by Steve | May 14, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Tom Lambrecht –
I am a planner. I like to have at least a rough plan in mind for any undertaking that I am part of, whether it is a work project or a trip to the beach. I get that from my Dad, who was a high school band director and needed to plan everything from rehearsal schedules to band trips.
Of course, the coronavirus pandemic has thrown the plans of literally billions of people into the trash. Everything that people planned to do, from work to retirement, weddings to General Conference, has been put on hold or dramatically altered or canceled. Scottish poet Robert Burns wrote, “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft a-gley [go oft awry]” (To a Mouse, 1785). It was one of my Dad’s favorite sayings when his plans got disrupted. A more succinct way of putting it is, “People plan, God laughs.”
We think we have life under control, and then something happens to disrupt our plans. It could be something negative like the pandemic, illness, job loss, a death in the family. It could even be something positive, like a new job requiring a move or a new baby in the family. As a pastor, I was familiar with unplanned moves. A single call from the district superintendent can upend one’s life! Every time it happens, it reminds us that we are not in control.
The Israelites needed to learn that lesson early in their formation as a nation. When the two or three million Israelites escaped from Egypt, they had to learn to depend upon God for everything. He guided them through the wilderness on the way to the Promised Land, and on the way supplied them with food and water every single day in miraculous ways.
The most dramatic lesson in dependence upon God is found in Numbers 9:15-23. God’s presence hovered over the Tent of Meeting (Tabernacle). “Whenever the cloud lifted from above the Tent, the Israelites set out; wherever the cloud settled, the Israelites encamped. At the Lord’s command the Israelites set out, and at his command they encamped.” “Whether the cloud stayed over the tabernacle for two days or a month or a year, the Israelites would remain in camp and not set out; but when it lifted, they would set out.”
The Israelites had only a rough idea where they were headed and how to get there. They did not know from one day to the next whether they would stay in camp or set out on the next stage of the journey. They had to depend completely on the Lord to determine their travel schedule. They were unable to plan and had to live day to day.
That is somewhat where we find ourselves today. Conditions change, restrictions are adjusted, new closings or openings are announced. At any point, we or a family member could come down with the virus and be ill. We are living day to day in dependence upon the Lord in a more vivid way now than we experience in “normal” life.
The Israelites learned during their time of absolute dependence upon God that he would never abandon them or let them down. Moses reminded them what they had experienced during their wandering, “Your clothes did not wear out and your feet did not swell during these forty years” (Deuteronomy 8:4, 29:5). God took care of their every need, as they walked in dependence upon him from day to day.
That is God’s promise to us. “So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own” (Matthew 6:31-34).
Of course, one of the opportunities we are given in this pandemic is sharing with those in need, if we have more than enough. We can be the answer to someone’s prayer, the fulfillment of God’s promise of loving care for a person or family we know, or even for people we do not know and who may live halfway around the world. We can follow that nudge of the Holy Spirit to share what we have.
Our dependence on the Lord does not mean that we give up planning for the future. After all, Jesus reminds us, “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it?” (Luke 14:28). It only means that we should hold our plans lightly. All our plans are “subject to change” as the Lord works in our lives, and the circumstances of this world impinge on what we can do.
James put it well. “Pay attention, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to such-and-such a town. We will stay there a year, buying and selling, and make a profit.’ You don’t really know about tomorrow! What is your life? You are a mist that appears for only a short while before it vanishes. Here’s what you ought to say: ‘If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that'” (James 4:13-15).
I often find it is hard to let go of plans that I have made. After all, I had it figured out so perfectly! But the Lord has to remind me to hold my life with an open hand. “If the Lord wills.” What better way to express our daily dependence upon him? He is God, and I am not. And that realization gives me peace and security in the midst of the unpredictable circumstances of life.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | May 8, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Tom Lambrecht –
The coronavirus pandemic has caused a lot of disruption in our lives, in how our country functions, and in how our churches function, as well. Nowhere was that in greater evidence than in a May 5th “Town Hall” meeting held online by Mainstream UMC, a “centrist” advocacy group within The United Methodist Church. Various presenters appeared from their homes in different parts of the U.S., facilitated by two college students also at home because their college was closed due to the pandemic. This has become the “new normal” for our church, at least in the short-term future. And we may make more use of this kind of “meeting” in the future, now that many of us are at least somewhat more comfortable with the technology.
The event coincided with the originally scheduled opening of the 2020 General Conference, which of course has been postponed until later next year. Those unable to watch the livestream of the Town Hall can watch a recorded version that was promised to eventually have markers to identify the various questions that were discussed.
This Mainstream UMC Town Hall was called to consider how centrists and progressives can pursue their goal of a church that affirms LGBTQ ordination and marriage, in light of the postponement of General Conference. Subtitled “A Call for Grace,” the group proposed ways that they and the whole church could anticipate the reality of separation in the future through actions taken over the next 16 months.
There are several important takeaways from the presentation made during the meeting. Most notable in the “Call for Grace” were two proposals made by Mainstream executive director, the Rev. Mark Holland from Olathe, Kansas.
Continue the Moratorium
First, Holland proposed that the moratorium on complaints and judicial proceedings related to same-sex weddings and clergy being “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” should continue during this delay until the General Conference in 2021. The moratorium would mean that all proceedings or processing of complaints over these issues would be suspended and not carried forward to a trial. That, of course, is in line with what the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation calls for. What the Protocol originally envisioned as a four-month moratorium has now turned into perhaps a 20-month moratorium. Just as the terms of bishops and Judicial Council members have been extended in the wake of the General Conference postponement, it makes sense to carry forward the moratorium informally until General Conference can pass it as part of the “package deal” guaranteeing separation.
Of course, the moratorium is only a request at this point, since it depends upon General Conference action to make it binding and official. Many bishops are abiding by the moratorium, but some are not willing to do so. It still depends upon the willingness of the bishop, and the Mainstream UMC advocacy group has instituted a petition drive to convince bishops to go along. The moratorium would really be unnecessary if there were also a moratorium on performing same-sex weddings or ordaining non-celibate LGBTQ persons. The best sign of grace would be for everyone to stand down and not engender further conflict from either “side” by their actions.
Encouragingly, although not part of his formal proposal, Holland also endorsed the Protocol’s agreed moratorium on the closure of churches except for financial non-viability. We continue to hear reports that a few annual conferences are precipitously closing churches that seem to be functioning fine in order to claim the local church’s property and assets. Traditionalists will join Holland in urging that unnecessary church closures should be put on hold until after General Conference.
Allow Local Churches to Separate Now
The second part of Holland’s “Call for Grace” was to suggest that local churches desiring to separate from The United Methodist Church in order to join or form a new traditional Methodist denomination be allowed to depart with their property under the terms of the Protocol, even though General Conference has not yet enacted those terms. The Protocol’s terms are much less onerous and expensive than the current process in the Discipline. Bishops and annual conferences have the discretionary authority to at least partially follow this proposal, but it again depends upon the willingness of the bishop.
While traditionalists will appreciate the gesture and the attempt at even-handedness, this proposal is fraught with difficulty. In annual conferences that are majority traditional in understanding, it would weaken the traditional voice if local churches started departing from the denomination in advance of an annual conference vote. That could jeopardize the ability of the whole annual conference to separate and join the new denomination. The ability to leave under these more generous terms would be welcome in annual conferences where traditional churches find themselves in a small minority. However, these may be the annual conferences least likely to allow for such generous departure terms, absent a General Conference action.
The major provision in the more generous terms for separation by local churches is the ability to transfer their share of unfunded pension liabilities to a new denomination. But no such denomination exists right now for those liabilities to be transferred to, nor can it exist until the General Conference acts. Most traditional churches will be unable to take advantage of this proposal and would prefer to wait until General Conference enacts uniform terms for separation that cover everyone. A piecemeal separation by some traditional churches may not be helpful to the traditional cause. An orderly process of separation that leads to a strong new traditional denomination is the best way forward.
The Protocol Still on Track
Probably the most important takeaway from this Town Hall is the assessment that centrist and progressive leaders still strongly support the Protocol. Centrists such as Holland continue to promote the Protocol (as do traditional organizations like Good News, the Confessing Movement, and the Wesleyan Covenant Association). That means that, despite the delay, the Protocol is still on track to pass General Conference. There is almost universal acknowledgement among General Conference delegates that some form of separation is necessary to resolve our church’s conflict, and the Protocol seems to have the most support of any plan that has been put forward. While there are still 16 months to go, and nothing is certain until General Conference acts, the chances continue to be good that the Protocol will pass.
It is noteworthy that Holland continues to defend the $25 million settlement to be allocated to a new traditional Methodist denomination. He noted that The Episcopal Church and other mainline denominations that separated recently over these same issues have spent tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits. Holland opined (and traditionalists would agree) that money would be better spent seeding new denominations than carrying on legal disputes over property. Crucially, all the terms of the Protocol agreement are interdependent. To substantially change one term would upset the balance of the agreement and throw the whole package into doubt. Thankfully, there are no prominent centrist or progressive leaders calling for changes in the terms of the Protocol.
Many Centrists Are Really Progressives
It became apparent throughout the Town Hall that the agenda for a post-separation United Methodist Church would be unwaveringly progressive. Although the tone of the meeting was reasonable or even irenic at times, there was a strong commitment to ending “discrimination” against LGBTQ persons and relationships. Many centrists appear to think that, while other parts of the global church could continue to have their own rules against same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals, the U.S. church would be largely of one mind and one practice in affirming both.
To this end, Holland promoted the “Christmas Covenant” proposal that would create regional conferences within the global church, allowing each national church to have its own teachings about marriage and human sexuality. One questioner highlighted the apparent hypocrisy in this approach by asking whether a regional conference approach would have been acceptable in extending ordination to women or overcoming racial segregation.
Judging from the Town Hall presentation, it appears that the majority of centrists and progressives would not be comfortable allowing traditional views to prevail in any part of the church for long. Traditionalists who stay in the post-separation United Methodist Church might find their views tolerated on paper, but extremely marginalized in practice.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | May 4, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
We are so thankful for the amazing care-givers and first-responders who have stepped into the spotlight during this COVID-19 pandemic. Angela Gleaves, a nurse at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, posted this uplifting photo on Facebook amid the coronavirus pandemic of her and four of her fellow nurses praying from the hospital’s helipad atop the building: “When you have a few extra minutes at work you take the time to go to the Helipad and pray. We prayed over the staff in our unit as well as all of the hospital employees. We also prayed over the patients and their families during this trying time. We also prayed for all of our colleagues around the world taking care of patients. It felt good to do this with some of my amazing co-workers. We could feel God’s presence in the wind. Know that you are all covered in prayer.”
During these dark and difficult times, please pray for all those who are caring for the sick and dying.
As Paul reminds us, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God” (Philippians 4:6).
by Steve | May 4, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Rev. Dr. Kevin Watson, Candler School of Theology
By Thomas Lambrecht –
One often hears that Methodism used to believe the “wrong” thing about slavery, the ordination of women, and the affirmation of same-sex relationships, and that Methodism moved to believe the “right” thing about slavery and the ordination of women, leading the way to a more just world. Therefore, the argument goes, Methodism should also move to believe the “right” thing about affirming same-sex relationships.
The implication is that Methodism changed its position based on biblical or theological principles that overcame earlier errors in biblical or theological reasoning. Therefore, Methodism should adopt a new, affirming position on same-sex relationships based on a new biblical or theological interpretation.
Back in January — before the full ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic became apparent — Dr. Kevin Watson, assistant professor of Wesleyan and Methodist Studies at Candler School of Theology, wrote an important article puncturing this myth of historical progress. One can read his full article in First Things (which I would highly recommend) and a short blog here . I want to delve more deeply into Watson’s argument.
The essence of Watson’s contention is this: “We have been using the Bible to discriminate against gays and lesbians, it is argued, and need to progress in the same way that we aligned ourselves with God’s justice in opposition to slavery and the subordination of women. The problem with this myth is that it is not true. When confronting slavery, racism, and the exclusion of women from ministry, the dominant strain of Methodism actually conformed to the dominant culture. It did not, as the UMC presumptuously ascribes to itself today, lead the way in progress or ‘the transformation of the world.’ On the contrary, United Methodism in the United States was more often transformed by the world” (emphasis original).
Slavery and Racism
Early Methodists had a very strong stance against slavery. John Wesley famously wrote a letter six days before his death encouraging British anti-slavery crusader William Wilberforce to “Go on … till even American slavery (the vilest that ever saw the sun) shall vanish away.” The first U.S. Methodist Book of Doctrines and Discipline forbade the ownership of slaves, and Methodists who owned slaves were required to set them free or be excluded from church membership and participation in the Lord’s Supper.
Compromise arose almost immediately, however, when those leading the church in the South protested that it would be nearly impossible to get anyone there to join the church because slavery was so ingrained in the southern culture and economy. Accommodations were made in the Discipline and enforcement of the remaining restrictions was weak, until things reached a breaking point in 1844. Bishop James Andrew acquired slaves through marriage and was unwilling to resign from the episcopacy. The church split between an abolitionist North and a pro-slavery South, a split that lasted nearly 100 years.
When the northern and southern churches came back together in 1939, one would have assumed that the issue of slavery and race was resolved. However, the price of a reunion of the church was the sanctioning of racial segregation. A new central jurisdiction was created for black pastors and churches, and the whole church was divided up into regional jurisdictions that allowed a continuation of racism and Jim Crow discrimination in parts of the country. Even during the Civil Rights era of the 1960’s, courageous white pastors like Maxie Dunnam and Robert Tuttle who spoke out against racial discrimination were threatened and exiled from their ministry in the South.
It was not until 1968-1972, in the process of the merger that formed The United Methodist Church, that the structural racism of the central jurisdiction was eliminated. Of course, the battle against racism in our hearts and minds continues today. But it was not until the cultural pendulum swung strongly toward desegregation that the Methodist Church acted to remove that structural racism. It followed the movement of the culture; it did not suddenly find a principled opposition to racism.
In Watson’s words, “The churches that merged to create The United Methodist Church should not have caved to cultural pressure to accept and accommodate racism and slavery. They should have stood firm in their theological commitments. The more biblically formed branches of the Wesleyan Holiness family [such as the Wesleyan Church and Free Methodist Church] did just that.” Had we stuck to our original convictions, we may not have grown as large, but we might have had a greater influence on American culture and history. At the very least, we would have been true to our identity in Christ as founded on the truth of God’s word.
Ordination of Women
As Watson puts it, “The story of the ordination of women in American Methodism follows a similar trajectory.” The Methodist Church officially affirmed the ordination of women in 1956, fully 36 years after women were granted the right to vote by the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In the post-war years, women in the U.S. gained in status and rights because they had contributed greatly to the war effort and increasingly had jobs outside the home. The cultural shifts and pressures drove the Methodist Church to change its position. As good and beneficial as the recognition of women’s equality was for our church, we were very late to the game.
By contrast, early Methodism and other strands of American Methodism affirmed the leadership of women. John and Charles Wesley’s mother, Susannah, notably led Bible studies and took on other leadership responsibilities, causing John to allow women to serve alongside men in some aspects of leadership in the English Methodist movement. The Wesleyan Church ordained women as early as 1853, only ten years after its founding and over 100 years before the dominant Methodist Church. The Free Methodist Church ordained women in 1891.
“The argument based on the myth of Methodist progress on slavery and race, then the ordination of women, and now same-sex marriage, is therefore bad history. Mainstream Methodism bowed the knee to culture on questions of race and female leadership, rather than leading the way there on the basis of its theological heritage.”
LGBTQ Affirmation
Watson goes on, “The desire by United Methodists in the United States to change the church’s position on same-sex marriage fits this history, not the common myth. As American cultural elites began to embrace gay rights and same-sex marriage, United Methodist leaders in the U.S. began to fall in line. Tellingly, the church has become more liberal first in the places where the dominant culture had already become more politically and socially liberal.”
As a result, “Far from being countercultural, The United Methodist Church and its predecessor bodies have too often functioned like cultural chameleons, changing their values and practices to fit in with the dominant culture. They have not operated with a strong sense of identity grounded in Scripture and tradition, and thus have not been able to face off the unpredictable and changing winds of cultural pressure and change.”
Our church over the decades has been willing to sell its identity for the fleeting reward of being “culturally relevant.” The same motivation is at work today, when we hear the justification, “If we do not change our position on same-sex marriage, we will not be able to attract young people to the church.” We seek to be “relevant” and influence the culture, when in fact we are allowing the culture to influence and shape the church.
We run the danger of being “infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching” and the latest cultural fad. Instead, Scripture urges us, “speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ” (Ephesians 4:14-15).
Only by growing up into spiritual maturity and finding our identity in Christ can we resist the fickle winds of the world that sometimes blow with the truth and sometimes bluster against it. Our foundation cannot be an ever-changing society, but the never-changing truth of God’s word and Christian tradition.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Apr 23, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Tom Lambrecht –
Someone shared a video with me the other day that showed a three-year-old girl sitting in her house by the glass patio door looking out. She repeatedly shouted, “I hate this house! I hate this house! I hate this house!” I think many of us are right there with her.
We are in a time of waiting. Waiting until things get back to “normal.” Waiting until we can see our friends and family in person again. Waiting until we can go shopping or eat out at a restaurant. Waiting until we can join our brothers and sisters in worship live at a church building!
I feel especially sympathetic toward older people and those with underlying health conditions that make them vulnerable to the coronavirus. They are cut off from most real human contact and have the added worry of their physical susceptibility to the disease. Some of them don’t really understand what is going on, only knowing that they cannot be with their families. And some have the added burden of grieving the loss of a spouse or other family member in solitude and without in-person comfort. Maybe they did not even get to see that person before they died.
How long, O Lord?
Our church has an “adopt a senior” program that matches younger people with our seniors to maintain regular contact with them and reassure them of God’s love and care in the midst of this time of isolation. What can your church do to reach out to older and more vulnerable people?
Others are waiting from another experience, that of sheer exhaustion. Many of our frontline health workers and first responders face daily dangers to their health, while working long shifts to care for the sick. They worry about their families catching the virus from them. Many have worked out a plan to live separately from their families so as not to endanger them. For them, the end of this health crisis cannot come soon enough!
How long, O Lord?
Still others are waiting with a sense of helplessness. Many have lost their jobs and have no source of income. Unemployment is just enough to pay one bill, but not all of them. They could lose their home or apartment, car or business. They may have to go to a food distribution center for the first time in their lives in order to have enough to eat. Others are forced by economic necessity to go to work each day, placing themselves in harm’s way in order to provide for their families. Inadequately protected at work, they worry about bringing the virus home to infect those they love. We think first of people in the U.S. in these desperate situations, but many of our fellow United Methodists in other countries are suffering hardship that can soon become life-threatening, particularly in Africa, the Philippines, and Southeast Asia.
How long, O Lord?
Those of us who have been blessed with a secure income can help those in need by channeling our giving through our local church’s relief fund. UMCOR has also established a fund to help suffering and needy people all over the world. The good news is that a dollar goes a lot farther in most of the world’s nations than it used to.
“How long, O Lord?” is the lament that fills the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Timothy and Julie Tennent (A Meditative Journey through the Psalms, p. 19) remind us that this cry is found nine times throughout the psalms. Most often, the cry boils down to, “how long will my prayers go unanswered?” “How long will I sense God’s absence more than his presence?” “How long will justice be denied?”
Waiting in anguish seems to be part of the human experience. Of course, it is an experience we hate.
When I was growing up, my Dad always had to be everywhere at least fifteen minutes early, just in case “something happened.” We were early to everything — church, school, appointments, visiting family. It seemed at the time as if I spent half my life waiting for something to happen. I grew to hate it, and in adulthood, I usually try to arrive just on time, never early. (Of course, when “something happens,” that plan goes out the window!)
We hate to wait, and view that time as unproductive. Waiting in anguish for something we long for is even worse. In the midst of the waiting, however, we can be assured of two things:
First, God is with us in the waiting. God knows everything about us, including our situation and challenges. God sees. He cares. One of God’s names is “the God who sees” (El Roi). Genesis 16 recounts the story of Hagar, Abraham’s servant, who had to endure the mistreatment of her mistress Sarah in order to receive God’s blessing and protection for her son, Ishmael. In the process, she learned that God is with us and cares about what we are going through. That doesn’t mean that God cuts short the waiting, but it makes the waiting more bearable.
We operate by faith and not by sight. So even when we do not feel God’s presence, we know that he is there. His promises in Scripture are certain. We can count on them. God says, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” This is such an important promise that he repeats it many times in Scripture: Deuteronomy 31:6-8, Joshua 1:5, Psalm 27:10, Hebrews 13:5 to name a few. We can count on the fact that God is always with us, no matter what we are going through. Those were actually Methodism’s founder John Wesley’s last words on his deathbed, “Best of all, God is with us.”
Second, God uses the waiting times to accomplish his purpose. Sometimes, God causes the waiting to take place. Other times (like the current pandemic), he uses a situation that arises through other causes to accomplish his will.
The history of God’s people is full of waiting times. Abraham waited until he was 99 for God to fulfill his promise of a son with Sarah. The Israelites were enslaved in Egypt for hundreds of years and wandered in the wilderness for 40 years before reaching the Promised Land. The people of Israel waited in exile for 70 years — a lifetime! — before they could return to their homeland. The people of Israel were without the word of the Lord for over 400 years between the time of Malachi (the last book of the Old Testament) and the arrival of John the Baptist to proclaim God’s promise fulfilled. The Church has been waiting 2,000 years for the fulfillment of God’s promise that Jesus will come again to establish his kingdom and create a new heaven and a new earth.
Sometimes, the waiting holds the purpose of building a godly character in the life of those waiting. Other times, the waiting is for the right timing for God’s action. Sometimes, we find out the reason for the waiting. Many other times, we do not get an answer in this lifetime, but hope for clarity in the life to come. Regardless, we can be assured that God is working in and through the challenges, crises, and waiting times of our lives.
“How long, O Lord” is the anguished cry of our hearts. It is a valid cry of longing. God hears our cry. He knows our hearts and our circumstances. He is with us in the midst of life’s struggles, and he will use those struggles to accomplish his will in our lives.
Our role in this pandemic is to trust God with our lives and with the lives of those whom we love. We can patiently wait for the end of this crisis, even as we passionately long for it. In the meantime, we can “do what our hand finds to do” (I Samuel 10:7, Ecclesiastes 9:10) to serve God and others. And we can continue to grow closer to the Lord who loves us and gave himself for us. Only God knows “how long,” but we know the God who knows!
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
By Tom Lambrecht –