Radiant Scars

Radiant Scars

Radiant Scars

By Stephen Seamands

The marks of death that God chose never to erase,
The wounds of love’s eternal mark,
When the kingdom comes, with its perfect sons,
He will be known by the scars.
–Michael Card

As its cover story, the March 27, 2000, issue of Newsweek featured “Visions of Jesus: How Jews, Muslims and Buddhists View Him.” Though he is not considered as in Christianity the utterly unique Son of God, the article showed how Jesus is still greatly revered and admired in all the world’s major religions.

Muslims, for example, recognize Jesus as a great prophet. They even believe he was born of a virgin and ascended into heaven – spiritual prerogatives lacking in Mohammed himself, the greatest of all the prophets. In recent centuries, Jews have gained greater admiration for Jesus, viewing him as a reformer within Judaism who sought to liberalize his own religious tradition. His followers mistakenly went on to worship Jesus and establish a new religion, they say – something Jesus himself never intended. At some Jewish seminaries, a course in the New Testament is even required of rabbinical candidates.

Although they find his notion of a single god unnecessarily restrictive, Hindus also view Jesus as a virtuous man. Like Mahatma Ghandi, many are drawn to Jesus because of his compassion for others and his commitment to nonviolence. Some even maintain that when Jesus was a teenager he journeyed to India where he learned Hindu meditation. Later he returned to Palestine and became a Jewish guru.

Buddhists are quick to point out the striking similarities between the stories of Jesus and Buddha. One Zen Buddhist monk maintains Jesus and Buddha are “brothers” who both taught that the highest form of human understanding is universal love. Like Buddha, many regard Jesus as a perfectly enlightened being who sought to help others find enlightenment.

Yet having clearly shown the universal appeal of Jesus by observing him in the mirrors of Jews and Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, the article had an unexpected conclusion. Instead of suggesting that the universal admiration of Jesus may serve as a bridge in uniting Christianity with the other major world religions, it focused upon the central element in the Christian view of Jesus which creates a stumbling block for them all: his violent death on the cross. As the article put it,

“Clearly, the cross is what separates the Christ of Christianity from every other Jesus. In Judaism there is no precedent for a Messiah who dies, much less as a criminal as Jesus did. ln Islam, the story of Jesus’ death is rejected as an affront to Allah himself. Hindus can accept only a Jesus who passes into peaceful samadhi, a yogi who escapes the degradation of death. The figure of the crucified Christ, says Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh, ‘is a very painful image to me. It does not contain joy or peace, and this does not do justice to Jesus.’ There is, in short, no room in other religions for a Christ who experiences the full burden of mortal existence – and hence there is no reason to believe in him as the divine Son whom the Father resurrects from the dead.”

Attributing crucial significance to Christ’s agonizing, shameful death is thus utterly unique to Christianity. Unlike the other world religions who reject or downplay it, Christians do the very opposite. In their theology, worship, preaching, art, hymnody, and architecture, they celebrate, lift high, even glory in the cross.

From the second century onwards, not only have Christians drawn, painted, and engraved the cross as the central pictorial symbol of their faith, they have also made the sign of the cross on themselves and others. Around 200 AD, Tertullian, the North African theologian, described Christian practice like this: “At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at [the] table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign [the cross].”

What the irreligious and those of other religions find contradictory, bewildering, and offensive, Christians, in stark contrast, consider essential, indispensable, and precious.

In the Christian scheme of things, even after Christ had been raised from the dead and given a glorious new resurrection body, the scars in his hands and feet and side, emblems of his gruesome death, are still there. God’s power had overcome all other evidence of violence done to him. Suffering and death had been left behind. He was alive as never before. Yet these marks of humiliation were not erased. In fact, his scars became his identifying marks. On that first Easter when his disciples were hiding behind closed doors, he appeared in their midst and “showed them his hands and his side.” Then they were absolutely sure it was Jesus and “rejoiced when they saw the Lord” (John 20:20).

Tragedy into triumph

Why is it that Christians glory in the cross? While every other religion is repulsed by Christ’s suffering and death, why do Christians rejoice over it? Because they believe the cross is God’s supreme instrument in redeeming fallen creation.

In the Christian scheme, God’s solution to the problem of suffering and evil is not to eliminate it, nor to be insulated from it, but to participate in it; and then having participated in it, to transform it into his instrument for redeeming the world.

Christians believe that God uses the suffering and evil of the cross. Rather than hindering, they are actually weaved into God’s redemptive plan and pattern for the salvation of the world. So God takes the terrible tragedy and turns it into a triumph.

God took the awfulness of that event – the diabolical evil, the flagrant injustice, the excruciating pain – mixed them all together, and through a marvelous divine alchemy transformed them into medicine for the healing of the nations.

Through the suffering of Christ on the cross, God, once and for all, took onto himself the very pain and curse of humanity, declaring his love for all persons in humble sacrifice. Through that blood, because of the “evil of the cross,” the festering wounds of alienation between God and humanity, one person to another, and between humanity and creation are healed. A new order of grace and transformation, by the power of the Holy Spirit, is initiated and the world – through the people of God – begins to taste the glory of the heavens.

God overcomes evil not through passive resignation or brute strength, not through coercion or a dazzling display of force, but through the power of suffering love. God uses suffering redemptively to accomplish God’s will and purpose in the world.

That’s why Christ’s scars are still there even when he returns with a glorified body after his triumphant resurrection. And they will always be there. But with one crucial difference: now they are radiant scars. A verse in the hymn, “Crown Him with Many Crowns,” conveys this so beautifully: “Crown him the Lord of love; behold his hands and side, those wounds, yet visible above, in beauty glorified.” The scars now have become bearers of divine glory! The light of God’s presence radiates from them, transforming everything it encounters. His scars now have become instruments of healing. By his wounds we are healed!

Garbage into gold

Not only have his scars become radiant through the healing power which they can impart to us, our scars, especially those resulting from our emotional wounds, can also become radiant! They too can become instruments in God’s service for the redeeming of ourselves and others.

At a summer camp in Canada where I was speaking, a woman explained during a time of public sharing how God was teaching her this. “Just a few weeks ago,” she began, “My husband and I made a compost pile. We put all sorts of garbage in it – cracked egg shells, darkened banana peels, piles of rotten leaves and grass – you name it. We mixed it all together and then covered it up. And when you go near it now, believe me, your nose knows it’s there! But next spring when we use it in our garden, what’s decaying garbage now will be pure gold. That compost will be so much better than any fertilizer we could buy at the store.”

As she made the application to her own life, I thought of the scores of people I have worked with who could say the same thing: “There has been lots of garbage in my life – rotten things done to me and rotten things I’ve done in response. For years I refused to deal with the garbage, but several years ago when my life began to unravel I was forced to. Thank God for that. As a result, he has worked to bring so much healing and restoration in my life.

“But while all this has been going on, I have often found myself thinking, ‘I can’t wait until this is finally over. I’ll be so glad when I can put all the garbage behind me and never have to think about it again. Maybe I’ll even be able to pretend it never happened.’

“Then as we were making the compost pile the Lord spoke to me: ‘All your life you’ve run from your garbage. Now even though you’re finally dealing with it and receiving healing, you’re still wanting to run from it. But don’t you see? I not only want to heal and free you from the effects of the garbage in your life; I want to use your garbage. Like the garbage in your compost pile, if you’ll let me, I’ll turn it into pure gold. I’ll use it to build character in you and bring healing and freedom to others.’

“So instead of being ashamed of the garbage, I’m learning to give it to him. And I’m discovering the Lord is the great Recycler! He doesn’t waste anything. He can turn our garbage into gold – pure gold, if we’ll just offer it to him.”

What she had discovered is the message of the cross and the entire New Testament. For example, in his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul shares candidly about a “thorn in the flesh”(12:7) he had to constantly contend with. Skolops, the Greek word for “thorn,” can mean either a stake which actually pegged a person to the ground or a splinter which was constantly irritating.  According to H. Minn, it conveyed “the notion of something sharp and painful which sticks deep in the flesh and, in the will of God, defies extraction. The effect of its presence was to cripple Paul’s enjoyment of life, and to frustrate his full efficiency by draining his energies.’’

Scholars have conjectured about the exact nature of Paul’s “thorn.’’ Was it a particular person who relentlessly opposed Paul, persecution in general, a besetting sin or temptation, a speech impediment, a physical infirmity such as epilepsy, or an eye disorder? All have been suggested. The fact that Paul doesn’t specify, however, has made this passage an even greater blessing to Christians. They have been able to apply what he says to various kinds of “thorns” in their lives, including those resulting from emotional wounds.

It is significant that Paul refers to his thorn as “a messenger of Satan to torment me” (12:8). He recognized it was evil in nature, something which was intended to thwart God’s purposes for him. So at first, he vigorously and persistently prayed for its removal: “Three times I appealed to the Lord about this, that it would leave me”(12:8). His specific mention of praying three times reminds us of how Christ himself prayed three times in Gethsemane, “If it is possible, let this cup pass from me” (Mt. 26:39).

In relation to thorns caused by emotional hurts, it would therefore seem right for us, like Paul, initially to intently pray for healing in terms of their total removal. No doubt that is God’s ultimate will. No doubt there will come a day when “he will wipe every tear from [our] eyes … mourning and crying and pain will be no more” (Rev. 21:4). By praying for complete healing we are exercising our faith that it will be so. And – praise God – there are times when God can and does heal by complete removal and deliverance. For some, what will be true for all believers in the future age miraculously breaks into the present.

But that’s not how Paul’s prayer was answered. His thorn was not taken away. Instead he heard the Lord say, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” (12:9). God’s response to Paul’s thorn was not to remove it, but to give Paul grace to victoriously endure, and then to use Paul’s resulting weakness as an opportunity to demonstrate divine power. Just as Christ himself was “crucified in weakness” (2 Cor. 13:4) and his weakness in death became a demonstration of the power of God (1 Cor. 1:22-25), Paul’s thorn-created weakness had similar results. In fact he claimed that power is made perfect in weakness. No doubt, God could have demonstrated his power  by removing it. But by not removing it, God chose to do something even better – to perfect his power through weakness.

As a result, Paul’s attitude toward his thorn was transformed. Instead of its non-removal fueling anger or self-pity, the weakness caused by the thorn’s presence gave him something to boast about. “So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses,” he exclaims, “so that the power of Christ may dwell in me” (12:9). Contrary to what we would think, Paul’s thorn-produced weakness doesn’t create frustration and dissatisfaction in him. Instead it leads to contentment. “Therefore I am content with weaknesses,” he declares, for he realizes that “whenever I am weak, then I am strong” (12:10).

Made radiant in weakness

Is it possible for us to come to the place where we view our emotional scars the way Paul came to view his thorn? Eventually I believe we can, but not at the beginning of the healing process. At that point our most crucial task is to embrace the pain, confront the truth, and come to terms with the havoc our hurts have wreaked in our lives. As we honestly and carefully survey the damage, how can we not view them as evil messengers of Satan sent to destroy us – and therefore as enemies to be fought against and overcome? Taking the first steps toward healing requires looking upon them that way.

But there comes a point in the healing process where we are called to face our wounds in a different way, viewing them this time not as enemies, but as friends. Like Paul, while recognizing their evil intent, we actually come to glory in them because of what they produce in us (weakness) and consequently what they release through us (God’s power).

A young woman who had been physically and emotionally abused by her parents shared with me a poem she had written in which she reflected on her scars in the light of his. Here is part of her poem called “The Stripes I Wear”:

The scars I wear –
I wish weren’t there …
but with injury
such markings are made.

The scars that Christ bears –
Just marks that he cares …
not worn with pride
or hidden in shame.

Love grafted in hands –
stripes part of a plan …
imprints of beauty;
just marks

My scars I can’t hide –
Though oft I have tried …
imprints of beauty;
just marks in disguise.

As we stand before him gazing at his scars, allowing their radiance to penetrate ours, as we offer our scars to him, the time will come when we will find ourselves saying about our scars what we say about his: “imprints of beauty, just marks in disguise.”

Stephen A. Seamands is emeritus professor of Christian doctrine at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is the author of numerous books such as Wounds That Heal, Ministry in the Image of God, and The Unseen Real. This essay originally appeared in the March/April 2001 issue of Good News. The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio (1571-1610). Public domain.

The Both/And Solution

The Both/And Solution

The Both/And Solution

By Thomas Lambrecht

A recent article by Jefferson Knight, a Liberia General Conference delegate, crystalizes the “critical decision” (in his words) facing United Methodists in Africa. He sees disaffiliation in Africa as a threat to “disintegrate the UMC in Africa and erase [it’s] rich history and heritage.” He sees regionalization as “a viable alternative … that promises to uphold the unity and continuity of the church while honoring its legacy.” The title of his editorial speaks of “Embracing Regionalization Over Disaffiliation.”

I will engage with some of his arguments in a moment, but first I want to call attention to his framing of disaffiliation and regionalization as stark alternatives that demand one to choose between them. What if General Conference delegates chose both?

There is no question that regionalization would mark a radical readjustment in the way the UM Church is governed. Many important decisions that used to be made at the global level would now be made at the regional level, potentially leading to significant differences in practices and governance between regions.

Regionalization is a legitimate path for the UM Church to take, although I personally disagree with it. It is a choice to go in a different direction from the way our denomination has functioned for over 230 years.

The question is: What accommodation will the UM Church be willing to make for those who disagree with taking this new direction? The church may be radically changing, but not everyone is on board with the trajectory of those proposed changes.

This is where disaffiliation comes in. It provides a way to accommodate those who strongly disagree with the new direction proposed by regionalization. For some who disagree, the new direction is not a big enough concern that they would want to depart from the denomination over it. For others, however, it represents a fundamental reworking of the church’s governance that they cannot in good conscience accept.

Much of the African UM Church has grown up over the past 20 years. New annual conferences have been added to the denomination. Existing annual conferences have seen tremendous growth in some areas. All of this growth has taken place under the current covenant of global governance.

Now, the terms of the membership covenant are proposed to change to regional governance. Would it not be fair to allow those who cannot embrace this change to exit from the denomination? They should not be forced to accept such a fundamental change just because they are in the minority.

It would be like a baseball league deciding that it wanted to change to adopt the rules of cricket. Some of the league’s teams might be willing to make such a change. But other teams might say, “We joined the league to play baseball, not cricket. If you are going to play cricket, we don’t want to play anymore.” Given the fundamental nature of that change, it would be fair to allow such teams to depart from the league and keep all their equipment, so they could continue to play baseball in a new league.

The same is true of United Methodism. Not only is there proposed a fundamental change from global to regional governance, it is also likely that the denomination will change its definition of marriage, allow pastors to perform same-sex weddings, and ordain partnered gays and lesbians as clergy. This level of change would in some ways transform the nature of the denomination. Those “teams” (annual conferences and local churches) that do not want to go along with such a fundamental transformation of the “rules” should have the opportunity to depart and keep their “equipment” (buildings and property), so they can continue to do church in the way they have done it in the past and according to their deeply-held beliefs.

Allowing annual conferences outside the U.S. and local churches to disaffiliate also helps the cause of regionalization. Those who remain would be those committed to implementing the new way of doing church. Those who oppose the new direction would not be around to resist its implementation.

Regionalization would require amendments to the constitution, for which it is necessary to have a two-thirds vote of approval both at the General Conference and in the cumulative voting of annual conferences. More than half the members of the UM denomination are located in Africa. If even a significant portion of participants in African annual conferences vote against regionalization, it would be defeated, even if it passed at the General Conference, since it would only take one-third of the total votes to block it.

Would it not be better for regionalization to allow those opposed to disaffiliate, rather than risk losing this new direction in order to hang on to the dissenters? Opponents of regionalization may or may not choose to disaffiliate. That is their choice to make – or it should be. But those opponents who choose to remain in the UM Church would be agreeing to go along with the new direction, even if they disagreed with it previously. The important point is that it would be their choice, not forced upon them due to the lack of an opportunity to disaffiliate.

If a disaffiliation pathway is provided at the General Conference, it is entirely possible that the regionalization proposal would pass the two-thirds vote, both there and in the annual conference vote. If there is a way for churches to disaffiliate, they would no longer feel bound to block regionalization, since they would not be forced to live under that new system.

Rather than choose one side or the other of a false dichotomy, General Conference delegates could choose a both/and solution, providing both disaffiliation and regionalization.

Arguments Against Disaffiliation

Knight makes a number of arguments against disaffiliation. These are valid points to consider by those discerning whether or not to disaffiliate. After all, there are pros and cons to disaffiliation, just as there are pros and cons to remaining United Methodist. The point is that Africans should have the opportunity to do that discernment and make their own choice, just as Americans did.

Knight believes that by disaffiliating, Africans would “risk isolating themselves from a broader network of support and resources … Moreover, disaffiliation could result in the loss of vital connections with sister churches worldwide, hindering opportunities for collaboration and mutual growth.”

Such isolation and loss of connection is certainly possible if those who disaffiliate remain independent or autonomous. However, if those who disaffiliate from the UM Church also affiliate with a new denomination, they can maintain some of their existing support and connections, while having an opportunity to build new ones. For example, the Global Methodist Church emphasizes missional partnerships that link grass-roots churches in the U.S. with churches in other areas for mutual ministry and support. These partnerships hold the potential for increased connection, not the loss of connection. Other denominations have similar missional approaches.

Knight further states, “the dissolution of the UMC in Africa through disaffiliation would represent a profound loss of heritage and history for the church.” Disaffiliation would probably not result in the “dissolution of the UMC in Africa.” Some would want to remain UM, and the UM Church would continue to have a presence at least in some parts of Africa. And the heritage and history of Methodism would remain, even if expressed through a different denomination. Parts of Africa were evangelized under the Methodist Church, prior to the 1968 founding of United Methodism. Their heritage and history continued in the new denomination. If those who disaffiliate remain Methodist in their beliefs, practices, and associations, the “wealth of knowledge and experience accumulated over centuries” would be maintained and strengthened, not “forgotten and diluted,” as Knight worries.

Depending upon how it is carried out, disaffiliation could “lead to fragmentation and discord within the church” as Knight contends, or it could be the beginning of a new chapter of growth in discipleship as a continuation of Methodism in a new vessel. African United Methodists tend to operate on a consensus model, meaning that they tend to act in unison, for the most part. There is hope that those who choose to disaffiliate would be able to do so as a united block, bringing the vast majority of their annual conference together in the direction chosen.

Arguments for Regionalization

Knight maintains that “regionalization offers a path forward that preserves the unity and continuity of The United Methodist Church in Africa and elsewhere while honoring its heritage and legacy.” He envisions the African church able to form “a cohesive network within the global denomination,” thus “maintain[ing] their connection to the broader church body while fostering a sense of solidarity and shared purpose.”

Without the opportunity for disaffiliation, regionalization alone will not “preserve the unity and continuity” of the church in Africa. Advocates for same-sex marriage and the affirmation of homosexuality continue to visit churches in Africa in order to promote their views. Division over these issues will come to Africa, just as it has come to America.

We have seen some more progressive churches in the U.S. draw back from their partnerships with churches in Africa and elsewhere because of differences over sexuality. As the U.S. church becomes more openly and officially affirming of same-sex relationships, the pressure will grow on African churches to change their views. That pressure might include conditions attached to missional support from U.S. churches that would force African churches into awkward choices between remaining faithful to their long-held traditionalist views or adapting their views in order to receive more support.

As we have made the case before, regionalization is more likely to lead to differentiation between regions and increased regional autonomy, rather than the unity and cohesion that Knight envisions. As regions feel empowered to adapt the Discipline to their liking, different regions are likely to function in different ways, have different standards, and even evolve different teachings on some issues. This is hardly a recipe for cohesion and unity.

The points Knight raises are valid points to consider, and they are ones where people of goodwill can disagree. The discussion is important to have in the context of whether to disaffiliate or to remain in a regionalized UM Church. African churches can and should make their own choices, and Americans should honor those choices. Adopting disaffiliation pathways at General Conference in addition to any regionalization proposals would enable there to be real choices for African churches. Out of respect for the dignity of our brothers and sisters in Christ, we can do no less.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Bishop David Bard (center) confers with fellow bishops on an issue during the 2019 United Methodist General Conference in St. Louis. File photo by Mike DuBose, UM News.

African Delegates’  Urgent Requests Unanswered

African Delegates’ Urgent Requests Unanswered

African Delegates’ Urgent Requests Unanswered

By Thomas Lambrecht

We are less than six weeks from the opening session of the 2024 United Methodist General Conference. That is why it is troubling that African delegates continue to be beset with delayed responses from the staff running our UM General Conference and are experiencing problems that threaten their ability to participate.

For the last several months, the delay in sending non-U.S. delegates their official letters of invitation to attend the General Conference has been noted and criticized, including by Mainstream UMC, the self-identified “centrist” caucus. Receiving the invitation letter is required before the delegate can have an interview at the U.S. embassy to obtain a visa to attend the Conference.

In recent correspondence, the Rev. Dr. Jerry Kulah, a long-time Liberian General Conference delegate, identified a number of remaining problems facing African delegates.

Invitation Letters

It appears by now that almost all African delegates have received their invitation letters. The letters came so late, however, that a few delegates could not even schedule a visa interview at the embassy. Others have had to travel to a different country’s embassy, where there were still interview openings, in order to apply for a visa. This entails paying for air fare, hotel, and food for the trip, including a stay of two to seven days to allow processing of the visa and picking it up at the embassy before returning to one’s home country.

The General Conference is supposed to pay for this cost to obtain a visa. The delay in sending invitation letters means that more delegates have needed to travel to obtain a visa, which means that the cost to the general church is higher. In some cases, the funds are not being sent in a timely fashion, jeopardizing the ability of the delegates to travel for their visa interview. Most African delegates cannot just put the expenses on a credit card and wait three weeks to be reimbursed.

A new problem is that, in some places, embassy staff are becoming stricter in awarding visas. Even some who have traveled to the U.S. before are being denied this time. In Liberia, two of eight clergy delegates have been denied, while three of five lay delegates have been denied. (Others are still awaiting a scheduled interview.) In the past, UM leaders have contacted U.S. embassies to let them know delegates would be coming for interviews and to request their assistance in granting visas. It appears that did not happen this time around.

Because of the denial of visas (some of which happen every quadrennium), alternates need to be prepared to step in to fill out the delegation. However, alternates also need letters of invitation to get their visas. Alternates are now having trouble receiving their letters in a timely fashion. And because of how late the original delegates received their letters, there is now not enough time for some alternates to schedule a visa interview. In some places the wait time for scheduling a visa interview is three to six months, well past the dates of General Conference.

The end result is that Africa will not be fully represented at the 2024 General Conference. At the 2019 General Conference in St. Louis, more than ten percent of the African delegates did not receive visas to attend and were not able to have their slots filled by alternates. It looks like that number may be higher this time. All of this could have been avoided by having invitation letters sent out last fall, instead of waiting until the last minute. This has been a perennial problem with how General Conference organizers have handled the visa situation, but it appears much worse this time.

Travel Plans

For past General Conferences, the general church has sent funds to the annual conferences in Africa to enable delegates to purchase their own air ticket. This allowed delegates to come on their own schedule. Many wanted to arrive several days early, in order to allow their bodies time to adjust to the 6-9 hours of time difference between the U.S. and Africa. Some would come early or stay past the conference in order to visit partner churches in the U.S. and cultivate ties for ministry, as well as visit family members. Coming early or staying later did not cost the general church any money, as the extra days were at the delegate’s own expense, and the air fare would be the same.

This time, in an admirable effort to save cost, the General Conference Commission is requiring all non-U.S. delegates to have their tickets purchased by a travel agency. This would be fine if the travel agency could accommodate the individualized schedules of delegates. Unfortunately, the Commission has decided to restrict travel dates for delegates, so that they arrive in Charlotte the day before delegate orientation begins and leave the day after adjournment. If delegates want to come earlier or stay beyond those dates, they will have to pay for the whole air fare themselves, which most African delegates cannot afford.

Some question the motivation behind these restrictions on travel. It could be that organizers want to avoid complicating the travel agency’s job by allowing individual itineraries. It is also a fact that many UM leaders have been displeased that the Africa Initiative in the past has organized a pre-conference gathering for African and other non-U.S. delegates to learn about the issues and discuss strategy for the General Conference. Restricting travel has meant that such a gathering could not take place this time. That will unquestionably hamper the ability of African delegates to have a unified and strategic impact on decisions at General Conference.

Remarkably, as of this writing, our information is that no African delegates have yet received their air tickets. Because the travel agency is now so late in making flight arrangements for the African delegates, the cost will undoubtedly be higher, and the itineraries available may be less desirable. Under the best of circumstances, travel to and from Africa takes 18 to 30 hours. If certain flights are sold out, that may add to the travel time and mean long layovers without any accommodation in airports. This creates hardship for the delegates and puts them at a physical disadvantage dealing with jet lag, travel exhaustion, and the stress of being in a different country, perhaps for the first time. They will be less prepared to fully participate as equals in the business of the General Conference.

This is fundamentally unjust, and African delegates are being treated differently from U.S. delegates. U.S. delegates can travel to Charlotte whenever they want and stay as long as they want on their own dime, but African delegates are only allowed to travel on certain restricted dates. This unequal treatment sends a message to African delegates that they are second-class members of The United Methodist Church, belying the aspiration that we are a truly global and inclusive church.

(Author’s correction: After publishing this piece, I was informed by a U.S. delegate that they are also expected to travel on those certain limited dates and use the official travel agency for travel arrangements. He said that there appeared to be a way to change to different dates of travel, but it was difficult to access and figure out. African delegates with little knowledge or experience in maneuvering complex online forms would find this option inaccessible.)

Other Issues

Other requests from Dr. Kulah have gone without a response from General Conference staff. Africa Initiative has requested space to hold an African worship service on the Sunday of General Conference, as they have in previous quadrennia.

New this year is the fact that delegates will be fed prepared meals at the convention center to save time and avoid the need for the conference to pay each delegate a per diem to cover meals. Kulah raises the concern that the meals prepared may not take African dietary desires into account, and that African delegates might prefer to seek out meals more in line with their health needs. He requested a return to the per diem approach.

The Mainstream UMC blog linked above also lamented the fact that many delegates did not have working ID numbers that would enable their free access to the General Conference website to learn more about the details of the conference and view proposed legislation. This is still true of many delegates in Africa. Without this access to legislation ahead of time in their preferred language, delegates will be less prepared.

There is no contact list or even a list of names of delegates available. No hotel information has been shared with African delegates. There is no map of the convention center indicating room assignments. There is no map of downtown Charlotte indicating the hotels that will be housing General Conference participants. All this information would normally be public four months before the General Conference. Emails to the General Conference secretary and staff are not being responded to in a timely way (or even at all, in some cases).

Preparing the logistics for a General Conference is a challenging task. However, organizers have had over two years to plan this conference since its last postponement from 2022. Furthermore, they have done this before. They are not newbies. It is difficult to fathom how so many issues have fallen through the cracks. The lack of communication and lack of transparency, as well as the failure to assure the basics of universal delegate participation, have damaged the credibility of organizers and threaten the very legitimacy of this General Conference. It leaves the door open for some to attribute nefarious motives for these shortcomings. At the very least, it inspires “no confidence” in the leadership being provided.

It is uncertain where things will go from here. We pray that what can be straightened out will be, and that God’s Spirit will move in spite of the obstacles to a smoothly run conference.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Photo: Shutterstock.

He Wants You Back

He Wants You Back

He Wants You Back

By BJ Funk

My oldest son texted words that hit like a large brick thrown at my stomach. He wrote, “My birth mother passed.”

I wasn’t prepared for this. I remember that joyous moment when the lady with the adoption agency placed this baby in my arms. She said, “His birth mother had only one request; that he be put in a Christian home.”

Grace looked inside my heart that day and whispered, “This child is yours.” He was beautiful and perfect. He was perfectly beautiful. He still is. It was instant love for me. My gratitude to her gained a permanent place in my heart. Though I didn’t know her, I knew her. And, whatever her reasons, she gifted me with her child. I don’t know how she did it.

I prayed for her. I cried for her. And from the minute he was placed in my arms, it was as if there were two mothers rearing this precious boy. At first, I thought of her every day. I thought of her at milestones in his life and wished I could have let her know. I prayed for her at every birthday, joyous that he was mine but wishing he could somehow also be hers.

The adoption lady called when he was not quite a year. His birth mother married, and wanted to see if she could get him back. The law said that wasn’t possible. Just the thought of something like that happening made me weak. However, I was so grateful that I had something to tell my son when he was old enough to understand. She wanted him back. One day that would ring in his ears and gratitude would touch his soul. She wanted him back.

I can’t imagine how she dealt with that.  So, I prayed for her. I cried for her. And my gratitude grew even larger.

I loved being a mother. She gave up so that I could have. And now she was gone.

Eventually, my son wanted to meet her. I knew it was risky. What if she turned him down? I did not want him to be hurt.  He and I went to the courthouse files to find her name. Then, I contacted an adoption agency in our state. That led to our having a phone number to call her. It was exciting and frightening at the same time. I was comforted, however, in that, after her marriage, she wanted him back. Knowing that gave me a spotlight into her soul, and I believed her soul was good.

Our first conversation was positive. Later, my son and his wife flew out to meet them. You know how we say that God took care of something beyond our expectation? Well, he did it again.

She and her family embraced them both. and thus began a tradition. Now they fly to be with his family every Christmas. The man his birth mother married calls him “son.” He is included in their family reunions and in their Christmas letter to friends. Amazingly, I also get one of those letters. I met her once. Like her son, she was beautiful. My constant gratitude for how God worked all of this out humbles me.

Is there a Jesus story here? I’m glad you asked.

Long after sin snatched away our innocence in the Garden of Eden, crushing us with evil’s grasp, Jesus knelt before his Father and heard, “Son, it’s time for our plan. I want my children back.”

Jesus was nailed to the cross. He bled and died. He conquered the power of sin over us. He took back what belonged to Him when He said on the cross, “It is finished.”

He took you back. Sin will always be crouching at your door, but it does not have power over you. Why? Because God took you back. You are free from sin’s control.

That should stir up a large hallelujah somewhere deep inside your soul.

B.J. Funk is Good News’ long-time devotional columnist and author of  It’s A Good Day for Grace, available on Amazon.

He Wants You Back

TMS Global Celebrates 40 Years

TMS Global Celebrates 40 Years

By Jenifer Jones

In November 1983, the Christian missions organization began when 34 United Methodist pastors and mission-minded individuals gathered in St. Louis. They had watched the decline in the number of United Methodist missionaries over the years. Their hearts’ cry was to see more cross-cultural workers sent who would proclaim the message and love of Christ even to the least-reached places of the world. After much prayer, they committed to start a new global missions agency. What would be named The Mission Society for United Methodists was officially incorporated on January 6th, 1984.

The 40th anniversary celebration year kicked off at a January 5-7 event in Atlanta. About 230 guests and staff and 46 children attended the busiest day of the event.

“It was clear to everyone that God has been with TMS Global for the entire 40 years,” said the Rev. Max Wilkins, TMS Global President. “He has been working in and through us in power, protection, provision, and perhaps most of all, in presence. There was a sense that God was the one being praised and glorified in this celebration.”

Special guests included the adult children of the founding president and his wife, the late H.T. and Alice Maclin. Also in attendance were two of TMS Global’s former presidents, the Revs. Al Vom Steeg and Dick McClain.

McClain said it was a blessing to see 40 years of God’s faithfulness unfold during the event. “As you actually live it out,” he said, “you see little moments of God doing something remarkable, but that is just one moment. When you look at the scope of 40 years of faithfulness, boy, what a blessing that is.”

For Vom Steeg, the constant equipping of workers by TMS Global stands out. “It’s not train them once. It’s a continued nature of renewal,” he says.

Kids attended their own special programming during the 40th anniversary event. “Our goals were to have fun, create community, and help the children see ways they can be part of God’s big story of reaching the world,” said Kerry Davidson, coordinator of TCK (third-culture kid) care at TMS Global.

Participants in the children’s program heard from TCKs around the world, ate snacks from those places, and prayed for the TCKs they met. “We thought it was important to offer a children’s program because children are important to TMS Global,” Davidson said. “Having whole families participate together in celebrating the 40th anniversary creates deeper community and gives a shared language and vision for partnering with Jesus in His mission.”

As TMS Global moves into its next decade of ministry, President-elect Dr. Jim Ramsay is looking toward global partnerships. He said, “I am hopeful that the depth and breadth of our international partnerships will grow so that we can play an important role in helping local churches in the United States connect in effective and healthy ways with the global church for the sake of the mission of God.”

Jenifer Jones is a communicator for TMS Global (tms-global.org).

About TMS Global: TMS Global originally launched as The Mission Society for United Methodists. Now interdenominational (and subsequently renamed), TMS Global sends people around the world to spread the love and message of Jesus. Since 1984, it has trained, mobilized, and served hundreds of cross-cultural witnesses. Currently, 143 serve in 29 countries around the world. Thousands of people have been introduced to Jesus and discipled in their faith. Churches in the US and abroad have embraced God’s plan for their congregations and reached out to their communities, nation, and the world with the hope of Christ.