The following document was prepared by some participants at the Our Movement Forward Summit in Minneapolis who also attended the UM Next gathering in Kansas City. They define grace as opposed to pleasantness (“Oklahoma Nice” I call it), harm as opposed to discomfort, and offer a graceful way to hold a church gathering accountable to harm done in the moment rather than after the fact.
I personally think it is super helpful for any gathering, so I share it with that hope. While made by United Methodists, I would think it would be ecumenical in application.
Here’s the document.
(Note: POC+Q+T = Persons of Color, Queer, and Transgender persons. Acronym used by UMForward Summit)
===
OMF statement on Grace and Harm for UMNext
Our Movement Forward offers these definitions of harm and grace and a process by which harm will be stopped, named, and turned.
- Definition of Harm
- Harm is different from discomfort. Discomfort is the unease that arises from conflict. The response to discomfort is endurance.
- Harm in this context means repeating the oppression of marginalized people who have historically and culturally been emotionally, physically, and economically brutalized (ie. assaulted, silenced, dehumanized) by dominant powers in interpersonal and systemic ways. The appropriate response to harm is to stop and repair on the conditions set by marginalized people.
- This process is not meant to shame people of dominant identities. The focus is on the experience of marginalized people. Harm has been done to POC+Q+T people.
To do the least amount of harm this is what you need to do today [for church gatherings]:
- Definition of the Call to stop, break away, and rework the body.
- We need to center the voices and experiences of POC+Q+T persons. If a POC+Q+T person is experiencing harm during the proceedings, then any one POC+Q+T person will call to stop the proceedings and caucus to care for the harmed and bring back to the body a way for the harm to be redressed and to set us down a less harmful path. All business will be suspended during the caucusing time.
- There will be a symbol and singing that calls us to gather.
- Definition of Grace
- Grace is different than pleasantness. Pleasantness is extending courtesy for the sake of a collectively enjoyable experience.
- Grace, as modeled by Jesus, means offering feedback (ie. action/responses) that allows individuals and communities to more closely reflect God’s vision for the world. Grace certainly involves forgiveness and patience, though it also involves disruption of harm of marginalized people. Grace overthrows systems of power, it overturns tables. It agitates, transforms, and roots us.
- As Methodists, our foremost commitment is grace. It is our primary moral obligation to suspend pleasantness when grace requires it.
===
Your Turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
Brave spaces.
I am sorry, but on the face, these rules seem terribly unhelpful. If we define harm as “repeating the oppression of marginalized people who have historically and culturally been emotionally, physically, and economically brutalized (ie. assaulted, silenced, dehumanized) by dominant powers in interpersonal and systemic ways.”, that opens a whole Pandora’s box. What exactly is the repeated oppression? I can’t help but think that as a society (either in a cultural or a denominational sense) we have made great strides to be a more inclusive and more open society. Making blanket statements that we are “repeating” past patterns doesn’t help. What we need is better definition on what is an appropriate way to engage a difficult discussion for ALL people involved.
And the second point doesn’t do that all. We are told that “The appropriate response to harm is to stop and repair on the conditions set by marginalized people.” In one sense, that is giving the ability the minority to tyrannize the majority. Even our justice systems, when it be government/secular or ecclesiastical, I am not sure that the victim has the ability to demand the conditions for repair. Usually that is done by an outside third party that we hold up to be bound more by law than by looking at how one is defined (whether than being “oppressed” or “oppressor”).
My third point is that I am not sure we are to demand to “center the voices and experiences of POC+Q+T persons.” To center those voices gives the implication that through their experiences they have some sense of knowledge or wisdom in which those voices are the only voices in which any value can be derived. That is a pretty strong statement. I would argue that any discussion should have a respectful and thoughtful discernment of all voices and all should be valued with the same amount of credibility and dignity.
William, I would say that I disagree with almost your every affirmation. I say:
1. Yes, POC+Q+T people DO have wisdom from their experience that I don’t have, and I would be bettered by receiving.
2. Yes, the minority should have the power to stop the harm by the majority. That’s basic to power dynamics in groups.
3. Majority culture people like me don’t recognize the repeated actions, large and small, that constitute harm. Sorry you don’t see it.
1. Yes, POC+Q+T people DO have wisdom from their experience that I don’t have, and I would be bettered by receiving.
I don’t think anyone is saying that POC+Q+T people do not have wisdom. They do. But guess what, so do non-POC+Q+T people. Shouldn’t we try to value both the qualitative widsom people have along with the quantitative research that might be gleaned from a deep discussion? When you implicitly require one set of worldviews over another, your doing a disservice to those in the conversation.
2. Yes, the minority should have the power to stop the harm by the majority. That’s basic to power dynamics in groups.
There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between giving a minority group the power to stop harm and giving a minority group the ability to set the conditions of repair. I can’t think of any society in which we allow the victims to set those conditions. I tend to believe that if that was a system that actually worked, we would see it practiced. If I steal $20 from you, we don’t allow you to set the punishment. We hand that awesome power to a judge; justice is not just to make sure that those that are victims get treated well, it’s also to ensure perpetrators are given punishments that fit the crime.
3. Majority culture people like me don’t recognize the repeated actions, large and small, that constitute harm. Sorry you don’t see it.
Oh, I see it. I am just not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As much harm that has been done, there have been honest, well-intentioned and actual tangible attempts to make society more inclusive. We are a far better society now than where we were a hundred or even fifty years ago.
Personally, I get frustrated when instead of digging for substantive change we are all too happy to gloss over problems with half-baked solutions that we *think* are going to solve problems. The key is to get on the ground with those individuals that are marginalized (for whatever reason) and ask them what they want, what responsibilities they are willing to take and what kind of partnerships they are willing to collaborate in. If we aren’t willing to have *those* kind of conversations, you are just marking time.
Jeremy, as I read your blog from time to time, I must admit that as someone who has spent significant time studying philosophy and logic, William Thomas has brought out the greatest flaw in all of your writing: You seem to be unaware of most categorical distinctions of language and logic. A course in formal logic would greatly help you understand what this means. Technically, in all three of your critiques of William Thomas, you either commit the fallacy of a Red Herring, meaning you somehow miss his main point, or, if you do see his main point, but ignore it, you are committing the fallacy of a Straw Man, where you are creating a falsified version of his argument and refuting that. To be honest, you write well, and ask good questions, but much of your language is often vague and undefined. Any seriously-trained logician would take issue with almost everything you write, as it often includes emotionally-laden, slogan words that have no longer have any clearly-defined meaning (Example: The word “fascism” which seems to be a favorite on both sides of the political aisle, was decried as incoherent in 1946 in a famous essay by Orwell). Consider whether you are making serious arguments that will convince serious readers or whether you are only “preaching to the choir”. You have the ability to think critically, but, at times, you seem to be unconcerned with considering serious refutations, and this will never appeal to anyone outside the already-convinced.
I like the connection you’ve made between harm and discomfort. And while I support that repeating the mistakes of the past is in fact harm, I think there might be a more productive definition of harm as the promotion of injury.
I’ve heard of love as, “…acting intentionally, in response to God and others, to promote overall well-being..” (http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/the-justice-of-love). Perhaps harm then is acting intentionally to impair overall well-being. Hurting someone is non-intentional impairment. And the intentional impairment succeeds when the victim is left in a worse state than before. But the tyranny of majority, and that of the minority, needs to come to some resolution:
* Victim, “It harms me!”
* Majority, “No it doesn’t, or at least not to a level that can be called harm.”
So if this new definition of harm results in permanent impairment of well-being, then perhaps we have a way to constructively discuss and avoid harm.
How about the example of the recent UMC Traditional Plan vote…
One could argue that the LGBTQ+ community doesn’t have a path towards communion with United Methodists. Members claim to experience God’s grace, and appear to serve equally as well in ministry as cis-hetero. Science has reasoned based on evidence that LGBTQ+ is partly influenced by genes. Scholars study scripture and find the barring of non-straight relationships appears to be situation specific to the time and culture of the Biblical authors. The only hangup is the traditional understanding of sexuality. So with 3 out of 4 points on the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Experience, Reason, Scripture) in favor, the fourth (Tradition) is to be voted by the community.
That community has barred LGBTQ+. So what avenue does LGBTQ+ persons have for full communion? If the answer is to repent/recant the 3/4 of their faith that drew them to the church in the first place, then there is no avenue.
It has harmed them.
So conservatives are now compelled to find alternatives that allow for communion with LGBTQ+. Without impairing that 3/4 faith, what can they do to provide a path back into communion with the church?
Wow, such intellectual beating around the bush. I have seldom witnessed more contrived double speak in my life. Let me help you with this. All have sinned and fall short of the mark of God. There is no one good, no, not one. While we were yet sinners Christ dies for our sins and for the sins of the world. It is through faith that one comes to saving knowledge of the truth of the cross and the way of salvation.
Now, if one wants to come to saving knowledge, he must humble himself and approach the alter of Grace. If one wants to come church with a rainbow outfit carrying a banner espousing belief in a lifestyle contrary to the truth, he should escorted out and asked to return without the manifestation of unrepentant sin, that the church my love and bring one and all to become worthy of the promises of Christ.
It’s like a guy hooked porn coming to church with xxxmagazine hanging out his pocket looking for help. Please try to throw off the unclean things and pray for forgiveness and the Church people will surround you with love and encouragement to guide us to salvation. Love the sinner, hate the sin. I can’t accept the way your church banters around the worlds evil instead of confronting the world with a true Christian world view.
There is no evidence that people can change their Sexual Orientation. So therefore, it is pointless and harmful to ask people to repent of such things. Jesus never asked people to repent of who they are anyway.
“It’s like a guy hooked porn coming to church with xxxmagazine hanging out his pocket looking for help.”
No, it’s not.
It’s not even remotely close.
“I can’t accept the way your church banters around the worlds evil instead of confronting the world with a true Christian world view.”
Fred Phelps is excited by your worldview. Perhaps you should reach out to him about his ‘church’.
bleeding-edge
mint green
Unzen Computer
Operations
Flats
Money Market Account
Auto Loan Account
pixel
Trail
lavender
Maine
Solomon Islands Dollar
program
Tennessee
homogeneous
Solutions
Towels
transmitter
Tennessee
protocol
embrace
Valleys
Grass-roots
olive