logo

Letters
Cheers and Jeers

Subverting UMW
I read with great interest the "UMW Membership Decline" article compiled by the Good News/Renew Editorial Team (July/August). I was disappointed the team did not claim rightfully-deserved credit for a portion of the decline both in individual membership and units.

As a long-time staff member of the Women's Division, I have "held-hands" actually and by phone with conference and district leaders struggling with the fallout from "Good News pastors" (their term; not mine) who were intentionally destructive to the efforts of United Methodist Women. This included such "benign" things as scheduling meetings in direct conflict with UMW events, not making the church bus available for their travel to district/conference meetings, and heavily promoting "other" women's groups.

It also included "forbidding" local leaders to promote UMW emphases with which they disagreed, "browbeating" UMW members to withhold funds and/or divert their money to the pastor or to unofficial mission activity, and repeating false allegations against the Women's Division without bothering to do any direct inquiry for themselves. In more than one conference, the Executive Committee had sessions with the Bishop and full cabinet to name names and report their carefully documented concerns.

In this day of accountability and strict adherence to the Book of Discipline, I'm waiting for the day when the Judicial Council is asked to consider whether the active and willful subverting of Para.255.4 is a chargable offense against a pastor.

Barbara E. Campbell
Women's Division staff, retired
Asheville, North Carolina

 

Take credit for UMW decline
I read with interest the "UMW Membership Decline" article compiled by the Good News/Renew Editorial Team (July/August issue).

As an active member of United Methodist Women for forty-five years and as a staff member of the Women's Division for eleven years, I have worked with and served with local units, district units, district organizations of UMW and conference organizations of UMW. My leadership included serving as conference president of UMW for four years. During these years, I have personally experienced individual members, local units leaders, district, and conference organizations leaders who have been faithful and accountable to the purpose of UMW and to the Discipline of the United Methodist Church.

Members and units of United Methodist Women struggled with the misinformation, confusion, and false allegations against the Women's Division made by pastors of United Methodist churches, whom they identified as "Good News pastors," who worked intentionally to discredit and dismantle the organization of UMW. According to the members and leaders of UMW, the pastors told many units there was no place for the organization of UMW in their church. In some cases pastors disbanded units both large and small. Since the Renew Editorial Team has worked consistently to dismantle the organization of United Methodist Women, I wish you had taken credit for some of the decline both in individual membership and the number of units.

Ressie Mae Bass
Women's Division staff, retired
Bronx, New York

 

Whoa
Our group of United Methodist Women was shocked to read in the July/August issue of Good News an article entitled "Mainline Churches Participate in Abortion Rights March." The article stated that thousands of dollars had been given to this abortion movement by groups prominently associated with the United Methodist Church, i.e., the General Board of Church and Society and the Women's Division of the General Board of Global Ministries. Besides money, these groups offered their "unqualified endorsement" of the movement.

Whoa!

The United Methodist Church unequivocably supports the dignity of life; it does not support abortion. It never has.

What is going on? Why are United Methodist agencies and funds being channeled into programs that defy church doctrine?

Sally C. Butler
President, UMW
Grace United Methodist Church
 Midland, Maryland

Calvinism debate
I appreciate the article comparing Calvinism and Arminianism (September/October) by Walls and Dongell. I believe it is important for Christians to understand the differences between these two evangelical theologies.

However, I was surprised that the article did not point out that the basic difference between these two systems goes back to the interpretation of Christ's atoning death: viz., Reformed theology (Calvinism) says that Christ actually paid the penalty for sins (John Miley's Systematic Theology calls it "substitute in penalty"). Arminianism says that Christ's death provided an alternative to the penalty. This is a profound difference.

If Christ actually paid the penalty for sins, then God cannot require a second payment. So either everyone is saved, or (as Calvinists would choose) the atonement is limited. From this, the necessary sequence is irresistible grace and eternal security of the elect believer. To believe in eternal security and not the rest of the system is like having one limb of a tree suspended in midair!

Instead, Christ's atonement provided an alternative to paying the penalty. It is therefore open to as many or as few as will accept it, just as was the case of the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14). Those who come in repentance and faith to Christ and accept his atonement become a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) and are no longer subject to the penalty of their sins.

Harold Greenlee
Via-email

 

Why Calvinism?
Why are some evangelicals "examining Calvinism" today, even if only to show again that it is wrong? For biblical literalists, the Bible is supposed to be perfectly clear about true doctrine. And, in circular fashion, the doctrine must tell us what the Bible is supposed to say. There should be no question about truth in doctrine for the orthodox. Why is the Calvinist issue still an issue, then?

This is somewhat amusing, but not surprising. There is a history of heated conflicts within evangelicalism over disputed questions, which a literal reading of Scripture does not clear up.

It seems like an old-time debate only interesting to doctrinal antiquarians, who discuss these questions in the dogmatic forms of yesteryear because they don't have a decent hermeneutic. No wonder most Protestants think this kind of theology is boring and has feet of clay.

I am not one of them, by the way. I believe in a quadrilateral, not a trilateral without tradition to guide our interpretations. I think providence and assurance are important issues and involve a question raised by Robert Chiles in his book, Theological Transition in American Methodism: 1790-1935. Simply put, he argues that Wesley's theology of free grace fell into its worst dangers when it was misinterpreted to mean salvation by free will. It was bound to shift the focus of Christians toward a preoccupation with their own piety, moral rectitude, or finding a comfy relationship to an undemanding God. Humbling ourselves before a gracious, yet stern, God beyond ourselves lost poignancy. Score one for Calvinism, if that is our only alternative.

Arminianism is not just an assertion of God's loving character (despite the image problem, Calvinists also believe that), but a claim about predestination as well. In her letter of August 18, 1725, Susanna Wesley told John what she believed about predestination. The proper interpretation of scripture on this issue was that God foreknows our faith and thus predestines us to heaven or hell on the basis of this foreknowledge.

This is quite different from assurance of salvation based on inscrutable decrees, but arguable whether it escapes the problem of salvation through an autonomous or "natural" free will. In his late sermon, "On Working Out Our Own Salvation," Wesley argues that we can stir up the Spirit within us even though that Spirit ultimately comes from God. There is no "natural" free will and he effectively deflects the charge of pelagianism.

Process theologians believe the same thing. John Cobb, Jr., in his book, Grace and Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today shows that in process theology the internal relations of love by which God lures all beings to God is very much like Wesley's view of human beings stirring up the Spirit within themselves. Neither Wesley nor Cobb believes in an autonomous free will. This means that the order of salvation is not in question between Wesleyans and process theologians. It is quite possible to assimilate a classical theology like Wesley's to a modern conceptuality and, by doing so, to appreciate Wesley for a keen insight.

Many of us are still Christians, because we have found in liberal theology a way to be intellectually honest, intentionally modern (or "post-modern") in the best sense, and faithful at the same time. "Liberals" are no more united and monolithic than the "orthodox," but we can discuss calmly our differences of opinion. None of us can read the Bible literally in a fundamentalist sense, nor do we force absolute doctrinal harmony on the biblical writings. We do try to understand the biblical message authentically and on its own terms, but we cannot blindly accept authority externally imposed. This last point is so visceral, that you will never understand liberals until you feel how seriously they take their freedom and responsibility at this point. Authoritarianism, in their minds, is an "escape from freedom" (Erich Fromm) and false security.

If the Calvinist and Armenian lines of biblical interpretation exhaust the options for present-day understanding of that dispute, then liberals will always call it antiquarian theology, which remains historical and denies any creative advance in understanding today. Fortunately for us, we now have other options at hand to understand what is really a dead-end in traditional terms.

David McCreary
Chadron United Methodist Church
Chadron, Nebraska



Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.

Good News | 308 East Main St. | P.O. Box 150 | Wilmore, KY 40390 | 859-858-4661 | 1-800-487-7784
info@goodnewsmag.org | About Us | ©2007 Good News magazine