by Steve | Oct 23, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht –
National Cathedral in DC from Creative Commons.
Last week, I reported that the Western Jurisdiction was beginning a yearlong campaign to prepare for General Conference and the ensuing separation provided by the “Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation.” This very appropriate work by the Western Jurisdiction joins the work of the Wesleyan Covenant Association and other groups who are preparing for what Methodism will look like post-separation.
The fleshing out of the Western Jurisdiction vision for the post-separation church will raise issues traditionalists will have to wrestle with. Most prominent is the pivotal question of whether traditionalists can or should remain in the post-separation UM Church or align with a new traditionalist Methodist church.
The Western Jurisdiction makes an explicit effort to welcome traditionalists to remain within the post-separation United Methodist Church. They aspire to provide “a home for diverse people, ideas and theological perspectives.” They assure that “individual clergy and congregations will not be forced to conduct or host same sex marriages.”
Would traditionalists be welcome in a post-separation United Methodist Church? The Western Jurisdiction responds: “Yes, they will be welcomed and encouraged to stay as part of The United Methodist Church, but must be willing to accept that others hold different views and will have a right to conduct same-sex marriages and ordain qualified lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons.” (Unanswered is the question of whether pastors appointed to traditionalist congregations will share that church’s traditionalist views or instead be an advocate for the new liberal perspective.)
Such welcome is a wonderful aspiration. However, traditionalists of good will are rightly apprehensive. One must wonder if such toleration can truly be the lasting reality in a post-separation UM Church controlled by an overwhelming majority who favor same-sex marriage and LGBT ordination. A post-separation UM Church will have a shrinking minority of traditionalist members, even if a percentage of the UM churches in Africa were to remain with the post-separation UM Church.
According to plans submitted to General Conference, centrists and progressives envision a church where each region of the global church will be able to set its own policies (as proposed by the Connectional Table ). That means U.S. United Methodists would not be governed by the global church, but by only the U.S. portion of the church. Thus, more traditionalist African voices would have no influence on U.S. church teachings or practices.
The Episcopalian Experience
Traditionalist apprehension is growing each day that the current same-sex marriage controversy within The Episcopal Church unfolds. After all, The Episcopal Church is United Methodism’s closest sibling mainline denomination. (Their General Convention occurs every three years instead of every four.) Follow this trajectory of how that church’s policies evolved:
- 2003 – first openly partnered gay bishop is consecrated
- 2009 – first openly lesbian bishop is consecrated (many traditionalist Episcopalians separated from the church after 2003, leaving the denomination in unfettered control of centrists and progressives)
- 2012 – a “provisional rite” for same-sex unions is authorized for those who desire to use it
- 2015 – an official gender-neutral marriage rite is adopted, while at the same time allowing bishops the discretion about whether or not to allow same-sex marriages in their diocese (the equivalent of our annual conferences)
- 2018 – it became mandatory that bishops allow same-sex marriages in their diocese
- 2019 – the last remaining traditionalist bishop is put under charges for not allowing same-sex marriages in his diocese
- 2020 – that bishop was recently found guilty by a church court of “failing to abide by the Discipline and Worship of The Episcopal Church” – his punishment is yet to be determined, but it is widely surmised that he will be removed from office as a bishop
Blogger Jeffrey Walton recalls this insightful quote from the late theologian Richard John Neuhaus.
Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed. … Orthodoxy, no matter how politely expressed, suggests that there is a right and a wrong, a true and a false, about things. When orthodoxy is optional, it is admitted under a rule of liberal tolerance that cannot help but be intolerant of talk about right and wrong, true and false. It is therefore a conditional admission, depending upon orthodoxy’s good behavior. The orthodox may be permitted to believe this or that and to do this or that as a matter of sufferance, allowing them to indulge their inclination, preference, or personal taste. But it is an intolerable violation of the etiquette by which one is tolerated if one has the effrontery to propose that this or that is normative for others.”
For the purposes of this article, I take “orthodoxy” to mean the church’s traditional understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman, and that sex should be reserved for marriage.
The Episcopal sequence of events is discomforting. For those clergy and laity who will be required to make a decision, there is a legitimate concern that they will find little tolerance from those who value diversity of opinion when traditionalists advocate for a biblical definition of marriage between one man and one woman as being God’s intention for all of humanity.
Many traditionalist Episcopalians believed in good faith eight years ago that their theological commitments would be honored and guarded in their evolving denominational situation. Today, the situation for traditionalists in The Episcopal Church looks dire.
The real question is not whether traditionalists will be tolerated or even welcome in a post-separation United Methodist Church, but will they ultimately suffer the same fate as our Episcopal brothers and sisters.
The post-separation United Methodist Church envisions a diversity of views on the definition of marriage, but it is not difficult to imagine that official church teaching will embrace same-gender marriage and LGBT ordination. The pressure of “church culture” will (intentionally or unintentionally) move traditionalist clergy and members toward accepting that understanding. The presence of traditionalist views within a post-separation UM Church will undoubtedly diminish and eventually fade away.
Once traditionalists adopt the position that the clear biblical teaching on marriage and sexuality is only one acceptable viewpoint among many, they may find themselves unable to maintain other distinctive traditionalist understandings of Christian doctrine and practice. That is one of the lessons from the Episcopal saga.
As we begin to prepare for the 2021 General Conference and life after separation, it will be important for traditionalists to consider how these questions surrounding marriage and human sexuality will affect their denominational membership. For some, this decision will be heart wrenching. We will all need much prayer and a greater measure of God’s grace as we move through this difficult time.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Oct 19, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Last week, the Western Jurisdiction announced that it “is beginning preparations for the next General Conference by recommitting itself to be a faithful, inviting, open, safe and loving place for all people.” Its nearly year-long campaign, called “Where Love Lives,” is designed to promote “the faith values that have undergirded the jurisdiction’s long-term commitment to a scripturally based fully inclusive ministry.”
Importantly, the campaign advocates approval of the “Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation” that would provide the mechanism for the formation of a new traditionalist Methodist church, allowing annual conferences, local churches, and clergy who want to align with that new traditionalist church to separate from The United Methodist Church and keep their property and pensions.
“The Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation offers a way forward to begin easing the five decades of pain created by the wounds inflicted on LGBTQ persons by the church,” said the spokesperson for the campaign, Bishop Karen Oliveto, the denomination’s first openly lesbian bishop. The campaign affirms, “the carefully crafted and negotiated Protocol offers the opportunity to jump start the process” of “resetting and reforming” The United Methodist Church in light of the church’s current financial reality.
The campaign is a continuation of the Western Jurisdiction’s commitment in 2019 “to be a safe harbor for LGBTQ+ clergy from across the denomination.” It aims to provide “an alternative vision for people to embrace.” This is an alternative to the “Traditional Plan” that was adopted by the 2019 General Conference and has been steadfastly resisted by numerous annual conferences in the U.S.
The Western Jurisdiction points toward its vision for what The United Methodist Church would look like after separation takes place. It advocates for its belief “that God’s church is open to all.” “The United Methodist Church is and will be safe, secure, open, and built on faith in God, trust in one another, and with love for all in all we do.”
Of course, traditionalists could utter these same aspirations, as well. Those ideals could easily describe the new traditionalist denomination envisioned by the Wesleyan Covenant Association and others. The WCA is also committed to a church “that welcomes all, in Christ.”
What distinguishes the Western Jurisdiction’s vision is its determination that the church “will have a right to conduct same-sex marriages and ordain qualified lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons.” LGBT persons will be represented in leadership roles and policy-making processes at all levels of the post-separation UM Church. This is what is meant by “full inclusion.”
From a traditionalist standpoint, this campaign is a positive development. It continues to advocate adoption of the Protocol, which traditionalists also support, as a fair means of allowing separation to occur in The UM Church. It would end our 50-year conflict over our understanding of Scripture and the church’s moral teachings, allowing each group to pursue its vision of church unhindered by the other.
The campaign is positive also in recognizing that The United Methodist Church cannot continue as it currently is. When asking what would happen if the Protocol does not pass General Conference, the campaign reiterates, “The United Methodist Church is at a point where it must take steps towards resetting and reforming. … No matter what happens, The United Methodist Church needs to look at its structures and processes and discern how to streamline in the church’s current financial reality to maximize opportunities for mission and ministry.”
Both centrist and progressive groups, as well as the WCA, are looking for ways to reconfigure the church to make it more effective in the current reality to carry out its mission and ministry. There will be no such thing as maintaining the status quo.
It is highly appropriate that centrists and progressives flesh out their vision for the post-separation United Methodist Church. Annual conferences and local churches deserve clear choices when making decisions about separation next fall. The WCA and other traditionalist groups are working diligently to craft our vision for what a new faithful traditional Methodist church could look like. Centrists and progressives are right to be doing the same thing.
Obviously, traditionalists will have deep differences with the Western Jurisdiction and others who are crafting visions for the future of the church. How we define and understand our doctrines, moral teachings, and theological method are vastly different. Many traditionalists will be unable to participate in the post-separation United Methodist Church as defined by “full inclusion.”
At the same time, the Western Jurisdiction and other groups are to be commended for doing the hard work of beginning to envision a new understanding of church that will be effective for the 21st century. The near-universal support for the Protocol that we continue to hear from leaders and grass-roots constituents across the spectrum means that we need to be prepared for what comes next. We cannot wait until General Conference approves the Protocol to get started on defining our options for the future.
At times in my life when I had a suitable yard, I loved to garden. I learned that there are times when you can see nothing happening above ground, but the seeds are germinating below ground and sending out roots to nourish the budding plant. It is from the invisible roots formed underground that the explosive growth of the plant above ground takes place. I had to learn to be patient for the underground work to be completed in order to begin seeing the above ground flourishing of the plants.
We are in one of those waiting times now, when not much is happening above ground in moving toward a new and more vibrant future for the church. But this campaign by the Western Jurisdiction and the work by the WCA and other groups happening below ground is preparing the way for the explosive growth that can happen in the aftermath of General Conference next year. That work will make us much better prepared to start strong, give clear options for people to make their decisions, and refocus on the mission of the church in making disciples of Jesus Christ and spreading scriptural holiness across the globe.
May God guide our preparations, that he may bless and make fruitful our efforts toward a new direction for Methodism.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Oct 9, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Wesley Chapel in London (YouTube)
Traditionalist United Methodists have wrestled for several years with the question of what to call ourselves and what label to use. The need for a label became acute in 2016 when the General Conference authorized a commission to look at possible strategies to address the growing division within United Methodism. The commission came up with the One Church Plan, the Connectional Conference Plan, and the Traditional Plan. What to call that third plan, and the group whose values it espoused, became a complex conversation.
For decades, most of those in the various renewal groups (Good News, Confessing Movement, UMAction, and Wesleyan Covenant Association) were comfortable calling ourselves evangelical United Methodists. Our theology is both Wesleyan and evangelical, as distinguished from the more widespread Calvinist evangelical theology found in many Baptist and independent evangelical congregations. In concert with most evangelicals, we emphasize the primacy of Scripture, the atoning death of Christ on the cross for the sins of the world, the need for repentance and conversion, and a relationship with Jesus Christ as personal lord and savior for each believer. As Wesleyans, we emphasize personal and social holiness and the universal reach of the Gospel.
However, over the past couple decades, the term evangelical in America has become increasingly inextricably linked in the public mind with partisan conservative politics. The renewal groups within The United Methodist Church are not identified with any particular political group or party. Furthermore, it is deeply misleading to associate all renewalists with a particular politician.
For the same reason, the term conservative does not necessarily define all of us. We are theologically conservative, but not all of us are politically conservative. The church should not become so identified with one political party as to make those of other political parties think they could not belong to that church. As our Social Principles state, we believe that all “governments, no less than individuals, are subject to the judgment of God” (¶ 164.F). The same is true of political parties. As biblical Christians, we agree with some policies of each political party and disagree with other policies. No political party perfectly reflects biblical principles in all of its policies. And there is room for disagreement about political or governmental policies among conscientious Christians.
Another term might be orthodox. Renewalists are orthodox in their theology, holding to the truths of the historic creeds of the church. We understand those creeds as originally intended, not redefined to fit modern sensibilities. But the term orthodox is not well understood by the general public and may be confused with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Some have objected that designating one group as orthodox might imply that others are not orthodox in their theology, which is not the intention.
What Does “Traditionalist” Mean?
So we have settled on the term traditionalist to describe who we are at this moment in time. It is not a perfect term and perhaps not even the best one, but it is what we have. It calls attention to the continuity we have with traditional Christianity harking back to the early church and with traditional Methodism as founded by John and Charles Wesley.
Unfortunately, one of the African bishops has accused traditionalists of wanting to return to traditional African religion, complete with animal sacrifices and polygamy. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. We are not traditionalists in a general religious sense; we are traditional United Methodists, who espouse Christianity, not paganism.
We aim to continue in the tradition of what Methodism was when it was founded by John and Charles Wesley. As mentioned above, we believe in orthodox Christian doctrine as defined by the historic creeds of the church, as traditionally understood. We hold to the doctrines John Wesley espoused in his standard sermons, in the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith, and in the practices outlined in our General Rules. We are not out to change or reinterpret Methodist doctrines, but to maintain them.
We support the long-standing moral standards of the church, as taught in the Bible. This includes a traditional understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman and the need for celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage. The Ten Commandments, the command to love God with all our being, and to love our neighbor as ourselves, are the bedrock of living a moral and upright life, pleasing to God and beneficial for humanity.
We uphold the traditional practices of the church: baptism as the sacrament of entry into God’s family, Holy Communion as a sharing in the atonement and resurrection of Christ, private and corporate prayer, corporate worship of God, personal and group Bible study, and fasting or abstinence. These spiritual disciplines have a long track record of helping people grow in their faith and commitment to Christ.
We believe in the traditional mission of Methodism, to “reform the nation and, in particular, the Church; to spread scriptural holiness over the land.” The United Methodist Church needs reforming. More than 50 years of constant decline in membership and participation is a symptom of deep-seated problems in how we “do” church. For that same length of time, Good News and others have attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to facilitate reforms that would strengthen the church’s witness and enhance its effectiveness in ministry. If, as expected, separation occurs in 2021, we will have the opportunity to start fresh in designing a faithful and effective church for the 21st century. I would point you to the important work being done by the Wesleyan Covenant Association (of which I am a Global Council member) to propose new designs for a new denomination. Wesleyans have always been willing to change and adapt strategies of ministry to fit new circumstances, while keeping to the timeless message of the Gospel.
We hold to the traditional makeup of Methodism. In keeping with Wesleyan theology, the Gospel is for all people. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, not just the sins of a certain elect few. Redemption is for every race, nation, tribe, and tongue. Traditional Methodists expect to be part of a global church, sending and receiving missionaries, pastors, and teachers to and from every nation. Our churches should be microcosms of our communities, welcoming people of every race, culture, and nationality.
Just as there were women leaders in the Bible and the early church, as well as in early Methodism, we embrace the full and equal ministry of women alongside men in traditional Methodism. Early Methodism empowered laity as the backbone of the church’s ministry. This tradition has set the stage for the full involvement of laity in ministry at all levels of the church.
We believe in influencing society (“reform the nation … spread scriptural holiness”). We do not believe that influence begins and ends with making political statements or lobbying governments. Rather, it begins in the heart and life of each person, as they are born again into a new relationship with God through Jesus Christ and transformed by his loving Spirit into a new person. Change happens one life at a time. United Methodism has neglected this dimension to its detriment. Such personal change happens as we engage in the traditional practices of the church (see above) and as we “watch over one another in love” as part of the community of faith. Traditional Methodists believe in accountable discipleship through participation in small groups (called “class meetings” by Wesley) that can support and encourage growth in personal holiness, becoming more and more like Jesus. Faith means nothing if it is not worked out and displayed in our everyday lives.
It is out of a changed life empowered by the Holy Spirit that we can serve the needs of the community: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, welcoming the stranger, visiting the lonely, and much more. Out of an attitude of humility and servanthood, we are then equipped to advocate changes in laws and policies in our government that will correct injustice and help those who are vulnerable. We recognize that we speak from an imperfect human perspective. We do not know all the answers, and there are different opinions about how to address the problems of the world. Rather than pontificating political platforms, we seek to apply biblical values and wisdom to the complex issues of today in dialog with others of varying perspectives. Together, we can strive for the most faithful way forward in putting our Christian values into practice for the sake of the world in which we live.
“Traditional Methodists” believe in preserving the heart of our Methodist heritage in doctrine, practice, and spirit. Our core identity ought to be unchanged over the decades. At the same time, we follow the example of our founders in adapting our structure and strategy to fit the changing circumstances in which we live. Only by doing so will our tradition truly live on in the church. The world does not need another museum of faith; it needs living, Spirit-filled practitioners of the faith that changes the world, as in the time of Jesus and Paul, as in the time of John and Charles Wesley. That is what traditional Methodists aspire to be.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Oct 5, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Ecce homo by Antonio Ciseri.
“What is truth?” Pontius Pilate asked that compelling question during his interrogation of Jesus prior to condemning him to the cross (John 18:38). For Pilate, that question was a cry of despair — he had given up on ever finding the answer.
It appears that many Americans, including many American Christians, also despair of ever finding truth. A recent survey conducted by the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University under the direction of Dr. George Barna found that a majority of Americans no longer subscribe to a historic understanding of what “truth” is.
The survey found that 58 percent of Americans agreed that “Identifying moral truth is up to each individual; there are no moral absolutes that apply to every person, all the time.”
Let that sink in a moment. Nearly six out of ten Americans think they can make up their own moral truth. That means the Ten Commandments (honor your father and mother, do not lie, do not steal, do not murder, do not commit adultery) are merely suggestions. That means that some people might be perfectly entitled to believe that theft, murder, rape, or racism is acceptable, according to their own personal truth.
According to the survey, the only group in society that did not have a majority holding this opinion was evangelical, born-again Christians. Yet a strong minority (46-48 percent) of these Christians agreed with the “personal truth” idea. Somewhat encouragingly, only 33 percent of committed Christian leaders agreed that there is no absolute moral truth.
Basis of Truth
When asked, “What is the basis of truth,” the most common answer was God. Yet only 42 percent of Americans referenced God as the basis of truth. Another 16 percent found truth in “inner certainty,” while 15 percent look to “scientific proof.” (One wonders how science could ever be a determining factor for moral truth. What scientific study could prove that lying or adultery or racism is morally wrong?) Smaller percentages rely on tradition (5 percent) or public consensus (4 percent) to determine moral truth.
Among Christians, seven out of ten evangelicals, Pentecostals, and born-again Christians picked God as the basis of truth. Again, 87 percent of committed Christian leaders chose God. But among Catholics, only 43 percent saw God as the basis of truth, and only 37 percent of Mainline Protestants did so.
Adults under age 30 were less likely to select God as the basis of truth – 31 percent, compared to 45 percent among older adults. Southern states gave God slightly more recognition (48 percent), compared to an average of 38 percent for other regions of the country.
Implications
The idea that there is no absolute truth is part of the philosophy known as post-modernism. Based on the survey results, it appears that a strong majority of Americans operate out of a post-modern mindset.
This highly individual approach makes agreement about anything much more difficult. Since there is no one agreed-upon standard for moral truth, we hold nothing in common, to which we can all appeal to settle disputes. I might point to a biblical teaching or to a particular secular law, but you could come back with, “That is your truth, but I don’t accept it as my truth.” The argument is at a stalemate. There is no way to resolve it. This is a contributing factor to the gridlock and endless conflict in our society and government today.
Just from a rational perspective, post-modernism gives us no basis upon which to critique another person’s moral beliefs or actions, since everyone has their own, self-made moral framework. It all boils down to self-interest. Something is wrong if it hurts me. But there is no objective standard by which society can judge what you did to be wrong. What a mess!
A Christian Understanding of Truth
Fortunately, Christians do have a moral framework that applies in all times and places, based on the reality of God and his teachings found in Scripture.
Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6). “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” and “the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:14, 17). Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32). The Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit of truth” (John 16:13).
We are not only called to know the truth, but to live by the truth. “But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God” (John 3:21). “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:23-24). Jesus prayed for us, “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).
The psalmist prays, “Show me your ways, O Lord, teach me your paths; guide me in your truth and teach me, for you are God my Savior, and my hope is in you all day long” (Psalm 25:4-5). “Test me, O Lord, and try me, examine my heart and my mind; for your love is ever before me, and I walk continually in your truth” (Psalm 26:2-3). “‘These are the things you are to do: Speak the truth to each other and render true and sound judgement in your courts; do not plot evil against your neighbor, and do not love to swear falsely. I hate all this,’ declares the Lord” (Zechariah 8:16-17).
One of the signs of Israel’s downfall was its abandonment of truth. “So justice is driven back, and righteousness stands at a distance; truth has stumbled in the streets, honesty cannot enter. Truth is nowhere to be found, and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey” (Isaiah 59:14-15). “Go up and down the streets of Jerusalem, look around and consider, search through her squares. If you can find but one person who deals honestly and seeks the truth, I will forgive this city'” (Jeremiah 5:1).
God promises truth as one of the blessings of his presence. “This is what the Lord says: ‘I will return to Zion and dwell in Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem will be called the City of Truth'” (Zechariah 8:3).
We can try to ignore the truth, but that is like ignoring gravity — gravity (and truth) wins every time! We can pretend to make up our own moral truth, but that puts us in the place of God. Are we really prepared and equipped to be God, even just for our own lives? Trying to be our own god is the height of human hubris. When God sees us try to usurp his place, he laughs (sarcastically). It must be incredibly sad for God to see us puny creatures attempt the impossible and in the process ruin our lives and our world.
That is why God spoke the truth through his Word and sent Jesus, the living truth, into his world to teach us the truth. It is only through God’s truth being actualized in our lives that we can be the person God created us to be. Surrendering to his truth is the only way out of the darkness and into the light, the only way to true freedom.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Sep 28, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Making Moral Choices
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Over the last two weeks, we have looked at results from a recent survey conducted by the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University under the direction of Dr. George Barna. We saw that many Americans are confused about who God is and what God is like. We also found that many Americans and even Christians believe in salvation through being or doing good.
But what does it mean to be good or to do the right thing? This enters the realm of making moral choices. These choices begin with a basic concept of what is a human being, and what is the value of human life.
The Value of Human Life
According to the survey report, 56 percent of Americans believes that human beings are created by God and made in his image, but are fallen and in need of redemption. At the same time, 69 percent believe that “people are basically good.” This is another example of confusion on the part of presumably 13 percent who believe that human beings are at the same time “fallen and in need of redemption” and “basically good.” (This is actually a decline from the 83 percent who thought “people are basically good” in 1990 — a testament to our more pessimistic current time.) I wish the survey report had separated the question of whether human beings are created by God and made in his image from the question of whether they are fallen and in need of redemption. That would give us a better understanding of how people value human life. Some may believe that humans are created by God in his image but are not fallen and in need of redemption.
That question of the value of human life is answered rather starkly in another question, where only 39 percent of Americans said “human life is sacred.” Even for evangelical Christians and political conservatives, only 57 to 60 percent agreed with the sacred value of human life. Other views on life included the 37 percent who believe “life is what you make it, but it has no absolute value” and the 11 percent who believe “life does not attain its full value until we reach our highest point of evolution and expression.” This contingent view on the value of human life could help explain the travesty of more than two-thirds of Down syndrome babies being aborted before birth. If human life has no absolute value or is not valuable until it has reached some developmental maturity point, then such abortions can be morally justified, as can many other actions that demean or threaten human life and dignity.
Moving more specifically to the question of abortion, 37 percent of Americans say the Bible is ambiguous on abortion and an additional 22 percent say they do not know. This means only 41 percent believe the Bible is clear in teaching the sacred value of human life in the womb.
One’s concept of the value of human life is the grounding point from which many other ethical decisions flow. Hatred, the culture of insult, discrimination, violence, racism, and many other harmful attitudes stem from our unwillingness to value the other person as created in the image of God and of sacred worth. One of the greatest contributions of Christianity to Western civilization over the centuries has been the concept that even the most disregarded or poorest human being was of infinite value to God. While not always practiced, this understanding of human life has led to many advances, compared to the brutality evident in many pre-Christian civilizations. Yet today we are in danger of losing this foundational understanding.
Source of Moral Guidance
Where do we turn for guidance in making moral decisions? The survey reported that only one-third of Americans turn to a religious source for moral guidance. Twenty-three percent turn to the Bible, six percent look to direct divine intervention, and three percent rely on the input of religious leaders. Encouragingly, about two-thirds of evangelical Christians turn to these religious sources.
Another third (31 percent) of Americans looks to themselves when making moral decisions. A third group (27 percent) relies on trusted people for help, mainly family, friends, and peers.
This heavy reliance on self and other people to guide moral decision-making may account for why so often Christians act just like the society in which they live. It is the Bible and the historic teachings of our church that help us live by a value system that often contradicts that of our society. Our most valuable testimony is that we live differently from those who do not follow Jesus. That testimony is lost when we fail to use the resources of our faith in making moral decisions. At the same time, the Christian veneer that has generally sustained Christian values in secular American society in the past is swiftly eroding.
Practical Morality
The survey set forth several scenarios and asked respondents to register their moral opinion. Six out of ten Americans (and 83 percent of committed Christians) stated that the intentional failure to repay a loan to a relative is morally unacceptable.
Less than half of Americans (47 percent), and in contrast, 75 percent of committed Christians, thought that telling a minor lie to protect one’s personal best interests or reputation is morally unacceptable.
As might be expected, abortion was the most divisive issue in the survey. Forty-four percent of all Americans thought that having an abortion because the woman’s partner has left and the woman cannot reasonably take care of the child is morally unacceptable. Twenty-two percent believe it is morally acceptable and eleven percent think it is not a moral issue. (One-quarter do not have an opinion.) As expected, 83 percent of committed Christians believe such an abortion is morally unacceptable.
Only one-fourth (27 percent) of all Americans think having sexual relations with someone that they love and expect to marry in the future is morally unacceptable. In contrast, 71 percent of committed Christians believe it is morally unacceptable. This result was the widest gap between Christian moral decisions and those of the general population.
Implications
The practical questions actually give mildly encouraging results, in that they showed committed Christians maintained a dramatically more traditionally Christian value system. (The survey defined committed Christians as those who were spiritually active and involved in church leadership.) Regular members were often less affirming of traditional Christian values in their decisions.
This survey shows that it will be important for Christian pastors and leaders to teach the foundations of Christian moral reasoning, starting with a solid understanding of the sacredness of human life and its implications for how we are to treat one another. This understanding can transform the way our society functions, especially in such a time of polarization and division.
It will also be important to teach our people how to look to the teachings of Scripture and the historic teachings of the church to find moral guidance for everyday life. We need to make these teachings understandable and accessible to all Christians in a way that will influence their everyday lives. Teaching on particular moral issues helps, but it is more important to teach our people how to think Christianly about moral issues and enable them to make good decisions without necessarily being told what to do in every situation. While teaching on abortion and human sexuality is important, we need to broaden our teaching to other moral arenas, such as human relationships and financial integrity.
The old song says, “They will know we are Christians by our love.” When people observe how Christians live, they should see a distinctive difference from the self-centered values of the world. The survey results show we have room for improvement in learning how to live as Christians in an alien world.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
