The Mistaken Identity of Good News...

What would "good news" look like for you? I'm not talking about the obvious kinds of things like, "Hello, this is your doctor--good news, no cancer!" or "Your car passed inspection without needing anything." Everybody facing stuff like this would deem these responses as good news, I'm sure. But we live in a time when harsh polarities have become governing factors, with not too much in "the middle," or at least much we're hearing from or about. In politics, what is good news for a Trump supporter is a bad day at black rock for Nancy Pelosi and company. One person's celebration over a big tax cut is another's denial of services, or worse yet, an amendment to the tax code that makes churches pay tax for parking spaces used by their staff. [Seriously, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in 2017 had a sneaky provision wherein non-profit organizations and churches may have to pay a tax for each parking space used by staff members throughout the work week. Why? Because you know these non-profit organizations and churches are paying such HIGH SALARIES that they have to hit them where they hurt! Seriously?]

The news from the special General Conference of the United Methodist Church was considered quite good for those supporting the Traditional Plan, but quite bad for the ones this plan harms by excluding them. The para-church Good News organization heralded the narrow vote of approval for the restrictive plan, while the Reconciling Ministries Network found it well, not quite reconciling. And I'm sure that this plan and a related "disaffiliation" piece were not good news for the UMC's Judicial Council, as both were adopted with questionable constitutional elements, and now the Judicial Council is on the hot seat to review them and issue a ruling at the end of April. Happy Easter! Such a ruling will again be good news for one group, and bad for the other. Was there no way for the United Methodists to come to some compromise so that both "poles" got something? Surely there could have been a way that those who experience a crisis of conscience over the inclusion of LGBTQIA+ persons in the church and those whose conscience guides them to WANT to include LGBTQIA+ persons to come to a compromise assuaging both consciences? Oh, yeah, there was something called the One Church Plan, wasn't there? Its adoption may not have been good news for either group, but it would have been news, and it may have been a ray of light and hope in an otherwise increasingly polemical world. But now, the denomination stands divided by 54 votes--50 if you throw out the 4 questionable votes from the Central Conference delegation. That's not good news for anybody.

Here's another set of "poles" that is beginning to present itself--the Millennial generation vs. the rest of us. As the Millennials emerge and assert themselves on the cultural and national stage, it is becoming clear that they have quite different views from the Boomers and GenXers, both of which have evolved areas of compromise, including some music, tastes in art, and their approach to transportation (which car to buy vs. taking public transportation). Millennials are moving back to the city, while Boomers and GenXers are ensconced in the suburbs. (I'm not sure if one of these groups is driving the tattoo craze more than the others, because ink can be seen on members of each generation.) Politically, I'm guessing it will be Mayor Pete (Millennials) vs. Beto (GenXers) vs. Bernie or Trump (Boomers). Like tattoos, libertarians can be found among all three.

When it comes to religion and church, the Millennials have pretty much "voted with their feet," as in left the building. Polls show most are decidedly spiritual persons, just not trusting of what the previous generations have done to the "institutions" of religious faith. Millennials tend to be radically inclusive of marginalized groups like the LGBTQIA+ community, interested in interfaith dialogue, and generally believe humanity and its care and feeding is a matter not left up to ancient passages of scripture unless viewed with a level of scholarship allowing for regular reinterpretation. Boomers and GenXers are intrigued with social media and their "smart phones," while for Millennials, these things are as common and necessary as opposable thumbs.

As you can imagine, what is "good news" for Boomers and GenXers isn't even on the radar screen for many Millennial Generation persons. In fact, from observing them, I would guess that Millennials are rather skeptical of anything called "news" at all, with some of their older counterparts touting it as truth, while others branding it "fake." With the brouhaha currently going on among the Boomers and the GenXers (at least politically), I'm guessing that the only true "good news" for Millennials would be if they heard we had all left the planet on a fleet of Elon Musk's Big Falcon rockets. After they had cleaned up the environmental mess we left behind, they would live happily ever after. And who knows, with us and our restrictive rules on another world, they just might build a church.

As a pastor in a struggling denomination that was once great, I can say that I still dream of preaching a Gospel that is good news. I still have fantasies that the teachings of Jesus, if left to stand for themselves without much "nuancing" by Yours Truly, might still be transformative, even for Millennials. And I also believe that the genuine and "organic" faith of the Millennials might just be transformative for us Boomers and GenXers, too! Essentially, what I think I'm trying to say here is that "good news" is only good news if it is good news for everybody, not just one interest group, political party, ethnicity, religion, or generation. If we ever stop striving for this good news, no rocket ship will ever rescue us.

Oh, and one final thought: when Jesus began his ministry, he was a Millennial of his day....