by Steve | Apr 1, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Rob Renfroe
Two years of study and $500,000 later, the verdict is in. The United Methodist Church is in trouble. That’s the conclusion of the Call to Action report that has begun to dominate discussions about the future of the people called Methodist in the United States.
Of course, the committee’s findings are no surprise. Since 1968, we have lost three million members and during that same period the number of churches in the United States has fallen from 41,901 to 33,583.
The Good. Believe it or not, the Call to Action report is good news. The numbers it reports are not; but the fact that our leaders are taking the bad news seriously—that is a welcomed change.
Previously, many of our institutional leaders were either in denial about how sick the UM Church had become or actually championed the loss of members as indicative that United Methodists were being particularly faithful to the Gospel. The idea that healthy organizations grow in strength and in numbers did not seem to register—nor did the idea that just maybe the Gospel of Jesus Christ winsomely presented still has the power to attract and convert those who are lost, hurting, and in need of God.
But after 40 years of continual decline since the merger that formed the United Methodist Church (there has never been a single year during that period when the UM Church has reported an increase in membership) the Council of Bishops and the Connectional Table called for a study to address our problems. And the promise was that there will be action to follow.
All of that is good news.
Also good is the report’s emphasis that vitality will not be created by UM boards and agencies, but by local churches doing effective work. In other words, our boards exist to serve the needs of our local congregations, not vice versa. (Sadly, the report does not contain a serious discussion of reducing apportionments so that our churches are able to hire staff and fund ministries that would allow them to do more of the work required to be truly effective in making disciples and reaching the lost.)
Another positive point was the report’s honest admission that the people in the pew find it difficult to trust the denomination’s hierarchy. No institution can be effective if persons on the ground and in the trenches do not have full faith in their leaders.
Again, this finding is not surprising. When, for example, 36 bishops call for the church to change its biblical and gracious statement on homosexual practice as they did recently; when the Board of Church and Society lobbies for a healthcare bill that at the time included federal funding for abortion and along with the United Methodist Women has partnered with the RCRC, which works to make all abortions legal, including partial birth abortions and abortions for the purpose of gender selection; when an official UM seminary (Claremont) proudly announces that its students, preparing to pastor UM congregations, will have the opportunity to train under Muslim imams, Jewish rabbis, and Buddhist priests—and when we know that our apportionments will be used to fund all of these endeavors and the salaries of those who promote them—it’s no wonder that there is a very real disconnect between the people in the local church who pay the bills and those who misuse their trust.
One last positive to mention is the report’s call for our bishops to take more authority in holding accountable our churches, pastors, and boards and agencies for effective ministry. Every organization needs structures in place that will not allow poor performance to go unchecked.
But here’s the question: Are the people who have been our leaders during the past four decades of decline the right people to turn this ship around?
I am privileged to know several of our bishops and I can honestly say that some of them are superb leaders. I would gladly trust them with the future of the UM Church. However, their number is small. We did not arrive at this point of crisis because we had many great leaders who were hamstrung by our structures. We are where we are because we have had poor leadership in the past by the majority of our leaders.
Leadership makes the difference in every organization. Long-term success can be traced back to effective leadership every time. And long-term failure is the result of poor leadership. We can only hope and pray that our most effective bishops will step forward and influence the other members of the Council and that our Jurisdictional Conferences will no longer elect bishops who represent anything other than a passion for the Gospel and an ability to lead the church.
The Bad. Hired to survey our leaders and our churches to determine what makes vital congregations and to recommend a way forward were two well-respected secular firms (Towers Watson and Apex) who work with major corporations. We can be thankful that companies with great credibility and objectivity were chosen as consultants.
Unfortunately, after reading their reports it is obvious that they were either not aware of or not tasked with delving into the deeper issues that in no small way are responsible for United Methodism’s sad decline. The official steering team report does not contain the word “theology;” neither does the Towers Watson report. Apex mentions “theology” but never as a significant concern that divides the denomination. The proverbial elephant in the living room is treated as no more important than a tiny mouse who lives out back in the corner of the barn.
Had leaders of the Renewal and Reform Coalition been interviewed during the study, I believe there may have been a different report. Every month I receive heartbreaking letters from faithful United Methodists asking me why their bishop would send them another preacher who doesn’t believe that Jesus is the Savior of the world, or who has stated that he or she doesn’t believe in the full inspiration and authority of the Bible, or who has declared that homosexuality is one of God’s good gifts just as is heterosexuality. These letters almost invariably announce that others have left that congregation. And often the writer states that he or she feels it is now time to do the same.
Yes, there is a problem, as the reports make clear, that our pastors are not as effective in preaching and leading as we wish they were. But most United Methodists would support and work with any pastor who would “preach Jesus” and love people.
The CTA report along with the Towers Watson and Apex studies make no mention that denominations that become so theologically liberal that they constantly debate the clear teachings of Scripture, or even deny what the Bible teaches altogether in a misguided attempt to remain relevant to the culture, always hemorrhage members—and the members they lose are those who have long done the work of and given sacrificially to our local churches. (Prime examples of this phenomenon are the Episcopal Church USA, the Presbyterian Church USA, and most recently the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.)
It is hard to understand that a diagnosis of what ails the UM Church was not set in the context of the epidemic that is devastating most mainline churches. This oversight can only be explained by a decision not to report what might be controversial and upsetting to those who believe theology doesn’t matter or as the lack of awareness by two well-meaning firms who simply did not have the necessary background to do a thorough job.
The Unfortunate. Finally, the report focuses on structural change. That is understandable and somewhat commendable. Methodists have always valued helpful structures and accountability. In our heyday, we had a knack for “organizing to beat the devil” as one church historian put it.
Today, something like 60 million persons worldwide are part of the Wesleyan family and trace their spiritual roots to John Wesley. Only 60,000 persons are the organized heirs of George Whitefield, even though he was a more powerful and fruitful evangelist living at the same time as Wesley. A primary reason for the difference was John Wesley’s organizational genius and his insistence that believers, new and old, be in what today we would call accountability groups.
Structures matter. If anyone believes that, we Wesleyans do. But when the Lord took Ezekiel to the valley of dry bones and asked him “can these bones live,” the answer was not “yes, if we restructure them correctly.” The Lord said they would live again only when he put breath into them.
Amazingly, actually it’s shocking, missing in the CTA report and supporting documents is any mention of the work of the Spirit in the renewal of the church. One can’t expect Tower Watson or Apex to think in these terms, but the final report most certainly should have acknowledged that the renewal of the church and reaching the lost is spiritual work—even, according to Scripture, a spiritual battle. “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5, NKJV).
The Call to Action Report will become the focal point of a long and important conversation concerning the future of the UM Church. And those of us who are orthodox Christians can be most grateful for the acknowledgement that there is a problem and for the willingness of our bishops and other leaders to address it.
What we must do is point the church back to the centrality of Jesus as the only-begotten Son of God and the Savior of the World, and boldly declare the truth that God will not bless the UM Church because we have the right structures or better accountability, but only because we preach and practice the Gospel of Jesus Christ as contained in the Scriptures—for it is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16), and pray that God’s Spirit will make the most of this moment.
Rob Renfroe is the President and Publisher of Good News.
by Steve | Apr 1, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By M. Kent Millard
I was one of the 20 people asked by the Council of Bishops to serve on the Call to Action Steering Team. I found it to be an extremely inspiring and encouraging experience.
Dr. George Hunter is absolutely right that the Call to Action report insists that the United Methodist connection exists for the local church and not vice versa. The local congregation is the central arena where God makes disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Therefore, all the other levels of the church should be evaluated on how well they enable and empower local congregations to fulfill this vision.
Consequently, the Call to Action group focused most of our attention on how to increase the number of highly vital United Methodist congregations in the United States. We used professional research organizations to comb through the statistical data we have on over 32,000 United Methodist congregations to determine the indicators of vitality in a congregation.
Based on the actual data we have, we determined that the pointers to vitality are growth in worship attendance, growth in membership, and growth in giving over a five-year period.
Based on these criteria we discovered that 5,500 or 17 percent of the United Methodist congregations in the United States are high in vitality as judged by growth in worship attendance, membership, and giving. We also discovered that about 26,700 or 83 percent of the United Methodist congregations in the United States have moderate or low vitality by these growth criteria.
Then we did further analysis of the 5,500 vital congregations to determine what factors enabled them to grow in vitality.
The Towers Watson researchers assessed 127 different variables about local congregations, which might account for their vitality. It was out of this extensive research that these four key drivers of vitality were discovered to be active in the vast majority of the 5,500 vital congregations:
1. Effective pastoral leadership including inspirational preaching and partnering well with laity in the leading of local congregations.
2. Large numbers of small groups of a wide variety especially multiple small groups for children and youth.
3. A mix of both traditional and contemporary worship experiences.
4. Effective and spiritually engaged lay leaders.
Through this widespread research method, we discovered that highly vital congregations were found in all parts of the United States, in all sizes of congregations, and with different theological perspectives.
This should be seen as good news for every congregation because every United Methodist pastor and church of every size in every part of the United States can become more vital by being more conscientious in improving their preaching, partnering well with effective lay leaders, starting more small groups especially for children and youth, and providing a variety of types of worship experiences.
Dr. Hunter maintains that there is always a strong connection between theology and vitality. However, the actual research among vital United Methodist congregations reveals that there are vital congregations that have different theological perspectives. The surprising thing to all of us is that God is at work among people with a different theology than our own!
For the past 40 years, the United Methodist Church has been mired in unending theological debates over many different issues. Perhaps by moving from theological debate to effective actions in local congregations, God might create more vital United Methodist congregations and use all of us to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world regardless of whether or not we all agree with each other theologically.
Jesus reminds us to move from words to actions when he says: “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).
M. Kent Millard is the lead pastor of St. Luke’s United Methodist Church in Indianapolis, Indiana. He has been a delegate or alternate delegate to six General Conferences of the United Methodist Church, is a member of the Large Church Initiative Committee, and serves on the United Methodist Church’s Global Health Initiative.
by Steve | Apr 1, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Terry Teykl
As I read Dr. George Hunter’s response to the Call to Action, I was once again impressed with the brilliance of this man. Years earlier, he was my preaching instructor at Perkins School of Theology. He was sharp then and even sharper now. Thank God his talents are at the disposal of Jesus—and that he serves in the United Methodist Church. Whatever he thinks about he covers all bases. My response takes up on two observations with regard to The Great Omissions in the Call to Action.
Hunter is correct in saying that vitality in any church is hard to achieve without prayer. In fact, from what I can find, prayer is not prominent in the Call to Action. And for me this a serious oversight from a biblical and Wesleyan standpoint.
Second, the importance of the Holy Spirit in evangelism is of upmost importance. The Holy Spirit is vitality to the Christian faith. The lack of emphasis on the Holy Spirit’s role is, again, a critical omission.
For me to separate prayer and the Holy Spirit is not possible. One brings the other. The water and the faucet are uniquely related. As I have written and taught on prayer in the local church for 25 years, I know these to be the sources of church renewal and effectiveness. I have seen in hundreds of churches of all sizes the result of praying the price and experiencing God’s arrival. Revival is a matter of arrival, the arrival of God in a greater measure.
Services that are soaked in prayer—whether traditional or contemporary—are alive with God’s presence. And it is his presence that changes lives, heals brokenness, and brings people to the saving knowledge of Jesus. If anything the worship in a church needs to be “user friendly” to welcoming “The Presence.” In worship, we should be more concerned about pleasing him, and not them. Meeting early to pray, anointing the chairs, and praying behind the scenes are all components of vital worship.
Small groups that do not pray as their purpose are just depending on the resources that people can bring to the table. Prayer visibly announces that God is our source and the life of the group is in him. The first small group in the Upper Room bears witness to the power, vitality, and long- lasting effect on the church. The early Methodist Classes were replicas of the Upper Room in Acts 1 and 2.
Programs without a presence-based agenda run the danger of becoming “new carts” offering “strange fire” to afford short-term results that bear the pressure of becoming bigger and better to keep human interest.
Vitality in the pulpit is determined by a prayer force for the pastor’s preaching. I have found so much vitality in the South American church and the pastors there tell me, “It is what happens behind me that determines what happens in front of me in response to my preaching.” In sermon preparation, they spend 50 percent praying and the other 50 percent studying.
In addition, attendees who pray make great leaders who will pray about everything in the church. Research any vital leader and you will find a prayer closet where he or she is clothed and equipped on a regular basis.
The bottom line is that if there are “drivers,” there must be “One Driver” and that is the Holy Spirit. And prayer for us must not be the spare tire but the steering wheel for God’s touch. Without prayer we can say as Paul Morell always said, “We are just shifting the chairs on a sinking Titanic.”
Terry Teykl is an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church and is currently under special appointment to Renewal Ministries in Houston, Texas. He is the author of numerous books including Pray the Price, Blueprint for the House of Prayer, Making Room to Pray, and The Presence Based Church.
by Steve | Apr 1, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Lyle E. Schaller
From this professional planner’s perspective, the Call to Action represents one planning model—a focus on designing an action plan or strategy designed to reverse the withdrawal of the United Methodist Church from the parish ministry in the United States. My preferred approach would place a high priority on achieving agreement on the planning model to be used.
One planning model that could be used for responding to the Call to Action would focus on early agreement on the appropriate diagnostic questions to be explored. For example, one of these diagnostic questions could begin by measuring the number of United Methodist members who, when they switch their congregational affiliation, choose a non-United Methodist congregation. The number of intradenominational transfers of United Methodist members plunged from 309,760 in 1956 to 114,251 in 2000 to 80,333 in 2008!
Why have so many United Methodists switched church affiliation to a different religious body?
One component of that planning model could be to interview those “switchers.” Between 1960 and 2002, I interviewed slightly over 2,500 ex-Methodist members who had not changed their place of residence, but had switched their congregational affiliation to a non-United Methodist congregation. When I asked, “Why?” about 30 percent explained, “I married out.” Another 10 percent pointed to the arrival of a new pastor as their motivation for switching. Nearly all of the others explained their objections to the degree of “External Authority” in the UM Church and that was why they switched to a completely autonomous self-governing Protestant congregation.
This, of course, is simply a reflection of the growing demand for self-autonomy among the generations of Americans born after 1960. This also stands out in the research by Roman Catholics in America as they report on the exodus of “Cradle Catholics” to autonomous Protestant congregations.
The closest to a universal response in those 2,500-plus interviews came at the end when I attempted to thank them for letting me interrupt their busy day. Most declared, “No! I want to thank you! You’re the first person to ask to hear my story, and I want to thank you for listening to my story. No one else has ever asked to hear it!”
A second useful diagnostic question could contrast the 1951-1960 decade in the history of The Methodist Church with the decades of 1985-1994 and/or 1991-2000.
Every district superintendent would be asked to identify by name and location every new mission planted in that district in 1951-60 and again every new mission planted in 1985-1994 and/or 1991-2000.
Every one of these congregations would be identified by name and location plus two sets of numbers.
For those planted in 1951-1960, the two requested numbers would be average worship attendance and new members received in 1955, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010.
For those planted in 1991-2000, those two requested numbers would be requested for years 2 and 5 of their history, plus every year beginning with 2001.
These data could be useful in choosing the top priorities in each annual conference between planting new missions or devoting scarce resources to rescue “dying congregations.”
For United Methodists, this can be described as a choice between perpetuating the current trend of an aging and numerically shrinking membership and faithful institutional obedience to Article III of the Restrictive Rules of the United Methodist Constitution versus raising the level of self-governance or self-autonomy in UM congregations.
That conflict was not a significant issue in the pre-1960 era when most Americans affirmed the role of institutions and voluntary associations in “writing the rulebooks” on how Americans should live out their lives. The gradual obsolescence of those “rulebooks” is illustated by tax-funded charter schools, Southwest Airlines, the “G. I. Bill of Rights” of 1944, the emergence of thousands of completely autonomous Christian megachurches since 1960, the organization of completely autonomous retirement centers for the elderly as well as by the guidelines used by a variety of foundations in choosing the requests for grants they will fund.
For United Methodist policy makers, one of the most useful diagnostic tools may be to contrast the rise in the annual death rate among UM members and the decline in the annual death rate among Americans age 14 and over. Back in 1950, that indicator was higher for Americans age 14 and over than for Methodist members. In 2008, the annual death rate was 13.4 per 1000 UM Church members and 10.4 per 1000 Americans age 14 and over.
Those rates crossed on the graph back in the 1970s so this is not new news! One explanation is the cutback on planting new missions designed to reach, attract, serve, assimilate, disciple, and challenge younger generations. A second explanation can be seen in the preference of younger generations of Protestant churchgoers for large congregations contrasted with the increase in the proportion of UM congregations reporting an average worship attendance of fewer than 35.
In summary, what this retired church planner missed in the Call to Action was the diagnostic process that could become the foundation for the prescription in that action. At least a few respondents to the Call to Action contend that in every United Methodist episcopal area the resident bishop is the only person with both the authority and the responsibility to create a strategy team for that episcopal area. That team could and should prepare what could be the first draft of a comprehensive and customized conference strategy that could be, along with an equally comprehensive and customized description of “contemporary reality” in that annual conference, the number one reference point used by strategy teams in each congregation in that episcopal area.
Between 1960 and 2002, I enjoyed the opportunity to serve as the “outside third party” consultant to dozens of regional denominational strategy efforts in a score of Protestant denominations as they designed a three- or five- or seven-year ministry plan for that regional judicatory. One of the lessons I learned was, “Yes, it can be done, but a comprehensive action plan must be based on learnings derived from a comprehensive diagnostic process.”
Lyle E. Schaller is the most widely read and respected writer on congregational life today. He is an ordained elder within the United Methodist Church and the author of dozens of books on congregational vitality. When a national poll was conducted by Hartford Seminary Center for Social and Religious Research of executives of Protestant denominations and religion writers, Schaller’s name topped the list more often than anyone else in response to “who had been especially influential in their thinking about religion in America?” Among self-identified conservatives, moderates, and liberals, Schaller was followed by Henri Nouwen, Martin E. Marty, Robert MacAfee Brown, and Billy Graham.
by Steve | Apr 1, 2011 | Magazine Articles
Great joy
I want to comment on two articles in the January/February 2011 issue.
“Experiencing the Supernatural” brought great joy to my heart! I have been claiming John 14:12 within the various churches I’ve pastored since 1977—often to be faced with blank stares or even open rejection. However, I have also seen great movings of the Holy Spirit in churches hungry to overcome past non-Biblical teaching concerning miracles and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The positive results have sometimes happened when doing a series of teachings on the Holy Spirit to people willing to receive and flow in the Spirit. The greatest hindrances have been spiritual unconcern or previous false teachings concerning gifts of the Holy Spirit, especially the misuse of the gift of tongues.
Praise the Lord for the new Methodist School for Supernatural Ministry. I’m praying this will continue to gain traction as people get tired of simply playing church and instead become empowered with the power of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because this is a direct fulfillment of a ministry Jesus gave to the church. When we properly uplift Him, as opposed to those simply worshipping their limited or faulty understanding of the Holy Spirit, a new wave of revival will spread across Methodism. As someone once said, “If you want more of the Holy Spirit, draw closer to Christ!”
Concerning “UM mission agency discusses budget and theology,” what I find is the typical ongoing reorganization that keeps turning the same crank.
Many years ago (1990s), I was the chairman of the board of one of the mission agencies within Red Bird Missionary Conference. At that time we had a representative from New York come to the mountains of Eastern Kentucky with the specific purpose of teaching us how to better accomplish missions in the mountains. After much talk there was a question and answer time. So I asked, “Can you tell me how many more souls will be led to Christ if we implement the things you are teaching?” The answer was, “That is an irrelevant question.”
Such an attitude that ignores John Wesley’s mandate to “Offer them Christ” may explain part of the decline the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) is dealing with. Good works are wonderful, but if they ignore the basic need for people to come into a living relationship with Christ, we are little more than one more welfare agency.
I applaud the Challenging the Mission work on the Theology of Mission draft. I’m waiting to read it and see if it truly leads people to Christ through a renewed emphasis on evangelism. Bishop Peter Weaver from Boston is right on. However, as he said, “I find the theological statement an improvement, but not quite there.” I join him in yearning for a “clarion trumpet call.” His thoughts about the Theology of Mission draft—“I believe, reflects some of the lukewarmness of the church”— speaks volumes. I’m praying that this doesn’t grow cold like the commission tasked with defining the mission of the church many General Conferences ago. After four years of work, they needed four more. Perhaps we simply need to read the Word!
Richard E. Held
Burnside UM Church
Somerset, Kentucky
United Mythodism
I have resigned my position as a pastor of a United Methodist Church. This decision became much easier as I continued to read your magazine and experience what was going on in the Wisconsin Conference. I can no longer with good conscience continue to operate within a denomination that, on paper, voices traditional Wesleyan beliefs but in practice endorses everything that goes against these stated beliefs.
Your magazine has helped my decision. I have read the articles in which you recognized that the differences between the two sides are much deeper than the surface symptoms, that they are theological and scriptural. And while I understand that you have labeled yourself a “renewal” movement and therefore, by definition, have to work for the renewal of the denomination, I am convinced that as an organization you fail to recognize that you are trying to cure a terminally ill patient.
The United Methodist Church is hemorrhaging members, and in my experience as a pastor of a UM church, unable to attract and keep new members because of our liberal reputation. New members are shocked to learn, through various sources, that their giving goes to support abortion lobbying in Washington, that their youth camps could encourage students to “come out of the closet,” that they are investing in a church, that with one pastoral change could become a bastion of liberalism, and that there is no system in place to bring accountability to all of this.
But when it comes to organizations like yours the problem worsens: 1) this disease is treated like a cold when it is a cancer and 2) groups like yours, while laudable in their efforts, are also either naïve in thinking that renewal is going to come to the large number of leaders and institutions who are convinced they are correct in their interpretation and theology or worse, you have embraced the “open” motto more so than the purity of the faith you have been entrusted with. After serving as a pastor in the denomination, I fear it is a malignant combination of the two.
After reading your magazine for years, I am convinced that you think you are dealing with a cold. Though I have read your recognition of the deeper issues, your treatment is not at the level of the disease. You support and engage in “holy conferencing” but what is holy about the conversations? Please show me in scripture where civil conversation was encouraged in lieu of the maintenance of the purity of the faith.
I fear you embrace “open” and “conferencing” more than you do “holy.” In my conference, rainbow scarves predominate at our Annual Conference among elders and those being ordained, pastors share parsonages with same sex partners, put rainbow markers on their signs, and invite other churches to “Prayerfully Pro-choice rallies” with no repercussions and all under the guise that part of being “United Methodist” is the wonderful ability to embrace a wide spectrum of ideas and live and serve in unity. Thus, I am invited to earnestly listen to and discuss the issue of “homosexuality” year after year, pay the salaries of those I would consider opposed to the faith and ruining the denomination, all under the conditions that I recognize that all of us are children of God, have the abiding witness of the Spirit, and are working from the same playbook.
Having read your magazine for years, I have come to the conclusion that renewal movements are futile because you embrace “Open minds, hearts, and doors” and “cordial conferencing” more than the purity of Gospel or the Wesleyan heritage. I am convinced that the only answer is a split in this denomination. I am convinced that for the sake of integrity and the purity of the Gospel, I can no longer serve in the United Methodist system.
Mark Trump
Wisconsin
Jeers
I give Jeers to Good News for printing letters signed “Name Withheld” (January/February 2011). Anonymous letters are never “good news” regardless of their take on any issue.
Also, I thought that rock-ribbed, “I am not ashamed of the gospel,” evangelicals would be expected to stand up and be counted. What good does it do to anonymously bemoan the state of the United Methodist Church and tell us of your leaving? Where’s the renewal? Where’s the faith and hope? It appears to be nothing more than bitter catharsis.
As a young seminarian in the 1980s, I got on board the “us against them” train. In my opinion, this posture fuels some, though not all of the Good News movement. It felt good at the time. I assumed that I was on God’s team fighting the forces of Satan, evil, and of course liberal theology. In my day, as a seminarian, it was actually trendy to be ashamed to be a United Methodist. We went ahead and became United Methodist pastors anyway, feigning our anxiety all the way to the ordination altar, into the pastorate and pension program. Ah, what a cross it was to bear!
After 25 years as a pastor, I have come to believe that much of the “liberal verses conservative” debate is a tool of the evil one. It distracts us from proclaiming the good news of Jesus and doing the things he commanded. “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things I have asked?” (Luke 6:46).
The UM Church will never be a perfect church. We will never be a confessional church. We are a diverse church—the spiritual womb of both Rush Limbaugh and Hillary Clinton. If you can’t find a home within the drip line of our vast umbrella, perhaps you need to move on.
Personally, I think that Jesus is alive and well in the hearts and minds of the people of the United Methodist Church. With all its imperfections, I’m proud to call the United Methodist Church my home.
Jim Roberts
Oak Hill UM Church
Austin, Texas
God’s heavy work
Far too often we hear about people thinking of leaving, or have already left the United Methodist Church because of the moral decline we are experiencing. There were two letters in the January/February edition of Good News expressing discouragement in our church. I’ve even heard of a pastor who suggested to a couple that they might be happier in another church, so they left.
I too quit the UM Church for four hours. It was the night the Episcopalians consecrated a practicing homosexual as bishop. I was so agitated I couldn’t sleep. So I explained it all to God. Everything that could be said had been said. Folks wouldn’t listen to me anyway. Then God made it clear to me that he needs witnesses; quitting won’t help. My life has changed a lot since then, and is now focused on God’s work.
Sure, it is discouraging when people don’t listen, but God is doing the heavy work here. All we have to do is continue to tell the truth of the Bible. See Ezekiel 3:4-11.
Mike Peters
Rockford, Illinois
