A Case for Separate Paths

By Kent Millard and David F. Watson

The Revs. David F. Watson and Kent Millard work side by side at United Theological Seminary in Dayton,Ohio. Photo courtesy of United Theological Seminary.

As the 2019 General Conference limped toward its conclusion, those in attendance were reminded that we could not stay beyond our allotted time in the convention center. The next major event would be a monster truck rally. The monster truck rally prep crew needed time to spread dirt on the floor, set up the ramps, and roll out the old junkers that would meet their doom beneath the massive tires of trucks with names like Grave Digger and Maximum Destruction.

Given what we were sitting through, however, the prospect of a monster truck rally seemed relatively peaceful. As far as we were concerned, Maximum Destruction had already smashed its way through the room and left a pile of rubble in its wake.

The two of us write this article in a spirit both of lament and hope. Neither of us were “early adopters” of separation proposals. We are both ordained elders. We have both served on boards and agencies, in local churches, and in a United Methodist seminary. In fact, we have worked together at United Theological Seminary for over three years. One of us, Kent, is a Centrist. The other, David, has aligned with the Wesleyan Covenant Association. There is much upon which we agree. There are a few things upon which we disagree. Yet we do so respectfully and without rancor. We are friends and colleagues. The debates within The United Methodist Church will not change that. We have worked hard together to foster an ethos at United that honors the Triune God through the historic Christian faith, while also accommodating the diversity of thought that facilitates intellectual growth.

Both of us have The United Methodist Church in our bones. Nevertheless, we recognize the political realities of the denomination we serve have become unsustainable. The 2019 General Conference was supposed to bring closure to our denominational dispute over human sexuality. It did not. In fact it made things much worse. The atmosphere was toxic, the rhetoric vitriolic. Each of us has friends and respected colleagues on all sides of our denominational dispute. We hurt with our friends who were hurt by those four days in St. Louis.

We cannot change what happened in the past, but the future is another matter. The path before us is not yet determined. It is entirely possible that the 2020 General Conference will be a repeat of 2019. This will only bring more acrimony and heartbreak, and will ultimately drive more people away from the church. While one “side” will prevail in the 2020 voting, there will be no true winners. Everyone will lose. It has become abundantly clear that more or better legislation cannot solve our denominational problems. Continued fighting will only further compromise our witness to the gospel.

We have both come to believe, then, that the best course of action would be for The United Methodist Church to enter a formal process of separation. It is time for the different factions in the UM Church to say to one another, like Abraham and Lot, “Let there be no strife between you and me … for we are kindred” (Genesis 13:8). Our desire for separation comes not from a place of contempt for those with whom we disagree, but from a desire to have peace and focus on bringing redemption to a broken world. The conflict within the UM Church only draws our attention away from the church’s evangelistic mission. While our denomination is focused on internal disagreements, we cannot focus on those outside the church who so desperately need to hear the redemptive message of the gospel.

We believe that this may be a time to divide and multiply. If we divide from each other and stop fighting we will be free to multiply our ministries among our particular constituencies. We might even be able to offer each other a blessing as we go our separate ways in sharing God’s Good News as we understand it. God brings resurrection and new life out of crucifying experiences, and this may be a way God can bring new life to the Methodist Movement out of the crucifying experience we all had in St. Louis in February 2019.

To be clear, neither of us is suggesting exactly what the division of the UM Church should look like or how it should happen. There are myriad possibilities for how division might take place. We are simply saying that we must get enough space between the warring factions in the church to stop the endless cycle of fighting.

If you go to the visitor’s center at the top of Mount Denali in Alaska you will see the skeletons of two bull elk with their horns interlocked. They crashed into each other so forcefully that they could not disengage from each other. Both died and were later found by hunters, their horns still interlocked. Our concern is that if we do not disengage from the fighting within our denomination, our unending conflict itself will bring us all down.

It doesn’t have to end this way. The 2019 General Conference in St. Louis demonstrated that we cannot live peaceably together in the same house. Perhaps the 2020 General Conference in Minneapolis could demonstrate how we could live in different houses and learn how to be good neighbors to each other. Before the 2020 General Conference traditionalists, centrists, and progressives of good will could come together to present a process to General Conference for amicable separation with a fair distribution of denominational assets. It could ultimately be a win for both sides. Yes, it will be a challenge, but it will be a better way forward than simply continuing the decades long conflict.
—-

Kent Millard is President of United Theological Seminary. He served 47 years in the UM Church as a pastor, most recently at St. Luke’s UM Church in Indianapolis. He is the author of The Passion Driven Congregation (with Dr. Carver McGriff), Lead Like Butler (with Brad Stevens and Judith Cebula), and The Gratitude Path.

David F. Watson is Academic Dean of United Theological Seminary. His most recent book is Scripture and the Life of God: Why the Bible Matters Today More Than Ever. He is one of the hosts of Plain Truth: A Holy-Spirited Podcast and blogs at www.davidwatson.me.

Q. A rather consistent strategy you use in the Exodus/ Conquest chapter and elsewhere is to argue that there is a historical kernel to this or that story which then has gone through a process of elaboration, sometimes involving hyperbole, like various of the ANE conquest narratives which involve lots of bragging and hyperbole (.e.g. ‘we wiped them utterly out of the land’ etc). How is the average lay person supposed to figure out what is the kernel and what the embellishment? I do not ask whether there is elaboration, because I think that is really beyond dispute, but the problem is it offends our modern notions of the need for historical precision. How would you help lay people better understand the literary character of such materials in the OT?

A. Good question. I think that we have to carefully and pastorally educate lay people of the nature of biblical narrative and history-writing. I don’t think it is possible or necessary to always distinguish kernel from embellishment, but one way to demonstrate it is by pointing out what are otherwise contradictions say between Joshua 1-12 and Judges 1. I think we also tell laypeople that Bible reading may not be as easy as picking it up and reading it as if it was written last week. We can only get the big message of the Bible that way.

In the race to get those super hero movie bucks, D.C. lags far behind the huge Marvel comic franchise. But lately they’ve been doing better (see the Wonder Woman movie) and now we have Shazam, a very different sort of origins story about a 14 year old boy named Billy Batson who lost his Mom at the Fair, wanders around, meets a Wizard who is concerned about the unleashing of the seven deadly sins in the world, and adopts the Wizard’s name and powers. But….. it takes a while to figure out what one’s super powers are…. and how to use them. And you know the old adage— ‘all power corrupts’ and when given to an already narcissistic teenager, then look out!

While there are some recognizable movie veterans in the film (e.g. Mark Strong as the bad guy, but Djimon Hounsou is unrecognizable as the Wizard) mostly this is a film with younger actors who are not well known, and the whole feel of the movie is that is aimed at and about teenagers, particularly teenage boys wishing they had super powers.

I went into this movie expecting it to have as its theme ‘may the farce be with you’, in other words, expecting a spoof. The trailers gave that impression. But this is not entirely the nature of the film. It has a serious moral theme—- love and family are good, the seven deadly sins and rampant narcissism are bad. This film is 130 minutes long, and will look like a short subject compared to the 3 hour plus long next Avengers film coming out at the end of this month. This is the current top rated film on Rotten Tomatoes (92%), and it is not bad, especially as a film for families. Yes the seven deadly sin demons are gross, sort of a cross between the Ghostbusters badies and Harry Potters demon vapors, but we wouldn’t want them to be appealing— now would we? This is far from a classic film, and it doesn’t have the zing of other super hero quirky films like Guardians of the Galaxy One. But it has some good and funny moments, and is not bad as a diversion on a rainy day.

Q. One of the most poignant and telling sections of your study is your reflections on the widow who gave two lepta into the temple treasury. Jesus offers her as an example of whole-hearted giving of self to God (‘she gave her whole life’). I liked the way you saw this as foreshadowing what Jesus was about to do. Somehow in Christian tradition, stories like this have been used to romanticize poverty, as if it was a means of becoming more spiritual or closer to God (a sort of health and wealth Gospel in reverse!). Do you think in our culture that what people do with their resources best reveals their values, what they think is most important? Do you think Jesus thought this about his own day and time as well?

A. Our values are demonstrated in what we do more than how we pray or what we think. We live our values. Jesus is clear on this assessment: “You will know them by their fruits.” That’s a Jewish way of thinking. It can, to continue the monetary metaphor, “cash out” today. After one asks, “Where do you go to church?” the next question might be, “What are the fruits your church is producing?”

Q. WHAT FROM ALL THIS STUDY OF THE ARCHAEOLOGY CAN WE LEARN ABOUT MARY FROM MAGDALA? IF WE TAKE LUKE 8.3 AT FACE VALUE, SINCE SHE IS MENTIONED FIRST THERE, COULD SHE HAVE BEEN REASONABLY WELL OFF FROM THE FISHING INDUSTRY IN MAGDALA WHICH ALLOWED HER TO HELP PROVISION THE DISCIPLES WHEN ON THE ROAD? IS THERE EVIDENCE OF NON-ELITE BUSINESS WOMEN IN GALILEE (AND BY NON-ELITE I MEAN SOMEONE NOT CONNECTED TO HEROD ANTIPAS, AS JOANNA THE WIFE OF CHUZA WAS).

A. I have to say we don’t know. To have money she could use in that way, it wouldn’t have been sufficient to belong to a wealthy family. She would need to have money at her own disposal.

I don’t think we have evidence of women running businesses in Galilee – which does not of course mean that they didn’t. But what makes it more puzzling is Mary’s condition before Jesus exorcised her demons. To be possessed by seven demons must have meant she was in a pretty wild and uncontrollable condition (cf. Legion), not capable of running a business. Yet she had resources to support Jesus and his traveling disciples (Lk. 8.1-3).

The solution may be that she was divorced. Her husband could have divorced her because of her deranged condition. When she was divorced, her ketubah (the money her father set aside for her on her marriage) would legally come into her own independent possession. If she came of a wealthy family, this could be a considerable sum. This would explain why she is, unusually for a woman, known by her place of origin, rather than as “wife of …” or “daughter of …”

Q. RICHARD WHAT GOT YOU INTERESTED IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK AT MAGDALA? YOUR PREVIOUS SCHOLARLY WORK HASN’T REALLY FOCUSED ON ARCHAEOLOGY PER SE.

A. I was doing some work on James and John the sons of Zebedee (for a biography that I hope I’ll be able to get back to, now that this diversion to Magdala is complete). I wanted to know what it was like to be a Capernaum fisherman. I began to realize that Magdala dominated the fishing on the lake and learned that it had a fish processing industry. So I started off being much more excited about the fish processing workshops (at least, that’s what I think they are) that they excavated near the synagogue in Magdala than about the synagogue, unlike most other people who got interested in Magdala because of the synagogue.

Q. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT FASCINATED ME ABOUT THIS BOOK IS THAT IT DEMONSTRATES SO CLEARLY BOTH THE RELEVANCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK TO UNDERSTANDING THE NT, IN THIS CASE THE GOSPELS, AND ALSO THE FRUSTRATING NATURE OF DISCOVERING AT MOST PARTIAL EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING IMPORTANT. IT’S RATHER LIKE A JIGSAW PUZZLE WITH VARIOUS PIECES MISSING AND YET YOU STILL MUST TRY AND DRAW SOME TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS. HOW DOES ONE CRITICALLY DISCERN WHEN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY “WE CAN PROBABLY CONCLUDE…” AND WHEN, AS HAPPENS IN SEVERAL PLACES IN THIS BOOK, YOU HAVE TO SAY “WE MUST WAIT FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTS’?

A. It is like bits of a jigsaw puzzle, but then, of course, literary evidence is also like that. We only have fragments of the past and have to fill in the gaps by argument. In the last five years I have certainly got to understand better the grounds on which archaeologists make judgments (about dates, e.g.), as well as the fact that archaeological evidence, like texts, needs interpretation, which can be debatable. There is a further problem about the publication of excavations. It is very frustrating that, in the case of the synagogue at Magdala, the two archaeologists who excavated it have still published only a preliminary report that was notably sparse even for a preliminary report. For such an important find this is hard to excuse. Meantime, because of the “rules” to which archaeologists adhere tenaciously, no one else can publish anything more. Anyone could go to the site and measure the dimensions of the synagogue, but they should not publish them.

As we are approaching the special called Conference in Feb 2019, I here reprint from the December issue of Catalyst a helpful analysis of the big problems the One Church Plan presents us with. I agree with David’s analysis. What the One Church Plan will do is just further divide our church and turn it into a church whose polity is congregational on human sexuality issues, not in any way Methodist. Why exactly the Judicial Council did not already make clear that this plan violates our church character, nature, and praxis of having the General Conference make such decisions about what counts as marriage, proper sexual conduct, and proper ordination is unfathomable. And at the root of all this a fundamentally flawed theology that suggests that the Holy Spirit today could contradict what the Holy Spirit clearly said through Holy Scripture long ago, not to mention placing us at odds with the majority of Christians world wide Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox on this very issue. When our modern assumptions that human experience can trump what most Christians believe reason, tradition, and Scripture tell us, we are already far down the road to ethical and theological heresy—- sadly.

BW3

The One Church Plan: Problems of Governance and Theology
David F. Watson
Wesley and the Methodists
DAVID F. WATSON

The United Methodist Church (UMC) stands on the brink of formal division. Different groups within the church are at loggerheads over how we can best live together – if indeed we can live together – in light of our disagreements over what the Discipline calls “homosexual practice.” Over the last several years, there has been no shortage of proposals regarding how we should respond to our ongoing conflict. One of these proposals, the One Church Plan (OCP), has won the approval of a majority of our bishops, as well as the Uniting Methodists caucus group and others who understand themselves to be moderates or centrists. This plan purports to create a commodious, generous orthodoxy under which the people of the UMC may at last live together in peace. While I believe the intention of this plan is noble, I have serious reservations about the measures it proposes.

First, however, a word about my intentions in this article: Our internecine debates about how best to move forward through the morass of disagreement over “homosexual practice” have become ever more venomous. It is hard at times to speak truth to one another without rancor. From the outset, then, I want to be clear: What I will offer here is a critique of ideas, not people. I am working from the assumption that those who wrote the OCP did so in good faith out of a genuine desire to preserve what they understand to be the unity of the church. I attribute no ill intentions to them. Many of my friends affirm the OCP. They know I do not. We have had clarifying and respectful conversations about these matters. Respect, however, also involves honesty, and so in this article I will also be both honest and forthright about what I see as the problems with the OCP. I appreciate the desire for unity, as well as the desire to protect our mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. The OCP, however, will bring both division and diminishment to our denomination and churches. In what follows I will explain why. I will do so by addressing two problematic areas with the OCP: problems of governance and problems of theology. The version of the OCP from which I am working in this article can be found here.

The Problem of Governance
The OCP proposes to amend ¶105 of the Discipline to begin, “We agree that we are not of one mind regarding human sexuality.” It is hard to dispute this point, but it misdiagnoses our problem. United Methodists disagree about many things. There will be disagreement within any denomination. That United Methodists in particular would disagree about rather important issues of doctrine and ethics was guaranteed by the ecumenical spirit in which our denomination was formed. We were meant to be a “big tent,” and within the big tent, everyone would have to live with things with which he or she disagreed.

What was imperative, then, was that we established processes for dealing with disagreement, especially about big issues that would affect our denominational identity. These processes would serve as the instruments of unity that would allow us to remain a single church even in the midst of our disagreement. The primary instrument of unity for our denomination is and always has been the General Conference.

Yes, United Methodists disagree about homosexuality, but we have ways of dealing with disagreement. The threat of division is not the result of disagreement. Rather, the threat of division comes from the rejection of our processes for resolving disagreement by some segments of the church, including some of our bishops. I understand that those who have rejected our processes for the resolution of disagreement have done so out of a deep sense of moral obligation. We should be clear, however, that what we are facing is not simply a clash of ideologies, but a crisis of governance.

Changes of Governance in the OCP
In one sense, it seems that the writers of the OCP have perceived this. The solution they offer changes our governance, moving some decision-making authority to local churches, individuals, and annual conferences. Local churches may decide on their own wedding policies, i.e., whether they will allow same-sex weddings on church property. Clergy, we read, “would have the freedom to exercise individual conscience” regarding same-sex marriage. They will not be required by the denomination to perform same-sex weddings, but they may do so if they wish (16). The prerogatives of annual conferences are a bit foggy; apparently, they would decide whether to ordain self-avowed, practicing homosexaul clergy or “add language to their Standing Rules to restrict ordination” (16). A proposed change to ¶605 reads, “At any clergy session of an annual conference, the chairperson of the Board of Ordained Ministry shall, if directed by a vote of the Board of Ordained Ministry, present a motion regarding certification, ordination, and appointment of self-avowed practicing homosexuals” (24). Annual conference lay delegates, then, have no say in this matter. As for bishops, if they are in an annual conference that affirms the ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexual people, they may abstain from performing the ordination of such candidates if they wish. Another bishop will fill in for them. Once any candidate is ordained, however, the bishop is responsible to provide him or her with an appointment.

The OCP states that it leaves our leadership structure in place (11), but this is only partly true. Yes, the structures themselves remain the same, but their powers and responsibilities in some cases change markedly. Moving decisions about homosexuality to annual conferences, churches, and individuals signals a broad shift in the way we make decisions about controversial matters. Noteworthy is the move toward a polity based on individual conscience, rather than on the collective decisions of the church. One might object that the OCP shifts decision-making power only with regard to matters related to homosexuality, but its basic principle, clearly spelled out in its “Theological and Biblical Foundations,” is that our deep disagreement necessitates this shift. Were we to follow this same principle moving forward, whenever there is deep disagreement at the level of the General Conference, we should simply move decision-making power to local levels.

Endangering the Local Church
I have particular concerns about the OCP at the local church level. It specifically states, “Local churches are not required to vote. Most would likely make no changes in practice at the local level” (15). It also affirms: “This plan minimizes disruption in the local church (in most cases) and gives freedom to churches to adapt in order to minister to the LGBTQ community in context” (15). This picture of the effects of the OCP on local churches is optimistic, to put it kindly. It would only take a very small vocal minority to push for a vote in any church. Most United Methodist churches represent a diverse array of opinions about matters related to LGBTQ persons. In time, most will likely vote if the OCP passes. This plan avers that it is merciful to allow churches to debate and decide issues related to LGBTQ people internally, rather than relying on the duly elected representatives to the General Conference. I would argue that this is not mercy, but cruelty. The church I attend, like so many others in United Methodism, would be torn apart were it forced into such a decision. Shifting the locus of authority from the General Conference to the Annual Conference, local church, and individual would not resolve our disagreements or bring peace, but rather metastasize the rancor and division that so characterizes our quadrennial gatherings.

The Problem of Theology
The problems with the OCP are not simply practical matters of governance. There are also numerous theological problems. For example, a proposed amendment to ¶105 reads, “As we continue to faithfully explore issues of sexuality, we will honor the theological guidelines of Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience, acknowledging that God’s revelation of truth and God’s extension of grace as expressed in Jesus Christ (John 1:14) may cause person of good conscience to interpret and decide issues of sexuality differently” (20, italics mine). By this rationale, our disagreement results from God’s revelation of truth and grace. How God’s revelation and grace have led us into this confusion is unclear, as is God’s rationale for doing so. Apparently, God is in fact the author of confusion (contra 1 Cor 14:33). Perhaps a better rationale would be, “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known” (1 Cor 13:12, NRSV). In other words, in our human brokenness and finitude, we may not be able always to perceive God’s truth with clarity. This would mean, however, that some people in our denominational debate have perceived God’s will more clearly than others, which the OCP is loathe to concede.

An Unstable Definition of Marriage
Another theological liability of the OCP is that it changes the definition of marriage for the entire church, but provides no theological rationale for the definition it proposes. The proposed amendment to the Social Principles in ¶161.C states, “We affirm the sanctity of the monogamous marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity, traditionally understood as a union of one man and one woman.” This is no small change, as the intensity of debate demonstrates. Nevertheless, the OCP never makes the case for this particular definition of marriage. Instead, the section entitled “Theological and Biblical Foundations” focuses on a vision of the church rooted in theological diversity. What happens, then, if groups within the church begin to reject the principles of monogamy and covenant on which the revised definition is based? There is no strong case in the OCP that these values are essential to Christian marriage. Must we then allow for even more breadth in our understanding of marriage? Without making a strong case for the notion of marriage that it proposes, the OCP opens the door to further revision based on the principles of diversity and inclusivity.

Is the OCP Neutral Ground?
It may be that the OCP focuses on theological diversity, rather than a revised definition of marriage, because the architects of this plan see it as a compromise position that creates “space for all United Methodists to continue to coexist without disrupting their ministries” (11). In other words, they see the OCP as neutral ground in which progressives, centrists, and conservatives can all stand together. This understanding of the OCP is accurate – as long as you are willing to dispense with the connection between the holiness of the church and its teachings and practices around marriage. If you do believe this, whether you are a progressive or traditionalist on this matter, the OCP will not work for you.

It is important to note that the OCP implicitly affirms same-sex marriage. By eliminating the stipulation that marriage is between one man and one woman, we are not simply creating space for a broad range of positions. We are implicitly stating that we recognize the validity of gay marriage as a denomination, even if some members of our denomination do not agree with our doing so. In other words, we have a case of addition by subtraction. Crucial to this point is that there is no local option attending the redefinition of marriage. It is a redefinition for the entire denomination. Committed traditionalists should not be happy with this.

Yet the OCP also allows clergy, local churches, and Annual Conferences to reject and even prohibit same-sex marriage and the ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexual people. Following the line of argument that progressives have made since the earliest days of our denomination, this is simply the continuation of a longstanding pattern of discrimination. It will allow United Methodists in some areas to act in ways that progressives have long claimed to be unjust, bigoted, hateful, and harmful.

All this is to say, the OCP does not create a neutral ground where all can stand in unity. Rather, it offers us a picture of the church in which the way we understand and practice marriage just is not all that important. Those who do think our understanding of marriage is a crucial part of our life together – those who hold deep theological and ethical convictions about marriage – will never be satisfied with this proposal.

Religious Liberty?
The final theological problem with the OCP I wish to address has to do with its bewildering yet all-too-frequent use of the term “religious liberty” for churches and clergy. Religious liberty is a notion at home in the sphere of civil government. It protects religious groups and individuals from restrictions and interference by the government in the expression of their beliefs and practices. As an ecclesiological concept, religious liberty is as out of place as a pig in a rose garden. Churches are communities of faith and practice. In the United States, joining a church is, in and of itself, an expression of religious liberty. The decision to order one’s life in keeping with the teachings of the church is also an expression of religious liberty. Such liberty is necessary so that people of faith can live out their convictions in a society that does not always share those convictions. But should people of faith be protected from the convictions of the communities of faith they have freely chosen? The use of “religious liberty” in the OCP betrays a deep confusion about the difference between a church and a civil society. This confusion, moreover, runs through the entire plan like a foundational crack that will eventually result in the collapse of the entire structure.

The Denver Art Museum.

The Rembrandt special exhibit at the Denver Art Museum featured Rembrandt as a sketcher and etcher, with only a few of his paintings thrown in for good measure. This however was very interesting because it demonstrates how good he was in various mediums, like Da Vinci.

Apart from the usual self-portraits, the exhibit was dominated by Rembrandt’s sketches of Biblical scenes and persons, but it also included an oddity— Rembrandt’s only still life of an object, in this case a shell….

One of the more interesting series in the exhibit was both a painting and a sketch of Christ before Pilate, the famous Ecco Homo painting, with the Jewish authorities pleading with an ambivalent Pilate to do away with Christ while the crowds watch the drama.

Rembrandt was a master of light, and of the contrast between darkness and light. One of the questions our guide kept rightly asking was— where is the light coming from in the painting or drawing? Sometimes it would be crepuscular light, which is to say light from above from God, as in the crucifixion paintings, in our next post.

I’ve been a big fan of Ian Rankin for a long time. When I was in England on sabbatical five years ago, I binge read all the volumes in the John Rebus series I had missed before. Here’s the pre-pub summary from Amazon on this latest 384 page crime thriller….

“Rebus’ retirement is disrupted once again when skeletal remains are identified as a private investigator who went missing over a decade earlier. The remains, found in a rusted car in the East Lothian woods, not far from Edinburgh, quickly turn into a cold case murder investigation. Rebus’ old friend, Siobhan Clarke is assigned to the case, but neither of them could have predicted what buried secrets the investigation will uncover.

Rebus remembers the original case–a shady land deal–all too well. After the investigation stalled, the family of the missing man complained that there was a police cover-up. As Clarke and her team investigate the cold case murder, she soon learns a different side of her mentor, a side he would prefer to keep in the past.

A gripping story of corruption and consequences, this new novel demonstrates that Rankin and Rebus are still at the top of their game.”

But what this novel has a subtext is as important as the story line itself— namely the lies that families tell each other in order to keep order, or the status quo, or prevent having to confess to stupidity, or mayhem, or some other lie. In this particular novel by family Rankins means not just the nuclear family, but in fact the police force, or subdivisions thereof that work together all the time, and spend more time with each other than with their actual families, if they still have any. But John Rebus is a solitary man, living alone, though not without a girlfriend who is a clinician who does autopsies for the city and the police. Lovely. Here’s a little sample from p. 293, to show you what I mean by subtext—- These are John Rebus’s reflections, the greatest of detectives.

“He had lied about not passing information to Alex Shankley. He’d lied too to cover Skelton and Rawlston’s asses. He’d turned a blind eye to the manifest shortcomings of Newsome and the likes of Steele and Edwards. Instead, he’d made more frequent visits to various pubs, using alcohol to blur everything and make it all right. Less than a year from his retirement, he begun to fear that the job was just that— a job rather than a vocation. He couldn’t solve every crime, and even if he did, crime would keep happening so what was the point?…People would always be rapacious and lustful and envious and angry.” And then Rebus turns and watches some school children apparently happy just leaving school for the day…. “He knew he was looking at the future, but also that the futures these various young people imagined for themselves might not work out the way they had hoped. There’d be tears and traumas along the way, mistakes made, promises broken. Some would marry their sweethearts and live to regret it. Others would break apart. A few would trouble the police in later years. There’d be early deaths from disease and maybe even a suicide or two. Right now none of that would seem feasible to them. They were alive in and of the moment— and that was all that mattered.”

Yet Rebus knew there was more to life than just broken promises and failure and lies. He knew that good could still come out of difficult and dicey situations, and he was always working toward that end— even when it had to involve settling for an approximation of the good— the best that could be done in the fallen situation. These novels are full of flawed characters and situation. They seem quite grey, like the skies most days in Edinburgh, both the setting of the novels and the home of Rankin himself. Surprisingly enough, these novels are also full of excitement and even hope glimmering on the horizon now and again. Clearly, John Rebus needs to be back on the force or to get a better hobby than walking his dog and dating a woman who spends every day with corpses.

I highly recommend this novel, but not as your first Rebus novel. See my previous posts on Rankin’s thrillers for a guide.