The Case Against Discernment.

Discernment and discern are words that have been thrown around a lot in United Methodist Churches for the past few years. I keep hearing it and each time I want to quote  Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride- “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Years ago we used it to talk about understanding or figuring out something we were supposed to do. Maybe a vocation, a move, a new direction in life for individuals. Or for a church, it was for a new ministry, or a change in staff, or a change in worship times and styles. Either way, it was done with lots of prayer, study, thought, and commitment. It was never to be hurried.

Our friends in the Quaker Church (Society of Friends) have been doing this for years. They describe the process this way:

Quaker decision-making is grounded in the belief that when several people come together to labor in the Spirit they can discern a truth that exceeds the reach of any one individual. In making decisions Friends do not simply vote to determine the majority view, but rather they seek unity about the wisest course of action. Over time Friends have developed ways to conduct meetings that nurture and support this corporate discernment process.

To be effective, Quaker process requires that everyone come ready to participate fully by sharing their experiences and knowledge, by listening respectfully to the experiences and knowledge brought by others, and by remaining open to new insights and ideas. This powerful combination of grounded experience and spiritual openness, rationality and faith, allows a deeper truth to emerge. When everyone present is able to recognize the same truth, the meeting has reached unity. The clerk’s job is to sense emerging truth and labor with those present to put that truth into words.

(from the American Friends Service Committee)

The United Methodist discernment process at the moment is more akin to the workings (or lack thereof) of the US House of Representatives. Rather than seeking unity, we seek victory. Which means there is always a winner and a loser.

In this form, ultimately everybody loses.

Many of our churches have gone through a “discernment process” about staying in the UMC or leaving the denomination. It centers around the ordination and marriage of LGBTQ individuals. (Currently, the UMC Discipline prohibits both, but some Conferences enforce this rule and others do not. South Carolina does.) Pastors who have already left the denomination with their churches have been calling former parishioners and friends in their former churches, telling them the things they need to do to get their church to disaffiliate. Meetings are held to discuss plans on how to get one side to win. And when one does, and the other has lost, the losers are often invited to join a different church, one that is aligned with their vote.

We often use the word discern with the term “will of God.” Which is odd for a few reasons. Often the will of God is not something that is figured out but revealed. It often goes against popular belief and understanding. And it was never something to be voted on. That term most often ends up being used to justify the status quo and our own prejudices. It seems to be the way of the church most times.

And we use it to try to understand the will of the Church. Which is what the Quakers do. But they place unity over victory. Even if it means a loss for them. To borrow a term from another book, the choice was between the way of the Dragon and the way of the Lamb.

This really isn’t a screed against discernment. It’s just asking us to choose the way of the Lamb.