An Open Letter of Testimony to My Church Family

Below is an open letter, or testimony, to my church family. I have written it for a couple of reasons, part of which is explained in the letter. One reason I have written it is because I believe I have a responsibility as a shepherd to lead those entrusted to my care in a transparent way (more on that below). The second reason I wrote this is because over the last few months I have been asked many times where I stand regarding our denominational troubles. This letter gives me the opportunity to share in my own words where my heart and mind are, without risking folks hearing inaccurate or incomplete second or third hand reports about my views.

---

Dear Southside Family,
 
Below is a lengthy and personal “open letter” or “testimony” to you. I have written it as one of your pastors, a brother in Christ, and friend. We have been together for many years. Southside is the church family in which Suzanne and I raised our children. We have been blessed to call Southside our home. Therefore, I hope the serious nature of this letter will not overshadow the love I have for each of you, regardless of whether we agree with one another. Indeed, I hope the serious nature of it reveals the deep love I have for you. I fervently believe two people can simultaneously love and disagree with one another.
 
Furthermore, I have chosen to include this letter on this blog where I have written on much that I hold dear. This blog contains a portion of what I have learned in my 30+ years of biblical, theological, and pastoral reflection, in order to communicate to you that I have thought long and deeply about the things I am sharing. This letter is part of the biblically holistic way of thinking about, and seeking to live out, our Christian faith that I have, for many years, preached, taught, discussed, and written about as one of your pastors at Southside. The posts on this blog reveal where my heart and mind have been regarding faith, practice, and ministry. Hopefully I have grown in many areas, yet I pray that on issues of biblical faithfulness, I continue to stand firm in the faith that God has revealed in and through his Word.
 
Some Preliminary Remarks

My prayer for this testimony is that it will be received by those who know me, by those with whom I have developed long-term relationships, and by those who, even though we may not see eye-to-eye on every theological or ethical issue, have still loved one another, worshipped and celebrated with one another, grieved with one another, learned with one another, and served side-by-side with one another, over the course of more than two decades. I pray that our relationship has obtained for us good will for one another. In fact, I make a point here to emphasize our Christian imperative to love one another, even when it’s hard. This is a tumultuous time in the life of our denomination and our church family, and we all feel the weight of it. Furthermore, the world is constantly watching the church and, according to Jesus (John 13:35), it will know whether we are his disciples by our love for one another, among other things. 

A second consideration I want to address, related to the point above, is that some in our congregation have suggested that our pastors should remain neutral during this time. I have somewhat abided by that, even while I have wrestled with it, wondering if my neutrality was an act of cowardice or even unfaithfulness to God and my calling. My observation in Scripture is that throughout redemptive history, God’s shepherds were anything but neutral. They were tasked with believing, guarding, and teaching the truth of God’s revealed word and will, and leading God’s people according to it. Our present cultural and denominational moment is not the time or place for neutrality.

And yet, as I emphasized above, I want to unequivocally affirm that loving each and every member of our congregation, regardless of their point of view, is essential and dear to my heart. As a parent, I try to assure my children that my love for them is unyielding and unconditional, even as I perhaps disagree with choices they may occasionally make. A shepherd’s responsibility is similar. In serving Southside for many years, it’s safe to say I have not always agreed with every decision, point of view, etc. But I hope I have shown kindness, love, and compassion to those with whom I have disagreed. Even if I performed that sacred responsibility poorly, a loving attitude was my intent, and I repent if I have alienated anyone by what they perceived as a lack of charity on my part. Furthermore, I would like to make amends if that is the case.

However, neutrality regarding biblical revelation, doctrinal belief, and ethical practice is not part of my calling as a shepherd to those entrusted to my care. My calling as a shepherd is to love, lead, nurture, feed, protect, and heal those in my flock. This calling may not always be appreciated by the recipients of it, but I must seek to be faithful to God’s call in my life, even while I work hard on not being a “jerk for Jesus.”
 
Backing Up a Little

I attended seminary from 1989 to 1992. I went to an approved United Methodist seminary. Before I left for seminary, my dear paternal grandmother wrote a letter to me which concluded with these words: “Don’t let them take away your faith in Jesus.” I thought it was sweet that she would include that admonition in her letter to me, though, I thought, a little over the top. After all, she was a member of a small rural Southern Baptist church, and while I appreciated her concern, I condescendingly chuckled to myself thinking, “well, she’s a Baptist, so her understanding of what ‘taking away my faith in Jesus’ is probably a bit narrower than what I think it is.”

And yet she was prophetic in her cautionary words. During my three years at seminary, I did indeed hear all manner of things denied, including those sacred truths affirmed in Scripture and the historic creeds of the church. But I rationalized such things, telling myself that this was an academic environment where being exposed to new and contrary ideas is part of the process and, in part, designed to help students learn to think critically and for themselves. True, it did strike me as odd that an official seminary, purposed with training pastors in the truths of the Christian faith, as well as the practice of ministry, wouldn’t occasionally rein in some of what was being taught. However, these folks all had years of experience and PhDs from prestigious universities, so who was I to question what had been working for so long?
 
But therein was the problem. In my opinion, it wasn’t working. The process was producing some pastors (I won’t attempt to quantify numbers) who didn’t believe much of anything. I’m convinced some had to cross their fingers behind their backs as they went through the ordination process and must continue doing so every Sunday as they recite the Apostles’ Creed. It was bad enough what they believed (or didn’t believe), but now they were passing this doubt and unbelief on to their laity (cf. 1 Timothy 6:3-5).

Doctrinal Concerns
 
Upon graduating in 1992, I was appointed to my first church that June and began the work of pastoral ministry. Or, more accurately, I began learning and fumbling my way through my first year of pastoral ministry. This was before the Internet and so I subscribed to every denominational magazine and journal I could, patiently waiting each month for these to show up in my post office box. It was during this time I started discovering that those “rogue” beliefs I learned about at seminary continued to be held and propagated not only by pastors, but also by bishops. By bishops! In 1992, there was a bishop making a name for himself by denying the actual, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:17 and here). 

Since that time, I have learned of a bishop who believes things, such as, Jesus sinned (which leads me to wonder what that bishop believes about the incarnation and the efficacy of Christ's atonement, or if an atonement is even needed). Over the last thirty years I have served on my conference’s Board of Ordained Ministry, the Residents in Ministry program, the Conference Executive Committee, and my district’s Committee of Ordained Ministry, to name a few. I have not only read the theological and biblical paperwork of candidates but have taken part in discussions with the candidates about their paperwork, as well as with fellow pastors and seminary and college professors. I’m grateful to say that some of these interactions were fruitful and encouraging as we discussed those who affirmed the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). However, I also read and heard denials of basic Christian doctrine, such as the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the reality of actual and original sin, the need for Christ’s substitutionary and sacrificial atonement, the rejection of a biblical and creational anthropology, the redefinition of biblical and creational ordinances, as well as the affirmation of universal salvation, regardless of one’s belief. 

I admit all of this is anecdotal in nature. I did not take the time to footnote every (or any) jot and tittle of my experiences. Others have done deep research on these matters (and are continuing to do so) far better than I. As I have mentioned, I am not trying to convince those who do not know me. This is a testimony for my congregation.

Human Sexuality

It would be dishonest for me to say that human sexuality plays no role in our denominational troubles. It clearly does. And yet, I would suggest those troubles arise out of much deeper theological and biblical disagreements. Ethics flows out of doctrine. Doctrine flows out of one’s view of Scripture. I have heard repeatedly that those who disagree with my views on human sexuality also have a high view of Scripture and that our differences are only matters of interpretation. I will not argue this point.

However, I believe those who hold these differing views, while applying a common vocabulary, are using a different dictionary. I often hear “Jesus-shaped words” used to describe theological concepts about Jesus, salvation, love, sin, ethics, authority, etc., that I do not believe the biblical writers and ancient church would recognize, (nor John Wesley for that matter). I think for many in the contemporary church, Jesus is viewed primarily as a political and social revolutionary or moral philosopher because, in their estimation, humanity has no need of a Savior. In many influential quarters in the UMC, “sin” seems to be reduced and understood exclusively as corporate and systemic, not as individual, and personal (Romans 3:9-20). (Why it cannot be a both/and proposition is beyond me.) Thus, it seems to me, the church appears to be seeking ideological and political answers to these problems instead of an atoning and sacrificial Savior. (At the time I originally wrote this in early December 2022, I had not yet read the transcripts of the interviews of potential Bishops, many of whom were elected. Suffice it to say, there were candidates who affirmed doctrinal beliefs that I believe are not consistent with historic interpretations of Scripture and Christian orthodoxy. One such example can be found in this post.)

I will confess that what I perceive as an increasingly boundary-free view of human sexuality and anthropology troubles me greatly. However, of far greater concern to me is the idea of “big tent” United Methodism, that I thought most people had admitted back in the late 80s and early 90s was a failed project. There appeared to be an acknowledgement that theological pluralism was untenable for a denomination seeking to be on the same mission together (cf. The Problem of Pluralism by Jerry Walls). Yet, once again, I’m hearing the phrase, “big tent” with greater frequency. If our Book of Discipline is designed to safeguard and summarize the sacred truths of Scripture, then contradictory views must not be permitted. We must have the courage to say that some things are true, and some are not.

Orthodox, on Paper

On that note, United Methodists have lately been hearing that our doctrinal standards will not change. In fact, these standards cannot change. And technically, that is correct. But the truth is, in practice, they have already changed. My concern is not that our doctrinal standards will, on paper, cease being orthodox. Instead, I am concerned about the freedom pastors and bishops have in not being required to believe, guard, and teach these biblical and doctrinal standards. They appear to dissent from God’s Word, as well as our Book of Discipline, with impunity. And so, here’s my question: What’s the difference between a denomination that officially affirms orthodox doctrine, but does not in practice discipline those who openly deny and teach what is contrary to it… versus a denomination that officially rejects orthodox doctrine? I cannot discern any meaningful difference between the two.
 
To my brothers and sisters at Southside, when the guard rails of Christian doctrine are not set in place, people’s temporal spiritual health and eternal souls are at risk. Yes, human sexuality is a component, but a pastor who disagrees on human sexuality could very well be the least of our problems. Someone who denies the central and essential doctrines of the Christian faith is a much larger problem for the church of Jesus Christ. Ethics, mission, purpose, identity, sexual norms, and more, all flow from doctrine, which is to say, from God’s truth as it is revealed in holy Scripture.

As I point out here, the proper interpretation of Scripture considers historical context, grammatical issues, and how the church has understood a text across the centuries. What we cannot allow to happen is for the present cultural moment to dictate what God “really meant” when he inspired the biblical writers millennia ago. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis or G.K. Chesterton, we must interpret the times by the eternities, and not the other way 'round.
 
Why Now?

A fair question would be, after 30 years serving in the United Methodist Church, why has this now become a problem for me? Well, in an important sense, it has always been an issue I have wrestled with, but I have been contented to “bloom where I was planted” and not worry about what was happening at the wider denominational level. That was irresponsible of me, especially when our apportionments helped support all manner of things across the denomination. However, that rationalization helped me focus on the folks God called me to serve in the local churches to which I was appointed. And, if things were “officially orthodox” on paper, I could sleep at night. But things have changed, and are changing, rapidly and dramatically.

Let me say (and allow me to put this in all-caps) - IN MY OPINION - this is only the beginning of a theologically progressive trend that is coming, and which will impact every local church in the connection. No church will have the luxury of being an island unto itself for very long. For once traditional pastors are no longer a part of (or, a far less significant part of) the UMC, there will be no guard rails, no buffer, to prevent voting on any and every questionable view that is set forth. I know that is a strong statement to make, but I do not believe it is fearmongering. A myriad of things that are outside the boundary markers of Scripture, the historic doctrines of the church, and our Book of Discipline are already being presented (and often being passed, allowed, and undisciplined). And all this is taking place while traditional pastors and laity are still around and while the Book of Discipline supposedly remains unchanged and still applicable. I was an eyewitness to an example of an attempted end-run around our Book of Discipline at our most recent Annual Conference.

If our Discipline is being ignored now, while it supposedly remains unchanged, what would lead a person to think that when the changes are officially made, they won’t usher in the beginning of a far more theologically progressive trend… especially when biblical and theological traditionalists are (mostly) gone? Again, this is my anecdotal observation, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, considering my experience in the United Methodist Church.

I’m not a professional logician, but I do know the “slippery slope” argument is technically a logical fallacy, on paper, because though “A” may happen, it does not necessarily hold that “B” must follow as a result. However, in the real world, the slippery slope is a practical reality. I’m genuinely concerned that many who are discerning whether to stay in the UMC believe our denominational troubles only focus on the issues of human sexuality, and homosexual practice in particular. However, I hope I have made a case for why our troubles involve far more than human sexuality, as serious as they are. 

I offer this as a testimony to you, my congregation. I feel blessed on a regular basis to be one of your pastors. You all have been exceedingly good and kind to my family and me for many years. I have sometimes fallen short of my calling. Even after 30 years of pastoral ministry, I am still learning, professionally and spiritually. I am a work in progress. But the Holy Spirit has nagged, pestered, and convicted me to share this with you. I believe I would be unfaithful not to do so.

By the way, none of what I have shared with you is true simply because I claim it. Research it for yourself to see if it’s true… or to see if you agree with my assessment. What I can promise you is that I truly believe what I have shared. 

May the Lord bless us all as we study his Word, pray without ceasing, and seek to be faithful to his revealed truth and will for our lives. And let us pray for our church family to love and encourage one another through this turbulent time, even as we may strongly disagree with one another.

Your Brother in Christ,
Dale