Fair for Some, Fair for All

by Steve | Apr 12, 2024 | In the News, Perspective / News

Fair for Some, Fair for All

By Simon Mafunda

The recent commentary written by Christine Schneider for UM News of March 28 needs to be addressed. It directly responds to a commentary by Rob Renfroe, the president of Good News, who was addressing criticism regarding the planned presence of Good News at the upcoming GC in Charlotte. However, I find Christine’s article to be lacking in its representation of the facts and attempting to compare two provisions in the UMC Book of Discipline that should not be compared.

Firstly, I agree with Rob Renfroe that disaffiliation is still an ongoing issue. Claims made by our American liberal counterparts that disaffiliation is no longer relevant can be interpreted as simply an attempt to silence central conference voices, particularly those from Africa, and strip away our rights. There have been statements suggesting that some American liberals believe the UMC belongs to them, with missions overseas being considered secondary. Mark Holland of Mainstream UMC has said that the UMC should be prepared to lose Africa if necessary to accommodate LGBTQ marriage and ordination. In his August 1 article, Holland stated : “We may lose Africa and the Philippines: This is the hardest truth with which we must wrestle. It hurts to be rejected” (emphasis in original).

It is not surprising then that many Americans view the American UMC as the denomination itself, disregarding the contributions and perspectives of those outside of America, treating them as second-class members without regard for their rights and fairness.

The UM News commentary by Christine Schneider, a reserve General Conference delegate from Switzerland, fails to accurately represent the facts, especially when it comes to Africa. As a fellow member of the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, Schneider has heard the plea of Africans to be treated fairly. Indeed, at one point it appeared to me that Shneider seemed agreeable and supportive of a disaffiliation pathway for the central conferences. Apparently, she has changed her mind. As Africans, we are simply demanding fairness and justice. In Africa, ¶2553, which has now expired, was never implemented. The Council of Bishops failed to seek a work-around in light of the postponement of the 2020 General Conference that would enable Par. 2553 to apply outside the U.S. This failure was surprising and disappointing to us because Par. 2553 was never intended to segregate us. In some African conferences, it was even communicated that the provision would only be implemented once it had been fully translated into the official General Conference languages applicable to Africa. Nowhere in the provision does it explicitly state that the “reasons of conscience” are exclusively applicable to America.

While it is true that ¶572 is available for conferences outside of America, its provisions are different from those in ¶2553 that the Americans utilized. Paragraph 572 pertains to annual conferences opting to become autonomous Methodists, affiliated autonomous Methodists, or affiliated United Churches from central conferences. Paragraph 2553 pertains to local church disaffiliation. We have always been aware of this annual conference provision, but as Africa, we are not interested in utilizing it. Paragraph 572 involves a lengthy and arduous process that could take an extensive amount of time and energy to complete. It also involves extensive involvement of the denomination’s entities, including the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, the Central Conference, all central conference annual conferences, and the General Conference, making the vote to leave uncertain. Any of these entities could block an annual conference from disaffiliating. The process could take up to four years or more, including multiple votes and ratifications at various levels. Moreover, we have not come across any conferences in Africa expressing a desire to become autonomous. It is unfair to require African annual conferences to create their own Book of Discipline as paragraph 572 does, when what they desire is to align with a different Wesleyan denomination that already has a Book of Discipline.

Furthermore, paragraph 572 does not allow local churches to disaffiliate. There are some annual conferences in Africa that will undoubtedly want to remain United Methodist. Since some annual conferences own the church buildings and parsonages outright, it is not a question of releasing the trust clause. Rather, a new provision needs to enable the annual conference to deed the property to a local church desiring to disaffiliate.

There is also a fundamental difference between the African context and the European context. European bishops and central conferences have been willing to amicably negotiate a process of disaffiliation for annual conferences and local churches that is not in the Book of Discipline. Such amicable negotiations have allowed disaffiliation to take place. In Africa, several bishops have declared their adamant opposition to allowing any disaffiliation to take place. In some areas, pastors inquiring about disaffiliation have been summarily fired without any due process, depriving them of both house and livelihood. Around September 2022, a majority of African bishops meeting at Africa University took a combative stance and banned activities of both Africa Initiative and Wesleyan Covenant Association known for advocating for justice and fairness with regards to these disaffiliation rights. The prospect of amicable negotiations in these situations is unlikely.

European churches may be able to disaffiliate if they desire. So far, the only churches in Africa to do so had to defy their bishop and overcome his opposition, using processes that may not be found in the Book of Discipline. For disaffiliation to be a fair consideration in Africa, a general church enactment is needed that trumps the resistance of autocratic-minded bishops.

As we approach the upcoming GC in Charlotte, it is crucial to take the disaffiliation matters seriously, particularly with the lens of fairness and justice. What is fair for some should be fair for all.

Simon Mafunda lives in Zimbabwe. He is a member of the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, the WCA Vice President for Africa, and Africa Initiative Coordinator. Members of the United Methodist Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters gather for Communion at Canaan United Methodist Church in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire. Consecrating the elements is Bishop Benjamin Boni (center). Photo by Mike DuBose, UMNS.

Fondly Remembering Carolyn Elias (1931-2024)

by Steve | Apr 11, 2024 | Home Page Hero Slider, In the News

Fondly Remembering Carolyn Elias (1931-2024)

The Good News staff and board of directors were saddened to hear of the passing of our longtime friend and treasured colleague, Carolyn Parrish Elias (1931-2024). The Good News Board of directors presented its eighth annual Edmund W. Robb, Jr. United Methodist Renewal Award to Carolyn Elias at its fall meeting in November 2010. The award, named after long-time Good News board member and renewal leader, Dr. Ed Robb, is given to a United Methodist who has made a significant and lasting contribution to renewal within the United Methodist Church.

“Carolyn was a thoroughly unique woman of deep faith with a zest and flare for life – she was a joy to be with. She loved her husband, Barney, and their entire family, studying the Bible, reforming the Methodist church, and cheering for Razorback football,” said Steve Beard, editor of Good News. “She will be deeply missed by all of us who loved her.”

Elias was a leader in the evangelical Methodist renewal movement in the Central Illinois Conference before she and her husband, Barney, moved to Hot Springs, Arkansas, in 1991. She became active in the First United Methodist Church. She worked with the Good News General Conference team in 1988 in St. Louis, 1992 in Louisville, and 1996 in Denver.

In 2000, Carolyn was elected a lay delegate to the General Conference—in fact, she was the first lay person elected in her delegation. “Carolyn’s election as the first lay delegate in the North Little Rock Conference after a decade of serving as a member of the Good News board and being actively involved with the Renew Network was really remarkable! It spoke clearly about her ability to be a firm and gracious witness to her evangelical faith while also working effectively with others who might not necessarily agree with her theological commitments,” said the Rev. James V. Heidinger II, Good News President and Publisher emeritus, who made the presentation to Elias at the board meeting banquet. (Elias became an honorary life member of the Good New Board of Drirectors in 2001.)

Carolyn served as Chair of the Conference Episcopacy Committee for Bishop Janet Riggle Huey and also was on the South Central Jurisdiction Committee on Episcopacy, the group charged with the important quadrennial task of assigning bishops for the entire jurisdiction. She was again elected a General Conference delegate in 2004.

Ever since moving to Hot Springs, Elias has been an important part of the leadership of the Evangelical Fellowship in the conference, which now is referred to as the Arkansas Confessing Movement. She has had the responsibility of arranging the morning breakfast meeting of the fellowship at annual conference.

In addition to her United Methodist involvement, Carolyn was, for 13 years, a leader in Bible Study Fellowship in North Little Rock. She also started a spin-off of BSF, called Explorers Bible Study, with as many as 300 women involved at one time. That Bible study continues.

“In Carolyn, we see a mature, gracious, theologically-grounded, and discerning United Methodist laywoman. She is highly respected by all who have worked with her. She has a warm, kind spirit but Carolyn can also be firm when firmness is needed,” Heidinger said to board members, family, and guests attending the 2010 banquet on the campus of Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky.

-Good News Media Service. This is adapted from a story about Carolyn in hrt eJanury/February 2011 issue of Good News. Archive Photo: James v. Heidinger II, Carolyn Elias, and Rob Renfroe in 2010. Photo by Steve Beard.

Is a New Disaffiliation Pathway Needed?

by Steve | Apr 5, 2024 | In the News, Uncategorized

Is a New Disaffiliation Pathway Needed?

By Thomas Lambrecht

Recently, several articles have come out saying that there are already disaffiliation pathways for annual conferences and local churches, so new pathways do not need to be enacted by the 2024 General Conference. For example, Christine Schneider, a reserve delegate from Switzerland and member of the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, surprisingly declares: “In the central conferences, we do have functioning procedures for handling the disaffiliation of annual conferences and local churches. Extending disaffiliation options under something like Paragraph 2553 is therefore simply not needed here.” That is her startling opinion.

Of course, Schneider writes from a uniquely European perspective that does not apply in Africa. She gives the example of Estonia, which is leaving the denomination using a process defined by its central conference. She also mentions 14 local churches in France disaffiliating from their Switzerland-France-North Africa Annual Conference. In both cases, these disaffiliation process were negotiated by the entities involved. The admirable goodwill exhibited by church leaders enabled these disaffiliations to be successfully worked out. The same goodwill is not present in all parts of Africa.

My colleague, Simon Mafunda, WCA Vice President for Africa, recently reported to me, “In Africa, several bishops have declared their adamant opposition to allowing any disaffiliation to take place. In some areas, pastors inquiring about disaffiliation have been summarily fired without any due process, depriving them of both house and livelihood. Around September 2022, a majority of African bishops meeting at Africa University took a combative stance and banned activities of both Africa Initiative and Wesleyan Covenant Association known for advocating for justice and fairness with regards to these disaffiliation rights. The prospect of amicable negotiations in these situations is unlikely.”

The only official process for disaffiliation to occur in the central conferences outside the U.S. is Par. 572, which allows an annual conference to become an autonomous Methodist Church. To do so is a long and arduous process that can take up to four years or more, depending upon when the process begins and when the General Conference is held. It requires the departing annual conference to develop its own statement of faith, constitution, and Book of Discipline. It requires the approval of the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, the relevant central conference, a two-thirds vote of all the members of the annual conferences in that central conference, and the General Conference. At any point along the way, a negative vote by any one of these entities can derail an annual conference’s disaffiliation. Furthermore, the African annual conferences that could consider disaffiliating are not interested in becoming autonomous Methodist churches. They would want to affiliate with another Methodist denomination, such as the Global Methodist Church, the Free Methodist Church, or the Church of the Nazarene. Why should they have to go through all the work of composing their own Discipline when they would rather just adopt the Discipline of the denomination they are aligning with?

By contrast, a proposed new Par. 576 would allow annual conferences outside the U.S. to disaffiliate in order to align with another Wesleyan denomination simply by adopting that denomination’s Book of Discipline and receiving the affirmative vote of their central conference. It would be a much more straightforward process with only one level of approvals.

The proposed new Par. 576 would apply only to annual conferences outside the U.S. (It is highly unlikely that any annual conferences in the U.S. would want to disaffiliate as an annual conference, given that many traditionalists have left those annual conferences.) So, this disaffiliation pathway would not affect churches in the U.S. at all.

What about local churches?

At this point, the only process in the Discipline left open for local churches to disaffiliate is Par. 2549, which allows an annual conference to close a local church and dispose of its property. Some annual conferences are using this paragraph to “close” a church that wants to disaffiliate and then sell the property to the exiting congregation. In most cases, the cost is similar to what Par. 2553 required: two years of apportionments and a pension liability payment. Any other process would be outside the scope of what the Discipline allows. And in all cases, this process depends upon the goodwill of conference leaders to allow the local church to disaffiliate under this closure paragraph. They can say “no” or jack up the cost to make it prohibitively expensive to disaffiliate.

In a recent blog (under the ominous, misleading, and tabloidish headline: “Good News Issues Threats to Delegates”), the Rev. Mark Holland of Mainstream UMC says, “To be clear, Mainstream UMC believes that churches should be able to leave, but this should be left up to the annual conferences and central (or regional) conferences to handle from this point forward.” It is good to hear Holland endorse the ability of local churches to disaffiliate going forward. However, it is at the point of leaving it to the annual conferences where the process too often breaks down.

Many annual conferences handled Par. 2553 disaffiliations with integrity and cooperation, despite the pain involved for all concerned. Unfortunately, about a dozen annual conferences arbitrarily and capriciously imposed additional requirements or abruptly changed their policies on disaffiliation. At least eight annual conferences required payment of a percentage of the church’s property value, anywhere from 10 to 50 percent. With the high property values on the coasts, that could push the cost of disaffiliation for even a small to medium sized church into the millions of dollars. One church in California figured it would need to pay $60,000 per member to disaffiliate! A few annual conferences imposed other additional costs and fees that further raised the price. In many cases, the financial penalty for disaffiliation made it realistically impossible for local churches to disaffiliate. In those cases, churches faced the choice of staying in the annual conference or walking away from buildings and property they had invested in for decades, depriving them of their ministry base and forcing them to start over as a new church plant.

A few annual conferences arbitrarily changed their disaffiliation process mid-stream. After allowing a first wave of churches to disaffiliate, both North Georgia and Alabama-West Florida changed the rules to halt any further disaffiliations. Peninsula-Delaware allowed a first wave of disaffiliations, but then imposed a 50 percent of property value fee that priced most churches out of the ability to disaffiliate after that. Both West Virginia and South Carolina initially banned all disaffiliations, with South Carolina grudgingly coming to allow them late in the process using Par. 2549. West Virginia allowed only 24 of its 971 churches to disaffiliate, merely one-tenth the national average.

In Africa, the situation is similar, with most bishops opposing any form of local church disaffiliation. As mentioned above, in parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo, pastors whose local churches wanted to disaffiliate were summarily removed as clergy without any charges or due process. This deprived the pastors of their home in some cases and of their livelihood. And the congregation was unable to disaffiliate. The only reason more than 50 local churches disaffiliated in Kenya is that they constituted a majority of the annual conference and were able to vote to allow their own disaffiliation in defiance of the bishop’s opposition (not a healthy dynamic to encourage).

In another recent commentary, Holland says, “It is unacceptable for the General Conference to prescribe another uniform process that will hurt the very annual conferences that have already been hit the hardest by disaffiliation.” It is only by providing a “uniform process” that the arbitrary and capricious actions of a few annual conferences can be corrected. To set the record straight, local churches in those annual conferences never truly had an opportunity to disaffiliate. The annual conferences in the U.S. most affected by extending a uniform process would be those who lost very few congregations due to their draconian requirements. They would NOT be the annual conferences “hit the hardest by disaffiliation.” Those hit the hardest have already lost the vast majority of churches that would want to disaffiliate.

To close out the option of disaffiliation at this point would be unjust. In annual conferences where bishops and conference leaders oppose disaffiliation, they should not be allowed to thwart the intent of General Conference to provide an equal opportunity for all congregations to discern their future. Such an opportunity is even more important now, given the magnitude of the changes envisioned for the UM Church to be enacted at the Charlotte General Conference.

What about fairness?

In some U.S. annual conferences, bishops and other conference leaders lobbied their churches to wait and see what happens at the 2024 General Conference. They made the case that nothing had changed in the Book of Discipline, and that we don’t know what the General Conference will do in terms of the proposed changes coming before it. They told local churches they should wait until after the General Conference acts before making a decision about disaffiliation. Yet very few of these annual conferences made provision for any disaffiliation process after the upcoming General Conference. One that did – Mississippi – reneged on that promise by stipulating that any churches not in the discernment process by the end of March would not be considered for disaffiliation. Thus, through their change of policy, they defeated the very purpose of churches waiting until after the General Conference acts. How is this fair?

Only a uniform process adopted by the General Conference can ensure that annual conferences do not act to block the ability of local congregations to discern their future in light of how the UM Church changes its standards and teachings at the upcoming General Conference. Failing to adopt such a process locks churches into a denomination changing in directions they may not agree with. Such an outcome will hurt those local churches, who will lose members due to the changes, and it will hurt the UM Church, which will still have within it congregations actively opposing the new directions chosen by the General Conference. Allowing a fair and uniform process of disaffiliation is in the best interest of all concerned.

The issue of fairness returns us to where we began this article. UM Churches in the African context need a uniform disaffiliation process. To fail to provide it would mean that churches in the U.S. had rights and privileges that are denied to our brothers and sisters in Africa. It is bad enough that their opportunity to discern their future was put on hold for three years past when U.S. churches could act. To completely cut off the option of disaffiliation through the provisions of the Discipline would reflect unfair and unequal treatment and indicate a disregard for the needs of our global brothers and sisters.

For the sake of justice and fairness, a uniform process of disaffiliation for annual conferences and local churches is needed. Current options do not meet the need. Hopefully, the General Conference will see the need and respond positively to it.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Photo: Delegates and visitors at the 2012 United Methodist General Conference in Tampa, Fla. On the screen are Bishop Sharon Rader and Bishop John White. A UMNS Photo by Kathleen Barry.

Radiant Scars

by Steve | Mar 28, 2024 | In the News, Perspective / News

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

by Steve | Mar 22, 2024 | In the News, Perspective / News

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

by Steve | Mar 15, 2024 | In the News, Perspective / News

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.

« Older Entries