by Steve | Jul 2, 1982 | Archive - 1982
Archive: Why I Stay within the UM Church
by Marti Bennett, Homemaker and UM Layperson Durham, North Carolina
As I considered joining the million or so Methodists who have exited before me, I began visiting (early service!) another denomination. This other denomination does not pulpit-pound hell-fire and damnation, but it does proclaim with profound certainty and dignity that there is sin, that I am afflicted with it, that I cannot avoid repentance by denying sin’s existence, that I am accountable—and whether or not I like it is entirely beside the point. Always balancing this proclamation is the equally profound and clear reassurance of a Redeemer who is worthy of the name.
In short, I have come face to face with a proclamation—without apology—of Law and Gospel. This seemed wistfully reminiscent. I re-read Romans and then I re-read John Wesley and then Albert Outler. To my amazement—I am a Methodist! However, I do have a problem: the United Methodist Church is not Methodist!
It seems John Wesley had a few ideas on sin himself. In fact, he went so far as to say that sin is the fundamental point which “differences Heathenism from Christianity” and that if you denied it “you were but a Heathen still.” Wesley went on to say that it was absurd to “offer a Physician to them that are whole—or at least imagine themselves to be … you are first to convince them that they are sick.”
Amazing to me that the Methodist clergy have not picked up on that! It seems to me we are getting more and more of the gospel that is no-gospel as stated by Richard Niebuhr: “A God without wrath who brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” Can’t be done. But we seem to have a bunch of people trying!
Also, Outler is saying that the UM Church has moved so far to the “I’m O.K., You’re O.K. syndrome,” that we are dangerously close to, or have already embraced, the Pelagian heresy.[1] There seems to be more concern about this among the laity than among the clergy.
I have tried to figure out why this should be and then concluded that the liberal minister has a lot going for him. He does not rock the proverbial boat. The minister himself is in a tight political bind. (The layman is no fool—he understands that the minister knows a steady boat looks best on the records.) The liberal minister also tries to keep us comfortable. So we hear: “There is no real sin to worry about.” Or at least if there is, we’ll get it all out of the way in the Prayer of Confession. “There is no hell—so don’t worry about it.” We are all O.K., just different opinions. We do not have to take the Law seriously and can thereby avoid any radical change or commitment in our lives. We can be made whole by self-acceptance and self-realization through meaningful encounters and peak experiences. If we run into any trouble, be assured there are workshops and self-help kits available, complete with sub-numbers and sub-letters “ad nauseam. “It is all O.K. as long as we are comfortable,” says the liberal minister.
That is nice, but it just doesn’t work. As Outler says, there is just enough truth in that to make it a formidable lie.
It does not work because I am not O.K.; many of my friends are not O.K.; The United Methodist Church, in my opinion, is not O.K.! It is like trying to cure pneumonia with talcum powder. We are comforted for a while, but then the fever will win out. If we continue to insist on comfort and talc, then we die. We need radical treatment, unpleasant though it may be. For us to be truly O.K., the sinner must be called upon to repent. It is at this point, and only at this point, that the Gospel can work with its freedom and joy and vitality and assurance! It can’t and won’t work the other way around. Oh well–I have to be honest–I believe that Wesley did say that it just might work “one time out of a thousand—maybe.”
We have tension all right: between the liberals and the fundamentalists, between Good News and Methodist Federation for Social Action, and between the Biblicists and the form critics. However, the tension is in the wrong place. There must always be tension to effect change. If I recall my theology correctly, the tension should come between the Law and the Gospel. This is next to impossible these days since Law is being preached in very few places. No wonder anxiety exists. We are denying the fact that we are desperately ill and then wonder why we don’t get well. The church is trying to make us feel better without first making us well. Redemption cannot work without repentance.
I am called negative or judgmental when I mention the reality of sin. I am countered with: “Oh, but we must smile and be positive. Oh, you take yourself too seriously. Oh, we have to try new things. Oh, but we must do it this way—it works!” So does castor oil.
I cannot sit quietly watching millions leave the United Methodist Church, then hearing our leaders say, “O.K., let’s spend another few thousand for new brochures, new kits, new quadrennium slogans, more workshops, and see if we can’t find a solution to this thing.” We have the solution. The solution is Christ! We need to affirm Him, but the Gospel must be presented in the context of the problem He came to deal with—sin.
The UM Church is ready for what Outler calls the Third Great Awakening. I wonder if it must come from the laity rather than the clergy. I used to look askance at the congregation which always stirred up trouble with the district superintendent and the bishop asking for a “good preacher” who could meet their needs. Could this not be the way it must begin? The layman is beginning to be aware of his deep and desperate sickness—and this whether or not the clergy is brave enough to call it by its real name—sin. The layman is awakening to the knowledge that his health and his cure and his life depend upon a legitimate understanding of the disease—sin.
More and more we are uncomfortable with the “comfort” gospel of the liberals. I think that it is time to raise a holy indignation until we are sent clergy with the courage to preach the Gospel. If this pressure from the laity drives district superintendents and bishops and deans of seminaries crazy—so be it.
The alternative is infinitely and eternally worse. Even if the clergy do not believe in hell—I do. To paraphrase John Donne (he was no slack preacher himself!) hundreds of years ago: “When ye die and hills melt and flames lick at ye—what will ye then? Repent? Too late! Too late!” I was going to slip quietly away with the other million or so ex-Methodists, but I have discovered that I am a Methodist. I love the Wesleyan tradition of theology and evangelism, but I am disheartened at not finding much of it in the United Methodist system. I dream with Outler of a Third Great Awakening led by a courageous clergy. The laymen are waiting—but not too patiently
[1] Pelagian, a 4th century British monk, denied the doctrine of original sin. The free will of man, he maintained, was the same as Adams before the fall, capable of choosing good or evil. Wesley, on the other hand, stated that since the fall, the moral image of God in man had been marred, carried down through all mankind, for all were in the loins of Adam when he sinned. In his writings, Wesley characterized the transmission of original sin as a disease. His emphasis was on the fact that this is true and not on how this is true; it is a matter of faith about a doctrine discerned from Biblical evidence. Thus, man is only “free” to do evil, not good; man is not even able to will good on his own, only by the grace of God (prevenient grace) available to all.
by Steve | Sep 3, 2023 | Front Page News
Africa Initiative Speaks:
Why Disaffiliation is an option for the United Methodist Church in Africa
September 2, 2023
Introduction
Over the past months, much has been written by proponents of the “regionalization plan,” claiming that they have received overwhelming endorsements for its passage at the forthcoming 2024 General Conference. They have also indicated their perceived justifications as to why they claim regionalization is the way forward for keeping The United Methodist Church (UMC) “global and united.” These proponents may be correct, given that both the Connectional Table of the UMC and the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters have indicated their support for regionalization. However, the UMC Africa Initiative holds a contrary view. We write this article, therefore, to elucidate the position of the majority of United Methodists in Africa (clergy and laity) on why we reject regionalization, and rather opt for disaffiliation as our best option.
The traumatic General Conference of 2019 in St. Louis was supposed to end the conflict in The United Methodist Church over its ministry with LGBTQ persons, including issues of same-gender marriage, and the election and consecration of gay persons as episcopal leaders within the UMC. Parts of the Traditional Plan were adopted, which maintained the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and continued to restrict the ordination of partnered gays and lesbians. Accountability to maintain the Book of Discipline was also increased. However, in the aftermath of the 2019 General Conference, about 28 annual conferences in the U.S. and several in Europe voted for resolutions disapproving the changes adopted in St. Louis by the General Conference, the UMC’s highest decision making body. Some of these conferences vowed not to enforce the Discipline, yet claiming to still be in good standing with the United Methodists. Some bishops made similar statements that they would not uphold parts of the Discipline that they disagreed with. Since then, they have violated several laws of the church and continue to do so with impunity.
We wonder, if the leadership of a nation lives in flagrant disobedience to its own governing constitution, thereby fostering acts of lawlessness, what would they expect of their subjects. Such has been the case within the UMC global. Since the St. Louis 2019 Special Session of the General Conference, the church has proved ungovernable by the actions of several politically influential and economically affluent liberal and progressive leaders within the church, including some bishops. They have determined that if decisions of the General Conference do not go their way, they will disobey them until they are changed. Such an attitude on the part of some episcopal and other influential leaders within the church does not suggest that attempts at regionalization of the denomination would do any better. The acts of lawlessness, as describes in the book of Judges, would only increase within global UMC. As the Scripture points out, “In those days, Israel had no king, and everyone did as he saw fit” (Judges 17:6, NIV).
Efforts to Address our Disagreement
The refusal to abide by the Discipline across much of the U.S. and parts of Europe caused a crisis in the church. The actions of gross disobedience to church laws by some members of the Council of Bishops, some annual conferences, as well as some influential leaders brought into question the relevance of their continued leadership of the church. Amidst the crisis, the late Bishop John K. Yambasu of the Sierra Leone Episcopal Area convened a meeting of representatives from across the theological spectrum. After several months of negotiations, the group endorsed a Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation, announced publicly in January 2020. The Protocol recognized that it was proving impossible for the diverse theological perspectives held within the worldwide UMC to remain together in one church.
The Protocol provided a uniform pathway for traditionalists to disaffiliate from the UM Church; even though it should have been the progressives disaffiliating since it was their One Church Plan that failed to pass at the 2019 General Conference; while the Traditional Plan passed, thus maintaining the traditional stance of the church that had governed its life and ministries since the merger of the Evangelical United Brethren Church and the Methodist Church in 1968. However, for the sake of peace, traditionalists accepted to part ways with their liberal and progressive brothers and sisters, and trusting God to supply all our needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus. The agreement of the Protocol also allowed central conferences, annual conferences, and local churches to vote to disaffiliate at minimal cost, while retaining their buildings and property. In addition, it gave the new traditionalist denomination evolving from the UMC $25 million in start-up money from reserve funds of the UMC. But, to our shock and dismay, progressives and centrists who had supported the Protocol later rescinded their decision, thereby putting all the work of the Protocol in a limbo.
Furthermore, the Protocol had asked bishops to delay any complaints or charges against clergy for performing a same-sex wedding or being an ordained self-avowed practicing homosexual. Many bishops agreed to this delay, which had the effect of encouraging more same-sex weddings to take place and allowed annual conferences to begin more openly ordaining partnered gays and lesbians, even though that was not the intent for delaying complaints. It was done in good faith, in the hope of fostering peace toward amicable separation. Regrettably, several progressive U.S. annual conferences took advantage of that agreement and, in 2022 and 2023, ordained more openly gay clergy. As if their actions to elect a partnered lesbian as bishop in 2016 against the constitution of the church and the decision of the Judicial Council was not enough of a gross violation, the progressives went ahead in 2022 to elect another partnered gay man as a bishop in the Western Jurisdiction. This means that there are now two openly gay/lesbian bishops of the whole church. Now, how can a part of the church that is pushing for regionalization continue to grossly violate our common Book of Discipline, the decision of the General Conference, and the Judicial Council, and still advocate for a United Methodist Church comprising of traditionalists and progressives? How can unity, in the true sense of the word ever exist within such a denomination when one wing of the church can violate our commonly held decisions at will with impunity, and when our biblical and theological perspectives on very cardinal issues differ so widely? If all of these vices, and gross disobedient actions of the liberal/progressive wing of the church are taking place when traditionalists and progressives have not yet officially separated, one wonders what the situation would be like if regionalization passes at the forthcoming General Conference, and every region begins to make their own governing laws without the inputs of other regions, in the same denomination.
Why Disaffiliation is our best option
In view of the prevailing situations within the worldwide UMC, we do not need additional convincing proofs that both traditionalists and progressives can no longer remain in one denomination and faithfully carry out the mission of the church. We are fully convinced that, disaffiliation of traditionalists from the UMC is our best option, going forward. The continued violation of church laws by the economically powerful and politically influential liberal and progressive leaders, coupled with the acquiescence of some of their progressive counterparts in Africa are sufficient proofs that remaining together as one church, following 2024 General Conference is inconceivable and impossible.
These liberal and progressive brothers and sisters within the UMC have over and again made is crystal clear that they do not care about our biblical understanding and practices, and our religious and cultural values. What matters most to them is the imposition of their liberal/progressive views and practices upon the denomination. Therefore if it means that they would take advantage of the poverty-stricken condition of some African annual conferences and use their financial powers to plant some of their liberal cultures and practices amongst them, they would do so with no regrets. As example, despite being fully aware that the UMC in Africa has made it clear that we do not condone the practice of homosexuality, the Reconciling Ministry Network within the UMC is championing the acceptance of homosexuality within the worldwide UMC. It has recently supported the planting of two reconciling churches in the Kenya-Ethiopia Annual Conference. They have done so surreptitiously without disclosing their true identity to a people unfamiliar with their promotion of same-gender marriage, and LBGTQ practices within the church.
Sadly, Our Africa College of bishops, who themselves wrote a press release to the global UMC in 2015 denouncing the legalization of homosexuality and LBGTQ practices, have condoned all these evils under their watch with an approval of silence. By their silence, they have approved of the actions of their colleague, Bishop Daniel Wandabula of the East Africa Episcopal Area, who oversees the Kenya-Ethiopia Annual Conference. Not only did Bishop Wandabula collaborate with the Reconciling Ministry Network to plant these gay churches in Kenya (something he would never do in his home country, Uganda, without facing the consequences of the law), he officially consecrated these gay churches as official congregations of the Kenya-Ethiopia Annual Conference. What a betrayal of the sacred office that Bishop Wandabula occupies! Does he qualify to continue to serve the UMC in Africa as a shepherding pastor? Like many African clergy and members, I strongly doubt. This is why disaffiliation is the best option for traditionalists in general, and the UMC in Africa in particular. Our souls are wounded by these acts of defiance against the clear teachings of Scripture and the Book of Discipline that governs the UMC globally. We cannot continue to make disciples of Jesus Christ within such an ecclesiastical context, and expect them to become his faithful followers.
Another case in point is the action of the Council of Bishops to attempt to usurp the function of the Judicial Council by interpreting a decision of the General Conference. The Judicial Council decreed that elections of bishops should take place in 2022 to replace bishops due for retirement. However, with no legal authority to do so and without consultation with the Committees on Episcopacy in each Central Conference, the Africa College of Bishops, with the acquiescence the Council of Bishops, refused to hold elections in the Central Conferences of Africa. Whereas, some of the African bishops refusing to step down have long passed retirement age in 2020, the Council of Bishops play blind eye to their insistence to stay on. We are cognizant of the fact that such a decision would have never been allowed by the Council of Bishops in any jurisdictional conference. But, for Africa, it was okay with them to treat us differently. This act of oppression and suppression of the rights of members of the UMC in Africa is nothing short of neo-colonialism.
This was not the case in 2016. Following General Conference in Portland, Oregon, all bishops across the connections who were due for retirement were compelled by the same Council of Bishops to step down by August of that year, 2016, and replaced with interim bishops until elections were held. Former Bishop John G. Innis of Liberia was one of such Bishops whom the Council of Bishops forcibly retired by August 2016 and replaced with an interim Bishop until the Liberian episcopal election was held in December 2016. However, this time around they have ignored that provision of the Book of Discipline. The action of the Council of the Bishops and their progressive leaning colleagues in Africa has disenfranchised the members of the UMC in Africa from exercising their rights to elect and replace retired bishops. It appears, that action is a part of their agenda to “divide and conquer” — that is, to liberalize parts of the church in Africa so that when disaffiliation happens they would still have a presence on the continent. This is an act neo-colonialism to the core, and we, Africa Initiative, representing the majority voice of the UMC in Africa, vehemently oppose it.
The perception of most liberals and progressives of the church in Africa is that we are poverty-stricken and ignorant, as one bishop in the U.S. said, “[we are] children who need to grow up.” For them, to possess a progressive mindset, and submit to progressive tenets and practices, even if they contradict the clear teachings of Scripture, means that they are intellectually sophisticated. Hence, they claim leaders of African United Methodism must accept progressivism to demonstrate growth.
Despite their perceptions of the UMC in Africa, we are not ignorant people. Regarding financial resources, our challenge may be the practice of honest Christian stewardship of God’s resources entrusted to our care, but we are not without resources. God is with us to carry on the mission of the church in making Christ-centered disciples for the transformation of the African Continent in particular, and the world in general. And God is big enough to meet our every need. Therefore, we strongly disagree with the perceptions of these liberals and progressives of the UMC in Africa. Besides, it is obvious that the practice of biblical and theological liberalism and progressivism has only contributed to a rapid decline of the church in America and Europe, the loss of its youthful population to secularism and Islam, and great uncertainty about its sustainable future.
On the contrary, in our commitment to biblical Christianity, as handed down to us since the birth of the Christian church, and our refusal to adapt progressive tenets within the African Church, we continue to witness daily massive evangelization, new church plants, Christ-centered discipleship and rapid growth. About sixty-five percent of the African church membership is within the age range of 18 to 35 years, thus signaling a church with a sustainable future. Therefore, if our loyalty to Christ and commitment to the Gospel on the one hand, and our rejection of liberalism and progressivism on the other hand leads to continued numerical and spiritual growth of the church in Africa, we prefer the former than the latter.
We are cognizant of the fact that, liberal and progressive bishops and influential leaders of boards and agencies of the UMC do not have to visit or live in Africa to impose their agenda in some annual conferences here. As long as their demands can be carried out by some of their counterparts who rely upon them for financial resources for salaries and other material resources to function, they believe they can fulfill their goals. This is neo-colonialism, and we reject it. Some African bishops and leaders are fully aware that the Continent of Africa is abundantly wealthy. If its resources are adequately mobilized and utilized to benefit the church, our partnership with U.S. and European churches and institutions would be respectfully and mutually benefitting. But, as the situation stands, the church in Africa is disadvantaged because its independence and decisions are often compromised because of an over-dependence upon highly liberal and progressive churches and institutions in the U.S. and Europe. Despite our current challenges, disaffiliation remains our best option, not only would it save the African church from further liberal and progressive persuasions, its leadership would be compelled to look within and pursue the path of self-sustainability.
Conclusion
We are therefore resolved that, the liberals and progressives within our global connections may “have the whole world, but give us Jesus.” Let us go our separate ways and serve the Lord. We are content to serve the Lord in our poverty and make Christ-centered disciples than to compromise our faith and ascribe to liberal and progressive tenets for American dollars from progressives and liberals. It is within our poverty that we continue to make more disciples for Jesus Christ that are biblically committed, Christ-centered, evangelistically functional, Holy Spirit-empowered, and discipleship-driven. That is why the Central Conferences now account for more membership within our global connection than the five jurisdictions of the U.S. And the UMC in Africa now leads in membership growth globally. We want to continue to grow unperturbed. This is our holy passion and vision.
Liberal and progressive leaders of the UMC in the U.S. and Europe cannot compel the UMC in Africa to be subjugated to their progressive beliefs and practices, neither can they force us to remain within a denomination that has abandoned the teachings of Scripture on the issues of same-gender marriage, ordination of LGBTQIA+ and the consecration of gay/lesbian persons as bishops. We cannot walk together, and do ministry together having strong opposing biblical and theological views on these matters. We cannot continue to be a part of a church where some of our episcopal leaders would condone the unscriptural and unethical behaviors of their colleagues.
All of the above is convincing evidence that the UMC under its present leadership is an institution opposed to historical Christianity, the faith embraced and practiced by the vast majority of Christians in all times and in all places. Unlike a few in Africa who have selected to succumb to the whims and caprices of their progressive counterparts in the U.S. and parts of Europe, we will not sacrifice nor compromise our understanding and practice of the Scripture for American dollars from liberals and progressives. Our position is emphatic, “You may have the whole world, with all its resources, but give us Jesus.” Let it not therefore surprise anyone that, following the 2024 General Conference, given all of the manipulations that have taken place to change the language of the Discipline, and push through the regionalization plan, many annual conferences in Africa will vote to disaffiliate from the UM Church. We will move out along with our spiritual, human, financial, and material resources, because, at this juncture, disaffiliation is our best option.
Rev. Dr. Jerry P. Kulah
General Coordinator, Africa Initiative
On behalf of the UMC Africa Initiative
by Steve | Oct 6, 2022 | In the News
By Thomas Lambrecht
As many United Methodist congregations are discerning their future, a small percentage who choose to disaffiliate from the denomination are choosing also to become an independent congregation. Given the dysfunction of The United Methodist Church and the denominational oppression experienced by some congregations, such a choice is understandable. It can be similar to the person who experiences a bad marriage determining never to get married again.
Becoming independent can be exhilarating. No one telling you what to do. No one demanding that you pay for this or that. No one telling you whom you must have as a pastor. You are free to structure your church as you like. You can decide as a congregation whether or not to support particular missions. It’s the same feeling one gets the first time one leaves home to live on one’s own.
Pretty soon, however, reality sets in. The responsibility of making all the decisions for a congregation without any guidance or support can become overwhelming. This is particularly true for smaller and mid-sized congregations.
That is why it is good to remember the reasons for being part of a larger denominational group.
Security in Doctrine
We are not saved from our sins and transformed into the image of Jesus by the correctness of our beliefs. But what we believe certainly influences our ability to experience salvation and informs the kind of life we live as a Christian. This is true at both the individual and the congregational level.
If we believe that everyone is going to heaven, then it is not important for us to share the good news of Jesus Christ or for individuals to surrender their lives to the lordship of Christ. If we believe the Bible is fallible, then it is all right for us to compromise the teachings of Scripture in order to be more culturally acceptable. If we believe the Bible and the Church historically are wrong about certain activities being contrary to God’s will for us, then we will be comfortable ignoring those biblical standards in the way we live our lives.
That is why it is so important for us to get our doctrinal beliefs right. Incorrect beliefs can lead us away from God and cause us to live lives that are not in keeping with God’s desire for us.
The basic tenets of the Christian faith are not up for negotiation, either by individual persons or by individual congregations. The virtue of a denomination is that it has a set of beliefs that are consistent with historic Christian doctrine and vetted by a larger body of people. This helps keep individual Christians and individual congregations from going off the rails in their beliefs and “making shipwreck of their faith.” Doctrinal accountability is essential for the Christian life.
That accountability is especially true when our theological perspective is a minority view within the overall Body of Christ in the U.S. Among evangelical circles, the predominant theology is Calvinist, whereas Methodists take a Wesleyan/Arminian perspective on theology. A colleague who is a professor at Asbury Seminary has often remarked that Wesleyan/Methodist churches that go independent tend to become Calvinist in theology within a generation of their departure from a Wesleyan denomination. Doctrinal accountability can keep our churches faithful to a doctrinal perspective that is valuable and needed in the Body of Christ today.
In Africa, many freelance independent, non-denominational churches preach a prosperity gospel. For churches there, being part of an established Wesleyan denomination can help guard against the adoption of heretical doctrines that are harmful to their members in the end.
Accountability
That leads us to the next value of denominations: a system of accountability for both doctrine and behavior. In order to be effective, accountability has to be broader than what an individual congregation or its leaders can provide. Yes, it should not have to be this way, but in our fallen, sinful condition, we have human blind spots and mixed motivations that prevent us from seeing problems or from acting on the problems we do see, especially when we are close to the situation.
Throughout my ministry, I have witnessed repeatedly a congregation victimized by pastoral leadership that transgresses the boundaries of Christian behavior. Christianity Today recently produced a podcast [https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/podcasts/rise-and-fall-of-mars-hill/] series that chronicles the rise and fall of Mars Hill Church, a megachurch based in Seattle, Washington. The congregation grew from a small Bible study to a multi-site congregation with 15 locations in four states. Weekend attendance was over 12,000. Then the founding pastor and other leaders were accused of “bullying” and “patterns of persistent sinful behavior.” Within 18 months, that giant church ceased to exist. Ironically, that founding pastor became pastor of another church and allegedly continues some of the same dysfunctional patterns.
One can reel off the names of other high-profile pastors and ministry leaders who for years perpetuated a pattern of life and ministry that was deceitful and destructive. Those with oversight responsibility were too close to the situation or the person to see the problems.
In Africa and other parts of the world, the pastor is sometimes given unbridled power in the congregation. We have heard reports of some leaders who take advantage of their position for personal gain. The church becomes an environment where those in charge decide on their own what is right, rather than looking to Scripture and denominational policies and procedures. In such an atmosphere, pastors and church members alike can be harmed by arbitrary and dictatorial leadership. Denominational accountability is the only thing that can protect pastors and church members from harm.
Denominational accountability systems do not always work the way they are intended (as our own United Methodist Church’s failures in this regard testify). But at least there is a system of greater accountability that can be reformed and made more effective. I believe the system envisioned for the proposed Global Methodist Church enhances accountability and fairness in a way that addresses some of the shortfalls in our UM accountability system. Certainly, there is a much greater possibility of holding leaders and congregations accountable when that accountability comes from outside the situation. We are often much more able to see and respond to the sins and shortcomings of others than we are in ourselves or our own families.
The Power of Collective Action
The United Methodist Church is a small church denomination. Over 75 percent of the more than 30,000 congregations in the U.S. average fewer than 100 in worship attendance. Individually, small churches have limited resources to accomplish large projects. Collectively, however, churches working and contributing together can do great things for God. That is one area where The United Methodist Church has leveraged our connectional system to make a real-world difference in the lives of people all over the globe. When it comes to hunger relief, poverty alleviation, education, ministerial training, and health care to name just a few areas, the UM Church has been able to pool the resources of many small churches to achieve significant results.
It is possible for independent churches to join associations of churches or otherwise link to support missions and ministries they agree with. The value of doing so as a denomination is to have the confidence that the missions and ministries supported by the denomination are consistent with the denomination’s doctrinal and moral standards. A denomination can make a long-term commitment to a geographic area or a certain large project that can be sustained, despite the fact that individual congregations might have to drop their support for a time, as other congregations come on board to make up the shortfall. There is a greater chance of consistency and effectiveness with denominational programs that have built-in oversight and accountability from outside (as mentioned earlier).
Providing Pastoral Leadership
One of the most important tasks of a denomination is to provide pastoral leadership to its congregations. The denomination vets and approves candidates for a pastoral position in terms of doctrine, skills, and personal lives. This is work that an independent congregation would have to do for itself, often without the expertise in personnel work and theology to make informed judgments. In the case of independent congregations, finding a pastor takes a number of months and often a year or more, during which time the congregation is without a pastor. Smaller congregations will attract fewer and less qualified applicants, whereas, in a denominational system clergy express their willingness to serve where needed.
Again, the United Methodist system of clergy placement is not perfect. Many appointments are good matches between congregation and pastor. Other times, the match is not good. Part of the reason for this mismatch is the guaranteed appointment, meaning all United Methodist clergy must be assigned a place to serve. The Global Methodist Church will not have a guaranteed appointment, eliminating the situation where clergy who are theologically incompatible or deficient in skills still must receive an appointment to a church regardless. The GM Church is also committed to more extensive consultation with both potential clergy and congregations to ensure the best possible match and to enable longer-term pastorates.
The important point is that, when done well, the denominational process can supply churches with quality, committed pastoral leaders who will help the congregation realize its potential. It can help guard against clergy who are doctrinally or personally unqualified to serve in leadership. The process can do most of the heavy lifting that would otherwise fall to inexperienced volunteers in the local congregation.
Practical Resources
What is a good curriculum for your church’s Sunday school? What would be a good Bible study on stewardship? How can we get our youth more involved in the life of the congregation? What outreach strategies might be effective in our community? What type of pension, health insurance, and property insurance should our church provide? How much should we pay our pastor?
The list of questions and decisions that a local church needs to deal with is endless. A denomination can give a local church the resources to address these questions. In some cases (like the pension and insurance question), the denomination can provide a program the local church can plug into that it could not duplicate on its own.
I am excited that the GM Church has already worked through various task forces and commissions to identify and flesh out resources and ministry models that can help guide local churches into more effective ministry in many different areas. A denomination can provide those resources and guidance for local churches in a way that the local church can trust. Those resources will be theologically consistent with the denomination’s doctrine and philosophy of ministry. Those resources will be tried and proven as workable and practical. Each congregation will not have to reinvent the wheel, but can draw upon the pooled wisdom and resources that many churches being part of one denomination can provide. Having one place to turn for ideas and guidance will save time and energy at the local level that can be effectively directed into actual ministry.
Connectional DNA
Being in connection with one another is part of the Methodist/Wesleyan DNA. The very first Methodist preachers in England were those “in connexion” with John Wesley. The personal connection with Wesley, and then the broader connection within an annual conference, was one of the hallmarks of historic Methodism.
It is being connected with one another in a common understanding of doctrine and mission that enables the benefits outlined in the paragraphs above. We have experienced the value of connection in Methodism for nearly 300 years. It is when the connection breaks down, such as when individual bishops or clergy decide to act contrary to our Discipline, that the denomination suffers.
Not only does life as an independent congregation jeopardize our Wesleyan doctrinal continuity into the future. It jeopardizes the very identity of Methodists as those “in connexion” with other Methodists. To be independent contradicts what it means to be Methodist/Wesleyan.
Much more could be said about the benefits of being part of an effective denomination. Part of a brief childhood poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow speaks to our situation:
There was a little girl,
Who had a little curl,
Right in the middle of her forehead.
When she was good,
She was very good indeed,
But when she was bad she was horrid.
United Methodists have experienced some of the horrid aspects of being in a denomination that is dysfunctional and ineffective in some key ways. The temptation is to jettison the idea of a denomination entirely, believing that we can certainly do better on our own. That is a false temptation.
We are certainly better and more effective as churches and as individuals when we work together with like-minded believers. A denomination gives us the structure and the possibility of doing just that. Together, we can make our new denomination good and experience that it can be “very good indeed!”
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. Photo: Unsplash.
by Steve | Sep 14, 2022 | In the News
By Mindy Dennison
I was about 5 years old, sitting next to my mother in church when we came to the place in the service where we say the Lord’s Prayer. My mother looked down at me, a little taken aback, when I joined in the liturgy. I heard those familiar words recited so many times that they were ingrained in me already, even at such a young age.
It was still the beginning of my bringing up among “the people called Methodists.”
My memories of our little United Methodist church are many and golden. At Christmas, we hung the greens, placed “Chrismons” on the big tree, and lit the advent candles. I waved the branches on Palm Sunday, and sang “He Lives” on Easter.
I went to Sunday school. I attended VBS. I had the lead role in the Christmas musical when I was 8. In 5th grade, I attended “Sonshine” camp. In 6th grade, I was confirmed and baptized. In 7th grade, I joined the youth group and went on mission trips.
I wasn’t just told what to believe, but why we believed, and how to apply tradition, reason, and experience to the study of God’s Holy Word. As an analytical child with a need to understand the “how” and “why,” this intellectual approach to scriptural study and interpretation was important. In Methodism, science and faith were reconciled – not separate – celebrating and even validating each other.
The church nurtured my gift for music, which eventually became my vocation. I sang in the choir, I played handbells, my piano teacher was a member of our church and our recitals were held there. I first learned to read music from the hymnal. I was in 8th grade, when I sang my first Christmas Eve solo to a packed sanctuary – something I would do for the next 10 years.
As I grew up, The United Methodist Church continued to play a central role in my life.
I worked in church music programs, directing choirs and handbells to groups of all ages, from 3 to 93. I met and married my husband in a United Methodist campus ministry. I have been a United Methodist clergy spouse for 16 years. Our children have been welcomed into the nurseries, Sunday schools, VBSes, and church pews of over a dozen United Methodist congregations.
I say this to make the point: You’d be hard-pressed to find somebody more Methodist than I am. Of all the cradle Methodists in the world, I’m among the most Methodist. Just ask my Baptist friends!
But my lifelong history, my golden memories, my deep personal connections, my admiration for the Wesleyan quadrilateral, my commitment to thorough Scripture study, my fierce, long-rooted loyalty to the United Methodist denomination – all these could not withstand a truth that first crept and then crashed into my heart in recent years: the United Methodist denomination that raised me is gone. What remains of it has abandoned me and much of my traditional theology.
The decision for me and other orthodox United Methodists is not just about staying or going – it’s about accepting that we have already been cast aside by this institution and determining what we’re willing to compromise moving forward. Will it be our membership in this institution, or our traditional beliefs rooted in Scripture?
Four years ago, I not only denied this truth, I fought it. Vehemently. I considered myself a centrist, deeply loyal to the institution of The United Methodist Church. I saw the division. I heard the arguments. But I could not imagine my faith outside of the institution I championed for so long. In hindsight, I might have even made the denomination itself an idol in my life. My devotion was entirely misdirected.
The turning point for me happened with the special session of the General Conference in 2019. What I witnessed during the streaming of the proceedings, as well as on social media, from self-proclaimed progressive and centrist Methodists, was nothing short of alarming. It made me question what was really happening, and what was actually at stake for “the people called Methodist.” A strong conviction took root in my heart. This was about so much more than the presenting issue of human sexuality. Ultimately, this was a battle to determine at what altar we will serve: that of the institution, or The Kingdom of God.
There has been no shortage of complete disregard and open contempt for clearly stated teachings in our Book of Discipline. No doubt, you’ve heard accounts of this. But the ruling minority, those who serve in high positions of leadership within our denomination, do not align with the congregational majority. This is why open defiance to our social and theological doctrine has been allowed to persist, while threat and punishment take place against traditional Methodists who raise concerns. Denominational leadership is cherry-picking which parts of our doctrine and discipline it will uphold and enforce, giving preference to that which preserves the institution, not historic Christian beliefs. “Rules for thee and not for me.”
And woe to those who stand in the way. I could expound on this by sharing several disturbing stories of open hostility toward my family by progressive leaders in the United Methodist institution. I’ll just say that as a traditional clergy household, I’ve been holding my breath for the better part of three years.
But there is Good News: In the midst of great denominational turmoil, Jesus is still Lord. That has not changed, nor will it.
And for my fellow cradle Methodists, and for United Methodists everywhere who find themselves struggling with the idea of what comes next, I have this good news: meaningful and relevant ministry exists outside of the institution of The United Methodist Church. My prayers, presence, gifts, service, and witness won’t mean less outside of this denomination. We are members first and foremost of Christ’s Holy Church. The ministry that happens therein MUST be for the glory and in the name of Jesus Christ. Not in the name of Methodism, not in the name of John Wesley, not in the name of intellectualism, or politics, or even social justice. It must begin and end with fierce loyalty to the one and only Truth, the one and only Light, the one and only Life. This is the way.
Our mission is the same today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow, and our ability to carry out that mission is not determined by membership in anything but the body of Christ.
I don’t know what the future holds for me outside of The United Methodist Church. I may commit to another form of Methodist expression, perhaps through the Global Methodist Church or some other Wesleyan denomination. As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord. And even if we aren’t a people called United Methodist anymore, it is more important to me that we be a people called “faithful.”
Mindy Dennison is a lifelong United Methodist and, along with her husband and three kids, is active at Asbury Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Mindy is a former public school teacher turned entrepreneur and small business owner. Photo: Shutterstock.
by Steve | Mar 13, 2018 | Front Page News, In the News, Uncategorized
By Rob Renfroe –
Recently a progressive United Methodist pastor said to me, “I don’t understand why you can’t accept the local option. It lets pastors who want to marry gay couples do so. But it doesn’t compel people like you to perform such ceremonies. It allows annual conferences to ordain married homosexuals where that’s acceptable. But where the context is different – in the South, for example – you’re free not to. I don’t understand why you can’t live with that.”
I think that pastor got to the heart of the matter even though he didn’t realize it. And the heart of the matter is he doesn’t understand classical evangelicals. It has to be frustrating for progressives to come up with an approach they believe to be very reasonable and that allows everyone to do what they desire, only for us to find it unacceptable. After all, what could be more American than letting everyone “have it their way”?
What do progressives not get about us? For starters, we believe the Scriptures really are the word of God. When a pastor holds up a Bible in church and says, “The word of God for the people of God,” we don’t cross our fingers behind our backs, roll our eyes, or snicker when we respond, “Thanks be to God.” We honestly believe the Scriptures are “God-breathed” and, therefore, authoritative for our lives. We don’t think that we know more about salvation, sexuality, or the nature of God than the Bible does. We don’t believe we get to ignore or need to correct the parts of Scripture that a progressive culture finds hard to accept. Consequently, we cannot affirm any solution that allows pastors in the UM Church to teach or act contrary to what God has revealed in his written word. I know that progressive pastors who have been trained in liberal seminaries simply cannot comprehend that we would hold such a high view of Scripture. But that’s what we believe.
Progressives also do not comprehend how offensive it is for us to hear that all they want to do is provide a solution that “contextualizes” the Gospel. If all they meant by “contextualizing the Gospel” was thinking of creative ways to present Christ so that the Gospel spoke to people in different cultural settings, we’d be all for it. Missionaries attend months, if not years, of training to understand the culture they will be ministering in. How you present the Gospel to an atheistic philosophy professor in New England is much different from how you would share Christ with an uneducated, lower caste Hindu in India.
But when progressives talk about contextualizing the Gospel, they don’t mean presenting the same message in different ways. They mean changing the message to fit the values that culture holds dear. In the Bible Belt it’s still OK to teach traditional values because people there still accept marriage as one man and one woman. But in California, progressives tell us, to reach people you must have a liberalized sexual ethic, including the normalization of homosexual behavior and gay marriage. Why? Because people on the West Coast will turn you off if you tell them differently.
What progressives do not understand is that we traditionalists do not have a utilitarian view of truth. We don’t think the truth is whatever works or whatever sells. We don’t see the church as a soft drink company that is trying to offer something for everyone. Proclaiming the Gospel is not like trying to find a flavor that people will buy and decide that if it becomes popular enough, we’ll start selling it. Paul wrote, “You see, we are not like the many hucksters who preach for personal profit. We preach the word of God with sincerity and with Christ’s authority, knowing that God is watching us” (2 Corinthians 2.17). Progressives, true progressives, believe that people are free to create their own truth and whatever works for a person is true for that person. It’s hard for liberals to understand, but it is hurtful for us to see the Gospel treated as something so cheap. It is offensive for us to hear pastors and bishops present the truth of God’s word as a lump of clay that we can fashion into our own image or into the likeness of a fallen and sinful culture. Our job as Paul tells us is not to make the Gospel palatable, but plain.
Progressives also don’t understand how we see the work of the Holy Spirit. A resolution that is coming before my annual conference this May calls upon the church to change our sexual ethic because “the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing.” Evidently, they believe, the Holy Spirit is now revealing that same-gender sexual relations and same-sex marriage are acceptable in God’s sight. Of course, the sponsors of the resolution do not give a single reason to believe this is what the Spirit is doing. They simply state it as a fact.
What they don’t understand is that we will never be persuaded that “the new thing” the Spirit is doing is repealing the written word of God. The Spirit illumines our understanding of God and his will. The Spirit enables us to see in new ways the wonder of what God has done and what he has revealed – and even how these truths apply to our particular settings. But the Spirit never contradicts what the Scriptures teach because the Scriptures are God-breathed. Has God changed his mind, received more light along the way, or become more progressive as the ages have passed? If not, then how can the same God now be revealing a sexual ethic that contradicts what he has previously stated to be his will?
I get that progressives just don’t get us. We believe the Bible, all of it, is the inspired word of God. They don’t. We believe the truth is what it is, not what we make it into. They don’t. We believe that what the Spirit reveals will always be true to the Scriptures. They don’t. We are coming from such different places that I understand it’s difficult for liberals to comprehend how we think.
But what progressives and centrists need to get is this: we will not be able to stay in a church that denies the full inspiration, truth, and authority of the Scriptures. And that’s really what’s behind “the local option.”
That’s why traditional evangelicals continue to press for a faithful church with a sexual ethic that is true to Scripture. Either the UM Church remains committed to God’s word or the UM Church will split. Progressives don’t have to “get” that, but they do need to believe it.
Rob Renfroe is the president and publisher of Good News. He is the co-author with Walter Fenton of the new book titled Are We Really Better Together – An Evangelical Perspective on the Division within the UMC. This book describes just how deep the division is within the United Methodist Church, provides a critique of the various plans the bishops are considering, and gives answers to the most common reasons people give for liberalizing our sexual ethics.
