness. Splitting from each other on the basis of our perception of others' unfaithfulness is a lived heresy. We stay together because of God's faithfulness, not because of our own faithfulness or the faithfulness of others with whom we are in covenant. So my hope and prayer is that the UMC will hold together and that we will not split up. I will not participate in any other covenant group as long as there is a United Methodist Church, for the same reason that I will not have a Tinder account as long as I am married.
The WCA (as well as progressive covenantal communities like the "Reconciling Movement," which also has member churches and pastors) make me pessimistic that people who see the situation like I see it will prevail in these conversations. As much as it pains and sickens me, it feels to me that a split is almost inevitable.
To be clear, I'm for unity. But if unity is impossible, I have another idea besides a split. My idea is crazy and I share it almost tongue-in-cheek. But everyone with whom I've shared this idea likes it. So here it goes.
First, the last thing the world needs is more denominations. To split up the second largest Protestant denomination into two or three denominations is crazy. We don't need more denominations. We have too many of them already. If anything, we should be consolidating rather than fracturing.
Second, the splits within the UMC are mirrored in all the mainline denominations. A progressive PCUSA Presbyterian Church has lots more in common with a progressive United Methodist than either has with their conservative counterparts in the same denomination.
So, rather than a split, how about a realignment?
If they just can't stand to pray and serve and live in the same tent with New York liberal United Methodists, what if the WCA people, instead of creating a new denomination, just united with the Church of the Nazarene? Or the Wesleyan Church? Or any of the existing conservative denominations in the greater Methodist family? Or all of them?
Of course, this proposal assumes that the WCA's concerns are what they say they are and that they are not just seeking to free themselves from the accountability and shared concerns of a greater covenant community while using complaints about liberalism as a mask for personal ambitions and personal power. But I'm quite sure the WCA folks are uniformly concerned about ethical purity, so a merger with the Nazarenes should be no problem. Assuming that the Nazarenes would take them.
And the Northeastern United Methodists--they could just hook up with the Episcopalians. They seem to want to be Episcopalians anyway. John Wesley was an Anglican. Why not go back to our roots? Maybe the West Coast UMCs could do the same thing, or maybe they could join the PCUSA or the Unitarian Universalists. This might be a great opportunity for all the progressives mainlines (including whatever Lutheran group Nadia Bolz-Weber is in, the American Baptists, the Congregationalists, anyone who just can't get enough of Barbara Brown Taylor) to lash their rafts together and make a go of it. They did it in Canada. Progressives love Canada.
What about the rest of us? The good, old fashioned, John Wesley quoting, casserole eating, hymnal using, acronym-addicted, agenda-less, centrist, institution-trusting, non-axe-grinding, easy going Methodists? Many of us have no interest in being in a WCA style of denomination, but we are concerned about the kind of UMC we would have left if we lost the orthodox pull of our conservatives. Many of us see ourselves as moderates--theological orthodox, creedal, biblical Christians, but not quite so wrapped around the axle about the evangelical political social agenda as our Good News/WCA/Confessing Movement culture warrior friends. Where do we fit? What kind of UMC would be left for people like us?
How about if we hooked up with the CME, AME and AMEZ? They, too have a commitment to orthodoxy and true Methodist covenantal connectionalism, only without the right wing political agenda. I believe I could find a home there. Whenever I find myself in an AME church, it feels very much like home.
So there's my crazy idea. Plan B if unity fails should be realignment, not division. The idea is terrible, I know, and absurdly impractical. But a split is also an impractical absurd idea. My idea does much less violence to the Body of Christ and our Lord's prayer that we would all be one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)